Subject: Re Just "Bullies"...... (fwd)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 051740 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 22:49:30 -0500
From: Tam McClure
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: Just "Bullies"......
Yes we know about how they can be bullies. I told you about the lake
that went in. They said if people didn't sell they would condemn it and
just take their land. They also tried to pay some people less than
others per acre etc and ended up getting themselves into deep trouble on
that one because they gave one young white man $1200 an acre while they
gave an older black man 3 doors down only $350 per acre. (SOmething very
wrong with that right?) Well the guy's were talking at the little
grocery store in town and the subject of the land prices came up and
when the white man foundout he got more he took the black gentleman with
him to the State Rep from our district. They had to stop work on the
lake for 3 months until they cleared up the "misunderstanding". So yeah
all utility companies are bullies. They thought they could get away with
that and got caught.
Tam
Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
> .......They're just bullies.....That has been my experience,
> too............They do it that way because they know they can get away
> with it..........Perhaps we need to "hold school" on how utility law
> works in most states.......It's a 'license to steal': property......
> It works that way because the industry has (thru decades of heavy
> lobbying) persuaded most legislatures that they (the utility) should not
> have to wait for "normal litigation" to resolve disputes about "where"
> or "under what circumstances" they construct their facilities (lines,
> substations, antennas, etc.). Thus -- with no "need" or "incentive"
> to negotiate -- they just Bully!!!!........It is one of the rare
> instances within the American system that (in effect) no "check and
> balance" is at work.......See the example forwarded by Dr. Bob Weiner,
> below...........guru
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 19:17:22 -0700
> From: Bob Weiner
> To: "\"Roy L. Beavers\""
> Subject: Follow up on Ohio cell tower construction
>
> ................. Court stay doesn't stop cell tower .....................
>
> Wednesday, July 8, 1998
>
> BY ALLEN HOWARD
> The Cincinnati Enquirer
>
> ANDERSON TOWNSHIP -- Lawyers for the township are
> asking an appellate court in Columbus to stop construction of
> a cellular phone tower at the Five Mile Road exit on
> Interstate 275, pending an appeal of a lower court decision.
> Robert Molloy, lawyer for the township, said officials are
> seeking the injunction because GTE Wireless has continued to build
> the cell tower after a stay was issued a week ago.
>
> The company said the stay did not apply because it did
> not say construction should stop.
>
> Mr. Molloy filed for an injunction and an appeal in
> the 10th District Court of Appeals on Thursday, seeking to
> overturn a ruling by Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Patrick McGrath.
>
> "We are hoping the court will rule on the injunction
> within the next few days," Mr. Molloy said. "The stay issued in
> the common pleas court did not specifically say the work
> should stop."
>
> Judge McGrath ruled that because GTE Wireless and
> AirTouch entered an agreement with the Ohio Department of
> Transportation (ODOT) to build towers at the Five Mile
> and U.S. 52 exits in Anderson Township, they were
> considered public utilities and did not have to conform to
> township zoning codes.
>
> Mr. Molloy sees it differently.
>
> "It is obvious the towers would not be built there if
> they didn't make money for a private company. The towers will be
> used for the benefit of private businesses. How does that
> make them a public utility?" Mr. Molloy said.
>
> As the issue is hashed out in court, workers are busy
> at the southwest corner of the Five Mile interchange,
> building a 180-foot monopole for a cell tower on land owned by
> the state, but zoned residential by the township.
>
> "We know under the 1996 Federal Telecommunication Act,
> (neither) municipalities nor townships can prevent cell towers
> from being built," Mr. Molloy said. "But the law does give them
> the right to regulate where they can be built by requiring the
> companies to go through an administrative hearing."
>
> GTE Wireless officials said that they have never
> received orders from the court to stop work. "We will abide by
> whatever the appeals court tells us to do," said Becky
> Cox, director of marketing and communication for GTE
> Wireless.
>
> Mr. Molloy said it was necessary that the common pleas
> court ruling be challenged by a higher court because of the
> impact the ruling would have throughout Ohio on state-owned
> land.
>
> "What this says is that any piece of property owned by
> ODOT can be used for whatever it wants without a hearing or
> anything. A tower could be built on the property
> without any challenge even if it is only 1 inch from a residence,"
> Mr. Molloy said.
>
> He disagreed with Judge McGrath's ruling that the cell
> companies were exempt from the zoning laws because they entered an
> agreement with ODOT.
>
> ***************************************************************************
--
*************************************************
Artist Management Services
http://ams.2kweb.net
ams@ams.2kweb.net
48 Dogwood Lane, Springfield, AR 72157
Phone: 501-354-3724
*************************************************
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html