OT: FAA wants us to remove antennas, tress etc. Can they?

Hello All,

Since there are many ham radio operators in this forum I am hoping for
some input.

We just got a letter stating that the FAA mandates removal of certain
trees and antennas. Of course, as always, the residents are to pick up
the tab. In our case that can run into the thousands.

We are not even in the approach path (or "cone area") but they want to
put up a beacon light on our hill. They say that the beacon must be
visible from the runway and so we shall cut down our trees, and pretty
much now. Not only is that expensive but it mutilates our lot. Also, my
take is that this beacon is a new structure, so why should we even be
required to pay for removal of obstacles?

Question: Is there any literature on the web explaining our options? It
affects not just us but I heard a whopping 75 residents. I just don't
think this is right. Needless to say the whole neighborhood is very
miffed about this.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On a sunny day (Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:55:29 GMT) it happened Joerg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<5V3yc.83167$(E-Mail Removed)> :

>Hello All,
>
>Since there are many ham radio operators in this forum I am hoping for
>some input.
>
>We just got a letter stating that the FAA mandates removal of certain
>trees and antennas. Of course, as always, the residents are to pick up
>the tab. In our case that can run into the thousands.
>
>We are not even in the approach path (or "cone area") but they want to
>put up a beacon light on our hill. They say that the beacon must be
>visible from the runway and so we shall cut down our trees, and pretty
>much now. Not only is that expensive but it mutilates our lot. Also, my
>take is that this beacon is a new structure, so why should we even be
>required to pay for removal of obstacles?
>
>Question: Is there any literature on the web explaining our options? It
>affects not just us but I heard a whopping 75 residents. I just don't
>think this is right. Needless to say the whole neighborhood is very
>miffed about this.
>
>Regards, Joerg
>
>http://www.analogconsultants.com
Seems to me if THEY want it THEY have to pay for it.
At least in free Europe, dunno what happened in the US to freedom,
but I have some ideas.
Little while ago I did see that movie about Jesse James, railway
was obtaining peoples properties in much teh same way.. (force).
He (Jesse) became a rebel, and robbed the trains....
How about that?
hehe
Maybe you guys should get together and get one of those expensive lawyers that
always wins?
Suck the US gov suckers for money!
Join a political party!
And, you can always come back to Holland an live in a windmill.
JP

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:55:29 GMT, Joerg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hello All,
>
>Since there are many ham radio operators in this forum I am hoping for
>some input.
>
>We just got a letter stating that the FAA mandates removal of certain
>trees and antennas. Of course, as always, the residents are to pick up
>the tab. In our case that can run into the thousands.
>
>We are not even in the approach path (or "cone area") but they want to
>put up a beacon light on our hill. They say that the beacon must be
>visible from the runway and so we shall cut down our trees, and pretty
>much now. Not only is that expensive but it mutilates our lot. Also, my
>take is that this beacon is a new structure, so why should we even be
>required to pay for removal of obstacles?
>
>Question: Is there any literature on the web explaining our options? It
>affects not just us but I heard a whopping 75 residents. I just don't
>think this is right. Needless to say the whole neighborhood is very
>miffed about this.
>
>Regards, Joerg
>
>http://www.analogconsultants.com

Who did the letter come from? Someone is BS'ing you. Get a lawyer.
NO ONE, not even the FEDs, can take property without just
compensation. Sounds like your local government is trying to snow you
for a cost that the city should bear.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Joerg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:5V3yc.83167$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> Hello All,
>
> Since there are many ham radio operators in this forum I am hoping for
> some input.
>
> We just got a letter stating that the FAA mandates removal of certain
> trees and antennas. Of course, as always, the residents are to pick up
> the tab. In our case that can run into the thousands.

I've never heard of that before. (been a ham for 15 years) There are
rules about antenna height within a cone, but that usually only applies
to new structures, not natural structures (trees). Trees are a natural
part of the terrain. What's next, people being forced to plow a
mountain down for the convenience of the govt. I suggest you contact
CNN and let them sort it out for you on national TV. For now, I
wouldn't cut anything, but that's just me. I certainly wouldn't pay for
any of it, regardless. In fact I would expect to paid for devaluing my
land.

> We are not even in the approach path (or "cone area") but they want to
> put up a beacon light on our hill. They say that the beacon must be
> visible from the runway and so we shall cut down our trees, and pretty
> much now. Not only is that expensive but it mutilates our lot. Also,
my
> take is that this beacon is a new structure, so why should we even be
> required to pay for removal of obstacles?

