View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2018, 10:28 PM
Lauri-Coyote's Avatar
Lauri-Coyote Lauri-Coyote is online now
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Colorado/New Mexico and Washington DC
Posts: 165
Default

.
On a purely emotional level, Needs, I can agree with you. There "should' be an accommodation for certain antennas (at the exclusion of others?? ).... but where do you draw the line, and once drawn, how do you defend it against all those it discriminated against ?
Like the 1 metre satellite dishes, why was 1 metre or less ok, but not a 1.1 metre antenna ?
.
Okay, you're King of America-- How do YOU make the distinction ?
Remember, I think the very minimum for happiness is my rotating 6 foot open array radar. A 5 foot'r will not do....... why do you guys HATE me so much ??
.
(facetious !)
.
Lately my new appointment (ie: 'job') has brought me into contact with a lot of government attorneys. For good or bad, they have been whittling away on my psyche.
Tho I won't do this, I am sure if I ask anyone of them for the legal definition of "should" I will receive only a polite, dismissive smile. Laws have to be language specific, or else they are just a exercises in futility.
.
This is so much a local-rights issue. It 'should' be decided on a neighborhood, city, county, even state level. But not nationally. Why should a subdivision in South Dakota be forced to adhere to a law benefiting a select group in Florida ? Our Founding Fathers never envisioned the federal government involved in stuff like this.
.
.
Lauri
Reply With Quote