Friday, June 27, 2014

Early & Absentee Voting For Runoffs Begins Monday

DeKalb County, GA – The DeKalb County Board of Registration & Elections announces that Early Voting in DeKalb County for the General Primary, Nonpartisan and Special Runoff Elections will begin Monday, June 30 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Voter Registration and Elections Office at 4380 Memorial Drive, Decatur, GA 30032.  There will be no satellite voting locations for this election.
DeKalb County Sheriff: Incumbent Sheriff Jeff Mann will face former DeKalb County CEO Vernon Jones in the runoff for DeKalb County Sheriff.
State School Superintendent: Former Decatur School Board member Valarie Wilson and State Representative Alisha Thomas Morgan will compete in the Democratic runoff for State School Superintendent.
Board of Education District 3: Incumbent Michael Erwin squares off against Atticus LeBlanc for DeKalb County Board of Education District 3.
Board of Education District 4: Two incumbents, Jim McMahan and Karen Carter are in the running for DeKalb County Board of Education District 4.
Board of Education District 5: Incumbent Thad Mayfield and newcomer Vickie B. Turner will face each other in a runoff election for the DeKalb County Board of Education District 5 seat.
Early Voting and Absentee Mail Voting will end on Friday, July 18.  There will be no Saturday voting and the office will be closed on July 4 in observance of Independence Day.   Sample ballots are available on the VR&E website: under “Current Election Information.”  The office is currently accepting absentee by mail applications.  Application forms are also available on our website.
The runoff elections will be held Tuesday, July 22, 2014.  To find your polling place and see your sample ballot, go to My Voter Page at  Applications and other information may be obtained at the website or by calling the Voter Registration & Elections office at 404-298-4020.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Privacy Wins Over the Need to Investigate

WASHINGTON -- Cellphones and smartphones generally cannot be searched by police without a warrant during arrests, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday in a major clash between privacy and technology.

Ruling on two cases from California and Massachusetts, the justices acknowledged both a right to privacy and a need to investigate crimes. But they came down squarely on the side of privacy rights.

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "Privacy comes at a cost."

The court struck down an extensive smartphone search in California that had been upheld by the state Court of Appeals, as well as a more limited probe of an old flip-top cellphone in Massachusetts that a federal judge already had thrown out.

The result was a ruling that police cannot seek what they believe is relevant to the crime without getting a warrant. Currently, police can search the person under arrest and whatever physical items are within reach to find weapons and preserve evidence.

The justices noted that vast amounts of sensitive data on modern smartphones raise new privacy concerns that differentiate them from other evidence. They reserved for police the right to claim "exigent circumstances."

In the past two years, the court has ruled that police can swab a suspect's cheek for DNA to put into an unsolved crimes database, as well as conduct strip searches of prisoners without reasonable suspicion.

But the justices also have said police need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspect's car, to obtain blood from a drunken driver who refuses a breathalyzer test, and to bring a drug-sniffing dog up to the door of a suspect's house.

The cellphone cases may be just a precursor to more expansive and potentially explosive high court inquiries. Among them: an examination of the National Security Agency's phone and computer surveillance methods, on which two federal district courts recently diverged.

The two cellphone cases, heard back-to-back in April, involved different crimes, different responses and different lower-court rulings. What joined them was the fact that police searched cellphones without first obtaining warrants.

A California court upheld David Riley's conviction on gang-related weapons offenses that police uncovered after stopping his car for expired tags, finding guns under the hood and then discovering incriminating photos and video on his smartphone. The justices overturned that ruling.

In Massachusetts, a federal appeals court threw out Brima Wurie's conviction after a specifically targeted search of his old-fashioned flip-phone following a street arrest led police to find a cache of drugs and weapons at his home. The high court upheld that ruling.

Because the California search was extensive and the Massachusetts search aimed only at incoming calls and addresses, both cases had appeared ripe for reversal. But with appeals courts divided on the issue of cellphone searches, the justices also were being asked to devise bright-line rules for police to follow -- something Roberts emphasized in his opinion.

That's particularly true because technology is advancing, creating new Fourth Amendment puzzles for police to solve. Nine in 10 adults in the U.S. own cellphones, more than half of them smartphones. Eight in 10 use those phones to send text messages; more than half send or receive e-mail, download applications, or access the Internet.

