# Alderman goes after ‘tacky’ satellite dishes on fronts of homes



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

"_Chicago homeowners and businesses would be prohibited from installing satellite dishes in front of their homes, under a crackdown proposed Wednesday to make the city look less "tacky."_

_Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) said satellite dishes are popping up all over Chicago, and it's getting ugly - literally. _"

The alderman wants new dishes installed in the back yard or atop the building so the dish is not visible from the street.

The article says existing dishes will be grandfathered in.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Mr Ray Suarez better read OTARD before he goes off trying to prevent sat dish installations....


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

This is Chicagoland we are talking about. See The Expired Meter for coverage about parking there.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

cj9788 said:


> "_Chicago homeowners and businesses would be prohibited from installing satellite dishes in front of their homes, under a crackdown proposed Wednesday to make the city look less "tacky."_
> 
> _Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) said satellite dishes are popping up all over Chicago, and it's getting ugly - literally. _"
> 
> ...


The city would be less "tacky" without the likes of Ray Suarez. He is thinking and acting like a ruler, not a representive. I doubt if he asked those effected if they are behind his less "tacky" idea.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Mark Holtz said:


> This is Chicagoland we are talking about. See The Expired Meter for coverage about parking there.


I don't care if it is Washington DC, NY NY, LA, or Chicago - local laws DO NOT trump federal ones. About the most local government can do is SUGGEST that dishes be installed in unobtrusive locations where reception is not impeded.

There are some other exceptions in OTARD, but that basically covers it.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Now, Comcast wouldn't be one of Mr Suarez's campaign donors, would it?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

scooper said:


> I don't care if it is Washington DC, NY NY, LA, or Chicago - local laws DO NOT trump federal ones. About the most local government can do is SUGGEST that dishes be installed in unobtrusive locations where reception is not impeded.
> 
> There are some other exceptions in OTARD, but that basically covers it.


I think they can pass any law they want, but they then get taken to court etc. Eventually the law is rendered moot or taken off the books, but doesn't mean they can't pass it to begin with.

Fortunately, some of the more "interesting" laws that are thought up die in committee or are rejected by council, like the councilmember in California that fell for an essay that worded things in such a way to call for a ban on water.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I don't like to see them in front yards either like so many mushrooms or dandelions. Maybe they'll word it towards a preference for backyards where possible. Mine's on the backside slope of the roof away from the road, but can be seen from the side.

Hopefully they won't do like California where one guy installed solar panels and forced his neighbor to cut down trees so the panels got clear sun. Could you imagine being told to cut your trees down so your neighbor could get a clear shot for his dish?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> I think they can pass any law they want, but they then get taken to court etc. Eventually the law is rendered moot or taken off the books, but doesn't mean they can't pass it to begin with.


The good thing is this doesn't even have to goto court - the FCC is the FINAL word on antennas. The city's legal counsel should tell the council members what the situation really is, and to just drop it.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> I don't like to see them in front yards either like so many mushrooms or dandelions. Maybe they'll word it towards a preference for backyards where possible. Mine's on the backside slope of the roof away from the road, but can be seen from the side.
> 
> Hopefully they won't do like California where one guy installed solar panels and forced his neighbor to cut down trees so the panels got clear sun. Could you imagine being told to cut your trees down so your neighbor could get a clear shot for his dish?


Now that's going too far the other way. Solar panel dude should have realized they were in the wrong and the stupid judge allowed the suit to go forward.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> the FCC is the FINAL word on antennas


Well, maybe. The city could pass it, start fining residents causing one or more of them to go to court, which would lead to rulings and appeals and claims of State's rights, and blah, blah, blah........ After years of actions and millions of dollars paid to lawyers, then maybe.

Or maybe _somebody_ in Chicago with pull in Washington would 'convince' the FCC otherwise.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I thought they "could" require dishes be placed in the backyards if it did not increase the cost of installation.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I don't like to see them in front yards either like so many mushrooms or dandelions. Maybe they'll word it towards a preference for backyards where possible. Mine's on the backside slope of the roof away from the road, but can be seen from the side.
> 
> Hopefully they won't do like California where one guy installed solar panels and forced his neighbor to cut down trees so the panels got clear sun. Could you imagine being told to cut your trees down so your neighbor could get a clear shot for his dish?


Heck, my in-laws had to go to mediation because a neighbor wanted them to be forced to cut their trees down, because the leaves landed in his yard. Fortunately the mediator didn't see any merit to the case.

I prefer my own dish in the back, fortunately that's the correct side. Not sure it really matters anymore, but earlier on it looked like a big advertisement that I had HD.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

SayWhat? said:


> Well, maybe. The city could pass it, start fining residents causing one or more of them to go to court, which would lead to rulings and appeals and claims of State's rights, and blah, blah, blah........ After years of actions and millions of dollars paid to lawyers, then maybe.
> 
> Or maybe _somebody_ in Chicago with pull in Washington would 'convince' the FCC otherwise.


I stand by my statement. 
The FCC is the FINAL word on antennas and their placement.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

scooper said:


> I stand by my statement.
> The FCC is the FINAL word on antennas and their placement.


Think of city council as one large Homeowners Association. The FCC is the final word, but some associations still issue rules that violate OTARD.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> Think of city council as one large Homeowners Association. The FCC is the final word, but some associations still issue rules that violate OTARD.


And they get slapped down for it.
the homeowner will eventually win


----------

