Subject: Re "The law" on cell towers in communities (Brown)(Beaver)..
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 130501 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
........Chris' question below exposes the "cowardice" (I say) which
municipal regulators, etc., have so far displayed in their unwillingness
to challenge the 1996 Telecom Act _all the way_!!!
No, Chris, they have avoided that EMF "health issue cause" in the legal
challenges so far -- that are known to me..... They have "talked"
about it. But have not forced such a decision in the courts.
They are being "told" by the Telecom companies that the 1996 Telecom
Act denies them the right to raise that issue. So, they don't challenge
it. Why in God's name they believe the Telecom companies ... I don't
know.....!!
But that portion of the Act is just as vulnerable to challenge as the
"local siting" issue..... In fact, once the "local siting" right is
firmly established (as it now appears to be) -- then there is no further
basis for the courts (or the companies) to deny local regulators (or
City Commissioners in San Fran) the 'right and authority' to impose
regulatory procedures that protect the public interests as they see their
duty......!!!
ie., The protection of "life and health" certainly being a reasonable
"public interest" -- which I would expect the courts to recognize and
uphold NO MATTER WHAT THE G__ D___ 1996 TELECOM ACT SAYS......!!!!
And ... no matter what they are TOLD by the companies!!
(In other words, the same **constitutional right** "ought" to prevail
there -- just as it does in the "local right to control siting decisions"
issue..... It is the "constitutional question" -- the right of local
control over people's lives and property -- which the courts are
consistently beginning to recognize and uphold.....!!!)
To my knowledge, the situation that is coming closest to this issue is
Lookout Mountain...... But, of course, it has not even gone fully
through its bureaucratic process -- much less the court process -- which
would logically follow, if they do not prevail at the 'bureaucratic'
level...... (If the property owners and the Jefferson County
Commissioners prevail at the bureaucratic level; then, it will be up to
the "companies" -- Cedar Group -- to go to the courts......)
Hope some others will offer comment on this.....
Cheerio.....
Another note on the above: Many readers may have "wondered" and not
approved of the recent Supreme Court decision which "threw out" a
rape case!! But, in fact, that decision was reached by the court on
the **very same grounds** as we are now seeing in these property rights
(local control) cases. The court did not say anything about the rape
case, itself. The court ruled on the fact that the THE LAW which had
been passed by the congress -- and was used to obtain the rape
conviction -- **was unconstitutional!!!** ... Because the congress had
transgressed into the rights of local (states and/or communities)
authority in passing that law. The congress had "trampled" on
traditional rights which are reserved to local decision.....
THAT IS THE VARY SAME PRINCIPLE THAT IS BEING APPLIED TO OVER-RULE THE
1996 Telecom Act on the "local control" (tower siting) issue..... The
Congress **did not have the right to pass that particular provision
of that law**......!!!! Therefore, the federal courts cannot enforce
it ... when the Telecom companies try to apply that law (in the
courts).....
By bluffing a lot of people (local regulators as well as local property
owners), however, the companies have been able to get away with "making
people think that is THE LAW"...... People who are unwilling to take
the issue to a federal court..... (Guru has been screaming about that
to readers on this list since the 1996 law was passed.....!!!)
That (in my opinion) is exactly what Al Gore and his lobbyist friends,
who put that provision into the 1996 Telecom Act, expected!!!! They
KNEW G__ D____ well that it was unconstitutional -- but they figured
the companies could bluff the public long enough to get their tower
system built out...... Ain't "democracy" great!!!! In America --
that is -- the land of the $$$$$$$ "democracy" ..... better called an
OLIGARCHY......
Cheerio (again) ......Chris.....Good question!!
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.................
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST???
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:31:10 -0700
From: Christopher Beaver
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: "The law" on cell towers in communities (Brown)..
Dear Roy:
The Sutro Tower fight continues here in San Francisco. I cited several
court cases favorable to local control of zoning during my public
comments. The posting on "The Law" helps even further since one of the
Supervisors, Alicia Becceril, requested that I provide her office with
documentation for my comments.
But I'm wondering if anyone has encountered legal cases directly
addressing the issue of siting antennas based on health and safety
concerns.
Many thanks,
Christopher Beaver
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com