Combine that data with the estimated 12.2 million arrests made nationwide in 2012 — not including citations for traffic violations — and you have a potential perfect storm of cellphone searches.

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Roswell's Cell Tower Case

Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter's peaceful protest, which combined the efforts of multiple communities throughout DeKalb County into one march to show unity against the issue of placing towers on school grounds, was recently featured on Channel 2's news in a story about a nearby city, Roswell.  They have taken their fight against T-,mobile all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is taking up a dispute over what kind of explanation local officials must provide when denying an application to build a cell phone tower.

The justices agreed Monday to hear an appeal from T-Mobile South, which claims the city of Roswell, Georgia, did not adequately justify its refusal to allow construction of a 108-foot tall cell tower.

Federal law requires denial of a cell phone tower permit to be "in writing" and supported by substantial evidence. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Roswell satisfied that requirement by issuing a general denial letter and a transcript of hearings.

T-Mobile says the written decision must include the specific reason for denial. The company wants the high court to resolve a split in circuits on the issue.

Friday, June 20, 2014

ALEC: Now Coming To A City Or Town Government Near You

Hey, at least it will be more convenient to protest!

They're like zombies. They never die, and they never give up:
The rightwing group Alec is preparing to launch a new nationwide network that will seek to replicate its current influence within state legislatures in city councils and municipalities.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, founded in 1973, has become one of the most pervasive advocacy operations in the nation. It brings elected officials together with representatives of major corporations, giving those companies a direct channel into legislation in the form of Alec “model bills”.
Critics have decried the network as a “corporate bill mill” that has spread uniformly-drafted rightwing legislation from state to state. Alec has been seminal, for instance, in the replication of Florida’s controversial “stand-your-ground” gun law in more than 20 states.
Now the council is looking to take its blueprint for influence over statewide lawmaking and drill it down to the local level. It has already quietly set up, and is making plans for the public launch of, an offshoot called the American City County Exchange (ACCE) that will target policymakers from “villages, towns, cities and counties”.
The new organisation will offer corporate America a direct conduit into the policy making process of city councils and municipalities. Lobbyists acting on behalf of major businesses will be able to propose resolutions and argue for new profit-enhancing legislation in front of elected city officials, who will then return to their council chambers and seek to implement the proposals.
In its early publicity material, Alec says the new network will be “America’s only free market forum for village, town, city and county policymakers”. Jon Russell, ACCE’s director, declined to comment on the initiative.
Alec spokesman Wilhelm Meierling also declined to say how many corporate and city council members ACCE has attracted so far, or to say when the new initiative would be formally unveiled. But he confirmed that its structure would mirror that of Alec’s work in state legislatures by bringing together city, county and municipal elected officials with corporate lobbyists.“As a group that focuses on limited government, free markets and federalism, we believe our message rings true at the municipal level just as it does in state legislatures,” he said.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Parents STILL Fighting School Board's Decision in Montgomery County (Sound Familiar?)

11 Jun 2014 Written by  Melanie Balakit

Parents and residents are still fighting the construction of a cell phone tower on Benjamin Tasker Middle School land, expressing concerns about adverse health effects and a lack of policy transparency.

The Board of Education approved the construction of cell phone towers on public school grounds on Nov. 11, 2010, during a public meeting. The leasing master agreement between Prince George’s County Public Schools and Milestone Communications, the cell phone tower provider, was signed on Feb. 7, 2011.
Milestone selected 73 potential school sites, according to the leasing agreement. For each tower, Milestone would have to pay the Board a one-time fee of $25,000 and 40 percent of gross revenues generated from each tower built.  ( Note:  In DeKalb County, our school board did not even negotiate a good deal on the revenue side, agreeing to place towers for only a small lease amount that they are not allowed by contract to even attempt  with options to renew ONLY for T-mobile every 5  years.  Taxpayers were left on the hook for 30 year deals for what will be outdated technology at, most likely, closed schools that do not even need it for anything education-related now. )

No towers have been built yet, but the application process for individual school sites is already underway. Green Valley Academy of Temple Hills, Benjamin Tasker Middle School in Bowie, and Charles Carroll Middle School in Carrolton are among the first schools to be approved as sites for cell phone towers.
According to the county planning department, Milestone has not applied for a special exception because the county’s zoning ordinance does not require a special exception for monopoles built on public property standing less than 199 feet high. The tower proposed for Tasker Middle School will be 151 feet.
Deborah Lumpkins, director of Mothers Raising Sons and Daughters, said the Board of Education did not do enough to inform the community about the towers.

