On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:29:43 EDT, Foxs Mercantile
wrote:

So apparently, that one with the 75 tower was enforceable.

The restriction said that no antenna may exceed the height of the
one-story building that it is associated with or attached to. That in
itself is unreasonable, and we had technical testimony to back it up.
Dear Mrs. Hotz had none to refute that. The judge was dumb and blind,
but that's another story.

This leads back to my original question then, what part of having a
FCC grant of license gives amateurs the right to violate the terms
of a contract they signed?

A contract of adhesion has a high barrier for enforcement to take
place.

Note that the justification for PRB-1 and the impending extension to
private contracts is the exercise of Federal interest in amateur
radio, hence limited pre-emption. We tried to get this under
_Shelley_ where the SCOTUS ruled that contract terms that were against
public policy were unenforceable no matter if the affected party
signed it but the California Court of Appeal sent it back to the
Superior Court for trial. That's when the burden shifted. The
neighbors couldn't win at the city level, so they had to resort to the
CC&Rs of a development that was co-terminus with the city and whose
officers were the city council members. They actually passed the hat
for this lawsuit after we won at the city level. This nonsense will
disappear when the bill becomes law.

"Reasonable accommodation" is not total pre-emption. Nothing is
stopping any ham from not claiming the benefit of the limited (PRB-1
style) pre-emption.

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel