Subject: From Virginia Hines -- MA ALERT!!!
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 072025 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
.........Forwarded courtesy of EMF-L......
(Folks, you will see below what happens in the TYPICAL industry end-run
at the state level..... Industry lobbyists get together with their pals
-- the **people's servants** -- the legislators and screw the public.....
It is just a game that is TOO easy for the industry to play!!!! That is
-- when $$$$$$$ make the decisions..... In the case below, however, the
REAL people are getting into the act......!!)
Cheerio......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................
ACTION ALERT ON MMA PROPOSED BILL ON CELL PHONE ANTENNA SITING
From: Virginia Hines & Kati Winchell, Massachusetts Council on Wireless
Technology Impacts Feb. 26, 2000
NEWS FLASH
* Received call, on Friday (2/25), from Rep. Bosley's* office stating
that Bosley has decided to hold a public hearing on this issue. Staff
member Michael Busby estimates that the hearing will be scheduled at the
end of March, or early April, to give the MMA (Massachusetts Municipal
Association) enough time "to sell the local Select Boards on the
idea that this proposed bill will increase their local authority" (--more
on this below).
- Received call, also on Friday, from Senator Morrissey's* office
confirming the decision to schedule a public hearing.
According to staff member Janet, the hearing may be scheduled within the
next two weeks. This call was the result of daily phone calls to that
office. [*Note: Bosley and Morrissey are co-chairs of the Government
Regulations Committee, which is handling this bill.]
- Received call, also on Friday, from the office of Marie Parente, Chair
of the Local Affairs Committe, in response to our request to meet with
her. (A similar request to Bosley's office has not yet received a reply.)
Staff member Jeff informed us that Parente is happy to have a meeting
with members of MA CWTI within the next two weeks. (Please
call 978-371-0079 if you're interested in being at this meeting.)
UPDATE:
At the State House:
Clearly, our calls and letters of opposition are beginning to take
effect, together with the successful rally and press
conference at the State House on February 17th (see"media" below)
Just two weeks ago the word from Bosley's and Morrissey's offices was
that this proposed legislation will require no public hearing (based on a
procedural technicality). As of Thursday (2/24), we were told by
Morrissey's staff that "everyone" is in favor of a hearing, even the MMA.
At the MMA:
Weve learned that the MMA, also in response to the outpouring of
opposition to this bill, has considered scheduling a series of public
meetings. Many Select Boards--supposedly represented by the MMA, but left
in the dark about this bill--have expressed outrage at the process by
which the bill was drafted, as well as at its substance. According to
one source, 50 industry lawyers, one MMA lawyer, and one lawyer from the
Conservation Law Foundation collaborated on the drafting of this bill
over the last two years. No information is available as yet on the
timing of the public meetings.
-In the Media
1. Press Conference: On 2/17 at the State House about 100 people
attended a press conference, organized by Diana Warren and Peggy Patton,
which focused on the proposed bill's assault on home rule. Speakers
included State Rep., Marie Parente (Chair, Local Affairs), State Rep.
Susan Pope (Local Affairs), State Sen. Susan Fargo
(Chair, Science & Technology), Edward Collins, attorney.
Parente blasted the MMA bill as "ill-conceived" and the result of closed
negotiations between the MMA and representatives of six major wireless
service providers. "This is a pro-industry deal affecting every
municipality in Massachusetts. If this legislation is approved our local
officials will be virtually powerless to stop the proliferation of
... [wireless communications] facilities." She said that the proposed
bill would have the effect of invalidating existing zoning ordinances and
bylaws, and that it would prevent cities and towns from taking legal
action to overturn any zoning exemptions granted by the DTE (Department
of Telecommunications and Energy. (Source: press release
from Parente 2/15).
In addition, Parente questions the Government Regulations Committee's
authority to handle this proposed bill, insisting that her committee on
Local Affairs, which deals with zoning issues, is the more appropriate
committee for dealing with it.
2. Radio - On 2/11 Virginia Hines, co-coordinator of MA CWTI, was
interviewed by WBUR News on this issue . On 2/22 Ed Collins was
interviewed by WBURs Here and Now program. Rep. Bosley, who joined the
2/22 interview, stated that under the proposed bill antennas could not be
sited in municipal areas -- a blatant falsehood we must work to correct.
When asked to explain Bosley's comment, legislative aid Kristen Erickson
had to admit its inaccuracy, based on the fact that since minor
facilities can be placed on municipally-owned property and in church
steeples (both of which are often in residential areas), they could
therefore be sited in residential areas. In addition, the"Allowed Use"
section of the draft bill states that antennas "shall be an allowed use
in all zoning districts" so long as they are an "interior" facility (p.3).
3. Newsprint - Caroline Cole's pro-industry article in MetoRegion
section of Boston Globe (2/20) and Linda Weltner's pro-ciitzens article
in Home section of Boston Globe (2//24) .
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Legislative aids at both Bosley's and Morrissey's offices are telling the
public that this proposed legislation will increase local authority for
towns and cities because it would eliminate the DTE's ability to overturn
local siting decisions. While this is true in a narrow sense, IT IS
HIGHLY MISLEADING IN TERMS OF THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF HOW THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD AFFECT NEIGHBORHOODS. This is a smoke screen set
up to blind the public, while the few crumbs of local authority left to
us by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 are being swallowed
whole by the state.
ACTION: We are putting together a rapid response network to notify those
who would like to participate in the legislative hearings and the MMA
public meetings (AND WE HOPE YOU ARE AMONG THEM!). Please contact the
Mass. Council on Wireless Technology Impacts with your interest to be
notified ASAP. (Tel: 978-371-0079, Fax: 978-371-8255, macwti@aol.com)
and we will include you in the network.
In addition (or instead of the above), please help keep the pressure on by
calling the following offices on a regular basis to voice your opposition
to this proposed bill: Rep. Bosley (617-722-2120, ask for Michael Busby),
Sen. Morrissey (617-722-2120, ask for Kristen Erickson), and the MMA
(617-426-7272, ask for Thatcher Kezer). People refer to the bill
as "the MMA cell phone antenna siting bill". Please encourage you
friends and neighbors to call too!!
What towns and cities would lose:
- local bylaws would be preempted, compromising citizens protection from
property devaluation and potential health effects.
- public input in the permitting process would be eliminated
(no notification to abutters, no public hearings, no special permitting
process.)
- telephone companies would no longer have to demonstrate actual need for
coverage
- comprehensive alternative site analysis would be eliminated
- state or local municipality to monitor emissions from installations,
especially the crucial pre-installation
- background levels would be eliminated
- ELIMINATION OF REMEDY WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEM! (RECENT COURT CASES HAVE
RULED IN FAVOR OF TOWNS.)
What wireless telephone companies would gain:
- streamline the permitting application process by decreasing the
required filings = cost savings
- eliminate battles with local officials over placement of antennas =
cost savings
- fewer battles mean fewer court cases = cost-savings again
- liability involving antennas would shift to owner of minor facility =
future cost savings
- superficially improved PR with communities by promotion of stealth
design vs new towers
- ability to thwart the democratic process once again, this time on a
state level
THIS ONE IS WORSE THAN THE FEDERAL TELECOM. ACT OF 1996. LETS SEND IT TO
DEFEAT!!!
Virginia......
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com