Lumpkins has three grandchildren at Benjamin Tasker Middle School. Lumpkins said she feels the Board of Education doesn’t have the public’s best interests in mind anymore.

“It’s all about their pockets,” Lumpkins said. “This is a sellout for them to make money for the school.”
According to the lease agreement the Board unanimously approved on Nov. 11, 2010, the Board gets paid $25,000 and 40 percent of the revenue generated from the tower. The school system declined to comment on how much the school itself will get. The leasing master agreement between the Board and Milestone was signed on Feb. 7, 2011, by former Superintendent William Hite.

Janis Sartucci, a member of the Parent’s Coalition of Montgomery County who has been assisting parents in Prince George’s County, said the Board of Education is still the land owner and must have the final approval on land use decisions.

“The Board of Education is trying to stay out of these decisions,” she said. “They want to hide. They are public officials and they don't want their names on these decisions.”

According to the 2010 Board policy, the Board had final authorization and approval for cell phone towers on public school grounds.  But in 2013, the Board of Education amended the policy and deferred authorization to the school system chief executive officer.  According to the 2013 policy, “the Board directs the CEO to implement and administer an administrative procedure governing the process for selection and authorization of sites for the location of wireless telecommunications facilities.”

Milestone gave a presentation about the proposed cell phone towers on public schools in Bowie in front of the Bowie City Council in early February. The council did not object to the project.

Bowie Mayor Frederick Robinson said the health threat “was not significant enough” to affect the decision. The installation of more cell phone towers is determined by consumer demand, he said.
(Exactly what criteria is he using to determine what is "significant enough" of a health risk in this case?)  

“It comes down to do you want a product or service?” Robinson said. “Then capacity has to be increased.”
Councilmember Diane Polangin said the construction of more cell phone towers is practical.

“Everybody wants to be connected,” she said. “People don’t want their calls dropped. Dear Lord, even elementary school kids have cell phones.”

Polangin said the location of the towers does not really matter.

“You don’t really notice them,” she said.
The invisible cell tower at Daly Elementary School in Germantown, MD

Ultimately, building cell phone towers on public school grounds is a school board issue, Robinson said.
“We reviewed the matter and deferred it to the school board – it’s their property, their issue,” Robinson said.

Eric Martin, a board member of Mothers Raising Sons and Daughters, said he strongly opposes cell phone towers on school grounds because of health concerns. Martin has a 12-year-old son who attends Samuel Ogle Middle School in Bowie, one of 73 potential schools in the county for building a cell phone tower.

“If they put a cell phone tower there, I may have to enroll my son in private school,” Martin said.
Lumpkins and Martin said they plan to raise awareness about the issue and petition against it this summer.
“If people don’t start talking, don’t start saying something, they’ll just make decisions without us,” Martin said.

Greenbelt resident Thea Scarato said she has similar health concerns.

“Schools should be a safe place, a safe learning environment,” said Scarato, a mother of a 9-year-old and a 12-year-old.

“I think every parent needs to be informed about this issue in order to make an educated decision or have an opinion on it,” Scarato said.

Scott Peterson, spokesman for County Executive Baker said Baker supports the school system’s decision.
“(Baker) is confident that the decisions the system is making are being made with the utmost concern for the safety and health of the students, faculty, staff as well as the surrounding community," Peterson said.

Get the Cell Out - ATL followers know very well about the nightmare being experienced by the parents and communities in this story from Maryland.  We have been going through the exact same thing in DeKalb County and we do not have much in the way of answers, either.  

Is the Mayor in the article above, who stated that there were no "significant risks" to the health of the children, now an authority in the medical field?  Has he relied upon independent research on the effects of RF on children?  (hint:  there are none.)  What studies did he read before he concluded that the risk was not significant because the World Health Organization's task force on this same issue reached a different conclusion.  The American Academy of Pediatrics is urging schools to use precautionary approaches to their decisions before switching to wi-fi networks.  Did the Mayor review anything from these authorities  or did he do exactly what the school board did in DeKalb County and simply rely upon industry-funded studies that will tell you whatever you want to believe?   

