Why Do Government Officials Want to Ban Ham Radio? It’s Already Begun in California

Status
Not open for further replies.

BritKLR

Kapitis Indagatoris
It’s a cash grab by California. Seriously, who would even know these repeaters are their? Some state utilities bureaucrat want to inflate their budget and sat around in a meeting and spitball this BS. Seriously, been in enough muni, county, state budget meetings to see this BS.....if it wasn’t leasing fees on repeater towers on state property it’d be a fee for radio wave carbon foot print credits......good luck.
 

calicamper

Expedition Leader
Lol wow its on the interweb and has CA in it so must be true?‍♂️. Lots of good friends involved in Ham with seriously big setups. Yeah CA doesn’t give a F but then again I see dumb stuff written about CA daily to stir up people who don’t live or know whats going on in CA. LOL
 
No reason to actually get real information when you can just make assumptions based on your own paranoia. I mean how would all these d!psh!t "journalists" get their time in the sun if they actually had to do research and find out information. Take a little bit of sensational news and run with it. Works for Fox, CNN, and MSNBC along with all the other big "news" outlets.
 

Rando

Explorer
No reason to actually get real information when you can just make assumptions based on your own paranoia. I mean how would all these d!psh!t "journalists" get their time in the sun if they actually had to do research and find out information. Take a little bit of sensational news and run with it. Works for Fox, CNN, and MSNBC along with all the other big "news" outlets.

Seems to me that this is quite the opposite. No major news outlets are covering this because it is a blogosphere/youtube/forum conspiracy theory. Like most good conspiracy theory, there maybe a kernel of truth (a repeater owner probably did get a letter from a property manager) and then a whole mythology has developed around this. It is threads like this that just perpetuate these conspiracy theories.
 

BritKLR

Kapitis Indagatoris
While I do agree with the points regarding the validity of different on-line sources and the media. I also apologize to those from California because my comment wasn’t meant to broadbrush the entire state or the the people of California, it was meant to address the current money grab by all state and local governments via fees, taxes, etc. that isn’t necessary in the big budget picture. Generally speaking, the largest portion of any budget is personnel and benefits, government bodies are always looking for additional funding resources to meet these growing costs. BS fees on things like “antenna rent/lease” on existing sites is just a low hanging fruit money grab.

The issue appears to be real, as a simple search reveals more articles/information about the original post. Not being a California resident I may not fully appreciate/recognize the power/importance of Cal Fire so, please educate me. Thanks.

“A letter was recently sent to California Ham operators from CAL FIRE severing ties between them unless a rental fee was paid. This move is unprecedented in the history of California is and becoming widely criticized by citizens throughout the state.”

 

Robert Bills

Explorer
This is not only old news, it is old fake news.

I am from the area where the controversy originated. I am familiar with the individuals involved and with the situation. The first story linked in this thread is almost total B.S. as it relates to the situation in Shingletown CA. The second article on the ARRL website "clarifying" the situation still contains misinformation, largely because it incorporates quotes from other news sources without attribution and also because at least one paragraph is plagiarized from a news story in the Redding Record Searchlight newspaper which itself contained misinformation. Still, the ARRL article correctly points out that the story was originally misreported and the State of California has not taken the position that amateur radio is no longer necessary. What really happened here is a low level bureaucrat in an administrative position acted outside of her authority without the advance knowledge or consent of her superiors. The matter was resolved months ago, almost as soon as the issue arose.


Threads like this spread misinformation and feed on partisanship and sensationalism.

This thread should be closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
185,531
Messages
2,875,591
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top