Parsons Defends Cell Tower Bill

An East Cobb state lawmaker who is the chief sponsor of a major piece of wireless legislation is defending the bill as necessary for public safety and economic development.
Editor Wendy Parker wendy.parker@patch.com

State Rep. Don Parsons, a Republican, explained in a video posted Friday that HB 176 is more than beneficial to cellular and wireless companies.

The bill, known officially as the Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development (BILD) Act, would streamline cell tower approvals by limiting the time local governments can take to act on applications.

HB 176 would provide a 150-day window for approval or rejection by local governments. If those bodies take no action in that time, an application is considered approved.

The legislation was approved last week by the Georgia House Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee that Parsons chairs and will be sent to the Rules Committee this week for a full House vote.

"That's a lot of time, a lot more time that's being given than in other Southeastern states," Parsons said in the video of the 150-day limit.

HB 176 has the support of the cellular and wireless industry and such pro-business groups as Americans for Prosperity.

It is by opposed by Georgia Municipal Association (see PDF) and the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia as well as a number of local governments, including the north Fulton city of Milton.  (and Get the Cell Out - ATL)

Parsons said that cell towers accommodate more than phones, with smart phones, tablets and other complex devices requiring more bandwidth.

"It's not the 150 days cities and counties object to. Not once have they come to me and asked for some other number of days," he said. "What they disagree with is that they cannot demand money from and charge the cell phone companies what they want."

According to a 2012 AJC article, metro Atlanta was ranked as the second-most-wired region in the country by Forbes magazine.

"There's a demand for cell service in this state that is only going to increase," Parsons added. "There's demand for bandwidth that's only going to increase. This bill will go a long way toward those issues."

The AJC reported this week that a similar "shot clock" measure approved in 2009 by the Federal Communications Communication is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.


For a story from the AJC, click here:  http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/cell-tower-bill-moves-forward/nWTkQ/

HELP US STOP HB 176

What can you  do?

Please write a letter to your state officials!  Let them know you oppose HB 176!

To find your elected officials and an easy was to email them all at once, 

please click here:  http://www.congress.org

Here is the letter we recently sent.  You are free to use any or all of it as you compose a letter of your own to send with Congress.org's feature that allows you to email all your state elected officials at once.

Dear (Congressman XXX),

I am writing to let you know I am very concerned about HB 176, titled the Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development (BILD)Act.  

My concern is that Mr. Don Parsons, the sponsor of this bill, is attempting to have our state put forth a law that would not comply with the FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996.  The Act clearly leaves the power for siting of cell phone towers with the local governing officials.  Local government has the right to zone in the manner which it has determined is in the best interest of the citizens who live there and pay property taxes for the purpose, among other things, of having local government protection of their health, safety and investment.

HB 176 would allow for automatic approvals of very complex and potentially hazardous telecommunications structures if the local government has not approved them after 150 days.  It also changes the qualifications of what constitutes an application.  Rather than all necessary pieces of a proper application to be submitted, this bill suggests that submitting only one portion of the required documents would be required to start the time limitation and eventual route to an automatic approval. 

Since the FCC does not regulate towers under 200', the application process and subsequent application to upgrade may be the only opportunity that anyone in a position of authority and with proper training is able to actually inspect the proposal and determine if it meets safety standards before it can be constructed.  If this initial review is removed from the process, we could end up with towers of all sizes being built in areas that place the public in danger, where homes, schools and automobile and pedestrian traffic could be placed within the "fall zone" and serious human injury or death could occur as a result.

In addition, the public deserves to be protected from the proliferation of cell towers when the cumulative effect of towers, esp. if allowed to be upgraded on an automatic approval, could result in the violation of the FCC standard for total RF emissions that are in place to protect the health of the general public and those who work in the industry of servicing telecommunications towers.

We all know that the telecommunications industry is one of the wealthiest industries out there today.  We do not need to provide them more ways to profit (like this bill which also prevents a fair market price for the location of a tower on public property).  We need to make certain that the public is protected and the federal guidelines on this issue are respected. 

    Sincerely, 
    Get the Cell Out - ATL