Is his statement going to be an acceptable answer to the child who develops leukemia as a result of his/her exposure to constant radiation, detected years from now after the Mayor and the School Board are no longer in their same seats, making claims that the risk is worth the benefits?  When we trade off a child's health as an acceptable risk in exchange for fewer dropped calls and a nice tax break for a commercial business, we can clearly see how education has gone downhill in this country.  

When  you cannot trust your school board to keep Possible and Probable Carcinogens from going up at a school, how can anyone expect you to trust them to make sound decisions on education?  Children must get an education in order to insure our society continues to grow and prosper.  Parents must make the best decisions for their children's needs at all times, based on what resources they have personally available and what public resources are available to them.

What other options do parents have in cases like these when their own elected school board members have determined that they will value money over health, and are willing to throw a  landmine into the path of the children who live in particular area or attend a particular school? 

As a parent, this trend of taking a risk for the "greater good" of the financial stability or, worse, for the restocking of the local slush fund account, is a disturbing one.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Dangling Tower Worker In Gwinnett Left Unconscious Until Help Could Arrive - Just Like Our Taxpayers Are Left Dangling by the DeKalb School System, Waiting For Answers

From the AJC:

GWINNETT COUNTY, Ga — A worker suffered a shoulder injury after a partial fall from a cell tower on Norcross Parkway Monday night.    (GTCO-ATL comment:  partial fall?  No, it was a real fall.  He was just fortune to have been wearing the proper safety equipment to prevent him from hitting the ground.)

Firefighters responded to the call and upon arrival, they said the man reportedly lost his grip on a climbing peg approximately 125 feet up the tower. He fell approximately 15-20 feet, hit the tower and was knocked unconscious. Witnesses say he eventually regained consciousness and was able to lower himself a short distance to an elevated platform on the tower.   (GTCO-ATL:  How long did it take for 911 to arrive and how much longer till they could reach him?)

A worker suffered a shoulder injury after nearly falling a
100 ft. from a cell tower on Norcross Parkway Monday night.
Officials say the man was part of a contract crew that was doing maintenance work on the tower. Two other workers on the ground called 911.

When firefighters arrived they were able to lower the victim to the ground with a harness. The man was transported to Gwinnett Medical Center for further evaluation of non-life-threatening injuries. The identity of the victim has not been released due to federal patient privacy law.  

(Is there a law that is preventing the family and co-workers as well as the worker from being able to tell the media about the dangers involved in this industry?  Is this type of emergency, potentially traumatizing to onlookers, not just to the worker, something young children should be exposed to by their own school simply because of a small amount of funding it might provide to an undisclosed fund back at the school board's main administrative office?  Contracts that could last for as many as 30  years, with the only out-clause being for the actual tower company and not the school system, are STILL in play with the DeKalb County School Board.  Even though it was two school boards ago and after a major upheaval in the system with the Governor having to remove the sitting board at the time, there are elementary and high schools in DeKalb County that STILL have no clue about their future because a loophole written into ONE contract could be forcing them to wait and worry without any answers.)

If you are concerned that YOUR neighborhood or YOUR child's school may be on a list being kept confidentially by the current school board and administration, please contact your current board member, or email the entire school board along with the Superintendent to inquire.   (EMAILS ARE BELOW.)  Copy us as so that we can help track and consolidate the responses.  We will never make your name or email address public unless you give us specific permission to publish your email.  Our children and our taxpayers who support these schools deserve to know what is really going on.  It  has been nearly THREE YEARS since the original contracts are signed.  

Why can't we have answers about whether or not cell tower contracts with T-mobile, which has stated publically that it is no longer in the tower business at all, will ever be put into full effect?

Don't your friends and neighbors deserve to know whether there is any further legal merit by which to keep them dangling, just like the worker was left on his own in this story until help could arrive?;;;;;;;;;;

Monday, June 9, 2014

Man falls to death from cell tower in Charlotte’s midtown area

By Steve Lyttle and Rachel Adams-Heard
Posted: Wednesday, Jun. 04, 2014

Davie Hinshaw - dhinshaw@charlotteobserver.comCharlotte-Mecklenburg police appeared to be focusing
attention on this cellphone tower. Police said the body
was discovered near the base of this tower,
at a construction site off South Kings Avenue.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police are investigating the death of a man who fell from a cellphone tower Wednesday morning in the midtown area near uptown.

