Subject: Cell Phone Tower to go in our Residential Area (Dawn)..
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 152423 -0500
From: Roy Beavers
To: Roy Beavers
--------------------------------------------------
Dawn:
Indeed, it is likely that your mayor had good reason to "clam up" and
say nothing
when asked about the agenda item that suddenly disappeared.....
First, let me make a wild guess. The "possible litigation" she
referred-to is the
PROBABILITY (in my opinion) that the city has received a threat from the
cell tower
company to this effect: If you do not go through with the "deal" which
the city
has ALREADY entered into with the Mayor and city council -- we will sue you.....!!!
In other words (and this pattern -- we have seen elsewhere) the tower
company goes to
the city officials and gets a "deal" (a contract) BEFORE THE PUBLIC
KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT IT.....!!!! Then, when the public finds out --
and objects -- the tower
company keeps the city "in line" by threatening to sue......!!!!
In the first instance (if what I describe is "close" to your situation),
the
"deal" between the city and the tower company may, in fact, be UNLAWFUL
-- thus unenforceable..... Because of the surreptitious (secret -
unpublic) MANNER in
which it was done.....
You will need a local lawyer to help you with that.... Pick a lawyer
who is NOT
part of the "city establishment."!!!!!! Pick someone, indeed, who is on
the "other" side politically....... A young and hungry "ACLU" type......
In the second instance -- if the "lawsuit threat" is of a different
nature than I have guessed, or if the mayor was just trying to stall and
"throw you off track" -- there are still many things you can do.....
Many options and many different strategies!!!!!
Libby Kelley, Deb Carney, Virginia Hines, and a good half dozen other EXPERIENCED
fighters are on this list......You will be hearing from them......!!!
Your case sounds VERY interesting...... You will need that energetic,
ambitious "ACLU" type lawyer....... Remember ... this is being written
by a Main Street Republican..... (I thought John McCain did well in his
speech at the Republican Convention last night ...)
BUT HE DAMN WELL BETTER DELIVER ON THE PROMISE MADE ON NATIONAL TV --
that "blood will run" in the floor of the Senate if we don't get
(genuine!!!) campaign finance reform.....
Cheerio....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
http://emfguru.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Cell Phone Tower to go in our Residential Area
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 15:36:20 -0400
From: "Dawn"
To:
Dear Mr. Beavers:
Last evening we (myself and neighbors) attended a town meeting which
announced as an agenda item, "Possible Moratorium on Cell Towers in
Thurmont." However, when it was clear that the town commissioners had run
through (their) agenda and were set to close the meeting, the public were
not going to hear anything on the previously announced agenda item.
When the commissioners were asked why the agenda item on Cell Towers was
passed over, the answer from the mayor was: "Our attorney has advised us not
to discuss it because of possible litigation." When I asked the mayor what
kind of litigation, she took a long time answering (seemed very uncertain
whether and how she would respond), but finally stated "because of
discussion at last week's meeting." When I asked for more specifics, again
as to what "kind" of litigation, she and the entire commission would say no
more than the words "we can't discuss it." Several others asked questions
and made statements, but it was clear the commission was following the "gag"
order.
Here is the crux of the concern of our neighborhood and other residents of
Thurmont, Maryland (gateway to the Catoctin Mtns, which is home to Camp
David...and given your background, are probably well aware).
Last week, a zoning commission held their meeting, with the Cell Tower Site
Plan as part of their agenda. The neighborhood learned of the meeting and
attended (well armed with research from the internet, much from EMFguru).
Representatives from Sprint and Nextel presented their "site plan,"
explaining how they would turn the water tower into an cell tower, each
industry with plans for their own buildings to house equipment...buildings
large enough, they stated, to provide for expansion. They discussed
easements, etc. (Residential homes....privately owned....immediately
surround this tower....so what kind of easements do they mean? Their
presentation sounded like the plan was really a "done deal."
During the course of public comment, we discovered that the mayor had
already signed a lease agreement with Sprint and Nextel. When asked about
alternative sites away from residential areas, the industry people didn't
have answers. When asked about health issues, the industry people (of
course) said it was perfectly safe (right!) and that they have received NO
complaints from other communities like us....and further, that the health
issues were quite frankly all hype! When asked why a lease was signed
before the public received notice, the city manager claimed he didn't have
to let the public know.
Just before the site plan went to a vote, the industry people starting
referring to the 1996 Telecom Act. Seeing where this was going, I stood up
and addressed the unconstitutional aspects of that Act, made reference to
Lookout Out Mtn and Sutro Tower community. I also made reference to the
telecommunications industry NOT having the right to preempt the land-use
decisionmaking authority of local governments. (I will not describe the
looks I received.)
No more was said, so the "site plan" for each industry was put to a vote,
and denied 3-2 on each one. When the vote was completed, the rep from
Sprint stood up to aggressively address the zoning commission with "What
right have you....?" ...to which he was immediately asked to "sit down, the
vote was finished."
So....now it looks like a "possible" lawsuit.
Our residential (no businesses) subdivision butts up to the State Park on
one side and the
National Park on another side. The water tower (which is public property)
serving our area is VERY close to many homes.
We fear that the town commissioners may succumb to the pressure of the
"possible lawsuit," and allow the lease to stand regardless of how the
public feels about it.
Our question is this: Do YOU know of anyone we might contact who could
advise us on how best (effectively) to approach this issue? We do not want
the cell tower, so what are our options from the point forward?
This may well be beyond the role you wish to take, but we can only hope that
through this online community of people experienced with this issue,
that we
might find some guidance/guidelines on effectively pursuing this in a timely
fashion. The town commissioners may be under a "gag" order, but we are NOT!
Thank you for your time on this. I look forward to any information you
might have to share. Another commissioners meeting is scheduled for this
evening. We will be there, if only to observe.
Sincerely,
Dawn Hill
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com