If their beacon needs to be visible from the runway then they need to
put it up high enough. Sounds like BS to me, just trying to see if they
can get away with it and then pull it on other folks later on. Call CNN
now.

> Question: Is there any literature on the web explaining our options?
It
> affects not just us but I heard a whopping 75 residents. I just don't
> think this is right. Needless to say the whole neighborhood is very
> miffed about this.

Call CNN. You'll have tree-hugger support (in your favor) coming out
the wazoo. Call CNN now.

Hi Jim,

It actually came from the airport district which, per our community
manager, has authority over our residential area. But I agree with you
and we'll likely challenge this. Before hiring a lawyer I want to do the
leg work, otherwise the lawyer will soak us for even more. Got the FAR
docs already, some complicated math to do (layers, runway arches, flying
cones etc.). But that's the stuff we learned :-).

If you are encroaching into the flight path and the airport was there
before the regs are pretty clear, you have to pay. But the thing is we
don't encroach as far as I can tell right now.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:20:18 GMT, Joerg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi Jim,
>
>It actually came from the airport district which, per our community
>manager, has authority over our residential area. But I agree with you
>and we'll likely challenge this. Before hiring a lawyer I want to do the
>leg work, otherwise the lawyer will soak us for even more. Got the FAR
>docs already, some complicated math to do (layers, runway arches, flying
>cones etc.). But that's the stuff we learned :-).
>
>If you are encroaching into the flight path and the airport was there
>before the regs are pretty clear, you have to pay. But the thing is we
>don't encroach as far as I can tell right now.
>
>Regards, Joerg
>
>http://www.analogconsultants.com

Ah, yes, I forgot... you live in Californication land ;-)

Right now the Arizona legislation is in the process of castrating home
owner's associations... they've been getting totally out of hand, and
people are rearing up and smacking them out of their senses.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Joerg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:C85yc.83188$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> Hi Jim,
>
> It actually came from the airport district which, per our community
> manager, has authority over our residential area. But I agree with you
> and we'll likely challenge this. Before hiring a lawyer I want to do the
> leg work, otherwise the lawyer will soak us for even more. Got the FAR
> docs already, some complicated math to do (layers, runway arches, flying
> cones etc.). But that's the stuff we learned :-).
>
> If you are encroaching into the flight path and the airport was there
> before the regs are pretty clear, you have to pay. But the thing is we
> don't encroach as far as I can tell right now.
>

"Community manager"? Are you in a development? If you are, and it
is in the covenants, you will lose, no matter how many lawyers you have.

Hi Anthony,

>I've never heard of that before. (been a ham for 15 years) There are
>rules about antenna height within a cone, but that usually only applies
>to new structures, not natural structures (trees). Trees are a natural
>part of the terrain.
>
Not quite. If you let them grow into the path you can sometimes be held
accountable to cut them back. That I understand.

> What's next, people being forced to plow a
>mountain down for the convenience of the govt. I suggest you contact
>CNN and let them sort it out for you on national TV. For now, I
>wouldn't cut anything, but that's just me. I certainly wouldn't pay for
>any of it, regardless. In fact I would expect to paid for devaluing my
>land.
>
>
Devaluation compensation is the other issue, yes. But one has to come up
with a number here.

>If their beacon needs to be visible from the runway then they need to
>put it up high enough. Sounds like BS to me, just trying to see if they
>can get away with it and then pull it on other folks later on. Call CNN
>now.
>
>
Well, first I'll try it amicably. If that's not possible then it'll go
to the next level. What I just found is that the new type obstruction
lights called L-810 aren't even allowed to emit much light below 0
degrees (so they can't shine down). IOW, if they are on a hilltop they
won't be very visible from a runway that is much lower.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Hi Ken,

>"Community manager"? Are you in a development? If you are, and it
>is in the covenants, you will lose, no matter how many lawyers you have.
>
>
It's not in the covenants. And the trees are a lot older than this
neighborhood is.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

"Jim Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...

> NO ONE, not even the FEDs, can take property without just
> compensation. Sounds like your local government is trying to snow you
> for a cost that the city should bear.

Well maybe, unless you are walking through an airport (or driving on a
highway, etc) with a pocket full of $100 bills and some Barney decides you
don't have a good enough reason to have them.