Police said the body was found shortly after 7 a.m. by construction workers at a site between South Kings Drive and Cherry Street. That is near Charlottetowne Avenue.

Officer Jessica Wallin, a CMPD spokeswoman, said the case is a “death investigation.” Authorities at the scene said there was no sign of foul play.

The body was found near the base of a cellphone tower, inside the fenced-in site where an apartment building is under construction. It is unclear whether the man who died was working on the tower.

Police have not released the man’s name.

Read more here:

Friday, June 6, 2014

Who Saw This One Coming? Oh Yeah, We Did.

On Monday the proposal to increase graduation rates in DeKalb County will be revealed. Let’s see what the new school board has to offer. Here’s the Press Release:

ATLANTA – A press conference is scheduled in Atlanta Monday, June 9, to announce a public-private sector effort to increase graduation rates among students in the DeKalb County School District.

The press conference will be held at 2 p.m. at the Georgia Department of Labor’s (GDOL) state office building at 148 Andrew Young International Boulevard, N.E.

Among those scheduled to participate are DeKalb County School Superintendent Michael Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner Mark Butler, and Beth Shiroishi, President of AT&T Georgia.

Parking for news media will be provided in the ground level parking lot behind the office building.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Hidden Danger Planned for Candler Park!

AT&T rep details planned Epworth cell antenna
Posted by Ken Edelstein
FEB 28, 2014

If you live in the area described in this article and are opposed to the cell tower, contact your City Zoning Board (?) to register your complaint.  Inquire about the use of a Special Administrative Permit which typically does NOT allow for citizen input.  Why is the city or county not requiring a Special Land Use Permit?  That would be the normal process for land disturbances that require a non-approved use of land in a manner that it is not currently zoned to accommodate (or at least that is how it is supposed to work in DeKalb. 

Cellphone antennas inside a new, taller Epworth Methodist Church steeple could be completed and operational in as little as six months, according to the contractor who’s representing AT&T on the deal.

But the telephone giant is taking the process more slowly now that some community members have expressed concern about the facility, said Carolyn Gould, project manager for RETEL Services, a company that navigates siting and regulatory issues for cell antennas.

The larger image is a rendition of the Epworth steeple (with antennas inside) as it might look when complete. Current view is in the upper left corner. Image provided by RETEL Services. Gould agreed to appear with AT&T officials at a CPNO monthly  meeting to answer questions and receive input, but the date for that appearance hasn't yet been set.

“If it can work out, it can be beautiful,” she said of the project. She argued that the Epworth antennas would improve cell coverage within Candler Park, while at the same time relying on relatively low power and also being placed inside a tower that would be architecturally consistent with the existing church. “If you’re moving into a home and you have five bars of coverage, and you can’t see an  antenna nearby ... I cannot imagine that not being a benefit.”

The new steeple would rise approximately 100 feet from street level. It would house antennas for AT&T and possibly one or two other providers inside a special building material that allows the radiofrequency, or RF, waves to be transmitted. Ground-level equipment, which doesn't emit radio waves, would be housed behind a new brick wall adjacent to the rear of the church building.

Before construction starts, the project must complete a Federal Communications Commission registration process, which already has begun. That process includes a review by the state Historic Preservation Division to ascertain the impact on historic structures or districts.

The extended tower also would require a Special Administrative Permit for zoning through the City of Atlanta. The application for that permit requires an opportunity for Neighborhood Planning Unit review and comment, which appears to be the most likely route for public input from Candler Park residents.

From there, the project would need a building permit to proceed, and construction could be completed in as little as two months, Gould said.

“We’re almost ready to submit for zoning,” Gould said, “but I think we’re putting that on hold right now [because AT&T officials] want to solicit input.”

Gould said the lease negotiated between the Epworth board and RETEL includes an option allowing AT&T to back out of the project.

Meanwhile, some Candler Park residents — including parents at Epworth’s preschool — expressed anger Wednesday and Thursday that they hadn’t been consulted on the church’s plans earlier. They were particularly upset because reports of the lease broke just as parents were re-enrolling their children for pre-school. Epworth Dayschool Director Amy Zaremba did offer Thursday, however, to refund any enrollment fees to parents who were pulling their children out because of the antenna project.

At the heart of the parents' concerns are the positions of some researchers and activists that radiofrequency waves from cell towers pose health risks. While mainstream science and regulatory organizations do warn of possible cancer risks from RF waves emitted by mobile phones, they regularly note that even people who live near cellphone antenna are exposed to tiny fraction of waves compared to those emitted by normal usage of the phones themselves.  (GTCO-ATL Note:  Preschool students do not use cell phones.  This notation is completely irrelevant in terms of calming the nerves of concerned parents and is infuriating to some who would like to be treated fairly yet deal with typical canned responses such as this one that addresses nothing other than the degree of harm.  If the phone is MORE dangerous, then don't allow children to use the phone.  That doesn't mean the harm from the tower is an acceptable amount of harm - there simply is no such thing.)

The FCC, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society, the International Agency for the Research on Cancer, and other mainstream groups have not classified cell antennas as a cancer or health risk.   (GTCO-ATL Note:  The FCC is a technology driven agency, not experts in the field of medicine.  They simply determine if the tower emissions are low enough to not cause immediate heating of tissue. Most scientists now agree that heating tissue is not the only way it can be affected by RF and not the only mechanism that can cause harm.  

The FDA does not deal with RF as it was determined early in its commercial introduction to not fall under the typical food or drug categories as it is not something ingested.  They screen for known toxicants; they do not look outside of their jurisdiction and tell the FCC or EPA what to do.  

The EPA should claim control over this issue as it has become an environmental  concern, but that has not happened to date.  Groups such as the Center for Safer Wireless are active in lobbying for such a change right now.

  The IARC, under the direction of the World Health Organization can and did classify cell tower radiation (RF) as a class 2b carcinogen.  That is the same category as lead based paint, engine exhaust and the pesticide DDT.  

The American Academy of Pediatrics is a "mainstream" group and they have warned parents not to allow their children to use cell phones held next to their heads and to not expose them to the signal from wi-fi transmitters  or other sources of RF.  

Children are more susceptible to the risks as their bodies are still growing, their skulls are thinner and they will be exposed against their will to the highest levels of RF in their daily environment than any other generation of human beings for many more years than any adult making these decisions.   The greatest risk is being place on the segment of our population who have absolutely no voice in the decisions being made - the children.)

Submitted by Tania Wolf on Tue, 03/04/2014 - 11:01am.
We moved to Candler Park just last August and chose our house because of the proximity to the Church Preschool, Park, and Mary Lin elementary. It seemed like a family friendly neighborhood full of kids.

I am beyond disappointed that AT&T would target a church that houses a Preschool. And saddened that a Church would agree.

From what I understand, those who live within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile are at greatest risk of having potential health issues (this is based on field correlation studies – please let me know if you would like the link to them). Epworth Preschool, Mary Lin Elementary, Candler Park Playground, and many of our homes will be within this radius (and note there are still risks outside of this radius).

There is a ton of information available on the risks/safety of cell phone towers/antennas. For every study out there that shows they are safe, you can find a study that says they pose a health risk. Across the board, you will often find the studies reference data gaps or inconclusive results.

Cell phones (and cell phone towers) are still a relatively new technology. From what I have read, the long term health effects of living in close proximity can take up to 20 years to manifest themselves. This makes replicating the impacts in a laboratory study difficult, and also provides for limited field studies to date.

Given that the broad body of scientific evidence is still inconclusive, and that we just don't know enough about the long term impacts, I don't feel that we can definitively say that cell phone towers/antennae are safe, especially over the long term.

The AT&T Rep states that the tower will increase coverage. However, If you look at the AT&T coverage map, you will see that our community currently has adequate coverage.

In addition, if you look at the map of current cell phone towers, you will see that there are already several in close proximity to our community.

As an Epworth Parent, and Candler Park resident/homeowner who lives less than 200 yards from the Church, I am very concerned about this and would love to have it resolved so that everyone in the community wins. Not just AT&T.

Tania Thiele

GTCO-ATL Note:  Great job Tania!!  Ask the county commissioners about the use of a Special Administrative Permit as it is not a common process for tower construction. Good luck!

For more on this subject: