Ground Zero: DeKalb County

In 2013, when this video was compiled, Get the Cell Out - ATL and its varied partners throughout the county worked feverishly to help DeKalb communities protect their neighborhoods and schools.  Every person we met was shocked to hear about the plans to build these huge industrial structures right in the middle of residential neighborhoods, next to small children in their elementary schools, without a respectable explanation or opportunity to provide input into the process.

Schools should not be used as tax shelters for big businesses, regardless of whether or not they offer anything of value to the system.  Public schools are paid for by taxpayers for the sole purpose of educating the children.  To sublease the land right out from under the children is bad enough, but to do it without even respecting the local zoning regulations and safety ordinances put in place to protect people who live there defies the moral code of most real "persons" - even politicians in DeKalb.

We thank the commissioners, residents, students, parents and other advocates for safer wireless worldwide who have followed our story and helped us along the way.  As of today, it appears we have won a small battle for 12 schools in 12 neighborhoods in a growing megaopoly of the city of Atlanta.  But, just as this battle winds down, another picks up.

We invite you to follow our related blog called:  Save Tucker!  Our small town, outside Atlanta, with more than 122 years of history is being carved up by the state legislature and possibly set up for financial failure.  New cities are being proposed all around us and other cities are suddenly claiming annexation rights.  And, what's first on all their lists to take on in terms of start up services?

If you guessed "Planning and Zoning" then you would be correct!  And the city that started the trend?  Uber-rich Sandy Springs which was founded, in part, by a retired ATT executive.  And, the city movement that will supposedly "save" our own small town of Tucker?   Well, let's just say they have all the makings of a great "telecom" astro-turf group.  And, we should know.  We've been fighting them for years.  The fun will carry on a while longer...  so keep checking back here and on the Save Tucker! site, too!

Tower Climbers, Especially Subcontractors for ATT, Die at Rate 10 Times Higher than Construction Workers

Will a school in DeKalb be the next location where a

cell tower climber falls to his death or a wrench is dropped from 

100 feet in the air, killing an  innocent person on the ground

below?  Safety concerns are numerous when it comes to

placing cell towers so near the places where we live, work

and play.  Has the school board considered the liability 

that goes along with a faulty decision made TWO boards ago?

Is it even legal for a board to decide something that

isn't intended for action until they are safely out of 

the pubic eye? 

Cell tower climbers are dying in large numbers in order to build better cell service for the public --- a risky, high-pressure job that is necessary to expand America's cellular infrastructure.

Cell tower climbers are dying at ten times the rate of construction workers. PBS Frontline says , “People don’t understand what the danger is to tower climbing,” former climber Robert Hale says in the Frontline film. “One person drops a wrench, it’ll kill somebody.”

Untrained cell tower climbers work at the most dangerous job in the nation, climbing 400-foot high ATT towers that usually involves numerous layers of subcontractors. In a field with under 10,000 tower climbers, about 100 climbers have died with over half working on cell sites. In about five weeks, six cell tower climbers fell to their death --- three were on AT&T towers.

According to ProPublica, between 2003 and 2011, 50 climbers died working on cell sites, more than half of the nearly 100 who were killed on communications towers.

The United States has more active cell phones than people. According to CNN Money, a problem developed when ATT began to develop a reputation for dropped calls, unacceptable once they became the sole carrier for the iPhone.

Subcontractors became the answer for not only ATT, Verizon and numerous tower industries, but also service industries, retail, logistics and health care. Building new towers and installing new antennas by AT&T and other tower subcontractors continues to bring 3G networking to striving U.S. markets. But for better cell service and faster video and online games, tower climbers are losing their lives.

The problem seems to lie with subcontractors often contract out jobs to other subcontractors. Jobs are passed from one company to the next, with less ability to control the workers. Many subcontractors are not approved, but OSHA reports that there is "a pattern whereby ATT had significantly more deaths on towers that they were owning or renting than the other carriers."

Many of the crews he came across weren’t taking the most rudimentary safety precautions. “They didn’t have their hardhats, they didn’t have safety glasses, they didn’t have safety gear,” said Mark Hein, who has worked for several turf vendors as a construction manager. Many of the climbers lacked training certificates.

“Rather than paying this amount to this guy, who’s really qualified and … has a great reputation, they hire this person over here because he’s available right now and he’ll do it for what we want him to do it for,” he said. For the task of installing a remote radio head, the price sheet said, the carrier would pay the turf vendor $187 and the turf vendor would pay the subcontractor $93.

To prepare for the iPhone 3G's introduction, ATT poured millions of dollars in the summer of 2008 for its wireless expenditures. This meant an unprecedented scale of untrained tower climbers. OSHA considers cell tower climbers the most dangerous job in America.

“It was nuts,” said Dan MacRae, a project manager who has worked on cell site projects for several turf vendors. “We were working in the field for 40 hours straight. They had crews in rain, sleet, snow.”

Meanwhile, the building boom is continuously accompanied by one fall after another. On May 25, 2012, Plano, Texas-based Goodman Networks sent out a bulletin notifying workers of a mandatory safety stand down.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/330821#ixzz2SRAagLO2

BEWARE: Local Scammers Using False Information as Excuse for Gaining Your Personal Data

This message was received by GTCO-ATL from one of our followers who lives near the Margaret Harris Comprehensive School in Atlanta.  Please read carefully and report any such attempted scams to law enforcement or call 9-1-1.  Remember that 9-1-1 works faster and better from a LAND LINE, not a cell phone!

Fiber Optics at the schools are not in place so you can get
residential Uverse, according to what ATT told a recent
resident who had been approached by someone saying
they needed personal data.

Hey everyone, BEWARE: FALSE AT&T UVERSE REPS without credentials blanket our neighborhood collection personal information.

I just wanted to let you know that there are people going door to door in our neighborhood saying they are with AT&T Uverse starting out by saying "I don't know if you've noticed the installation of fiber optic cables in your neighborhood but...." then go on to try and collect personal information from you. The last step of this guise is to make a call to set up installation which the person calls on their cell phone to their 'manager' or 'installation office' to check to see if you have any outstanding utility bills...then they ask for social security number and credit card information. 

(... cont.)   The girl who came to my door is very nice, early 20's with auburn hair. 

After the incident, I called AT&T and spoke with several managers and they confirmed that they do not do door to door for anything. Their computers showed that they don't even service this area. So, unless all of the people I spoke with were dead wrong, then the people running around are scammers. 

I think someone is hitting the areas around these (proposed) cell towers.  Please circulate to others...I was under the impression that the fiber optic cables that were popping up around the schools was due to SPLOST money and their new technology. 

And this article ran recently in the Tucker Patch:

Elderly Women Tricked by Scammers(Two similar incidents occurred within days in the same area.)

• By Kevin Madigan
• Email the author
• April 24, 2013

A woman of 83 had jewelry stolen from her Tucker home by thieves who were pretending to help her.

Construction in the area is not a reason to give out
personal data to anyone going door to door.  Get the
name of their company and call them directly if you have
any doubts about their legitimacy.

 The victim's daughter, Linda Trotter, recounted the events in an email. "Thursday afternoon about 2:30 a lady came to the door and told mother she needed to show her the property line as they would be cutting some trees and limbs on the property behind (her house)," Trotter wrote.

"She... went with the lady through the gate and the woman proceeded to tell her about trimming her bushes and (that) they would pick up the debris and mess. After several minutes the woman walked with her back to house, thanked her and got in the passenger side of a black truck parked halfway up the drive and left saying they would be back about 3:30 to do the work." They never returned. 

Trotter says her mother did not know anything was wrong until later that evening when she realized jewelry had been taken from her bedroom. "Her Rolex watch, her oval diamond ring, a heavy gold necklace, all from my daddy, and her retirement diamond faced watch," she said.
The woman who tricked her is described by Trotter as being white and in her late 30s. Her mother is devastated and "feeling very vulnerable... and violated," Trotter said.

 Fox 5 is reporting a similar incident happened to another elderly woman in Tucker a few days earlier.

Watch Out, DeKalb. ATT is Getting Bigger

A huge cell tower and a dark, ominous storm cloud loom over an
ATT retail store in the Publix shopping plaza on Hugh Howell Road in
Tucker, GA.  Why is it that the cell towers made it onto the July 2011
ballot, but no one in the legislature wants to talk about them?
Where do we go from here?  

(click to read full story)

Wishful Thinking

We wish we could say that our schools and neighborhoods were safe from the intrusion of huge and ugly radiation spewing cell phone towers (like the one pictured here).  

We wish we could trust that our school board and school administration were focused on education, not securing themselves a nice slush fund while ruining our communities in the process. 

 But, we can't.  

That's why we continue to follow the clues that might help us stay out in front of them and their plans, and this latest announcement from ATT might be important.  (text included in article below this commentary.)

We've highlighted some of the pertinent content below in case you do not have time to read the article in its entirety.  But, even more importantly, you will want to check for any Alltel FCC permits that might be located near your home or school to determine if there are any old ones that ATT could have acquired along with the existing already-built towers.  Many times, these companies get the permits from the FCC and then sit on them for years before deciding to build.  Then, they can quickly get the special land use permits, or other land disturbance permit that is required by local law, and build without the public finding out.  

Normally, there would have to be a sign posted for 30 days at the location to alert the public about a hearing in front of the commissioners and Director of Planning in DeKalb County.  But, our county office is a bit distracted right now since the CEO Burrell Ellis had is home invaded a few days ago upon issue of a search warrant by a grand jury investigating problems with the Watershed Management Group.  And, remember, we were told that the school system can do whatever they want if the construction is for educational purposes.  

Superintendent Akinson's announcement about e-books could be a great excuse to claim an educational purpose, but it will not hold up in court.  Cell towers are not necessary to read content on a screen.  And there is no educational value to providing books in one format over another.  It's like saying do you want paper or plastic bags at the grocery.  Does it really matter?  

If she did try to show an educational value to this misguided decision, she would be hard pressed to find a school system that has improved as a result of going digital in any format, and certainally none the size of DeKalb.  In fact, in other states there are Attorney General investigations taking place right now to determine if there is criminal fraud taking place and there is definitely no educational benefit to the children when the money intended for their benefit is being stolen from them.  

The original 12 schools are mapped above.  Most of these T-mobile contracts with the school system appear to be expired, but the money has not been accounted for in any documentation we have been able to locate.  The only sites that still have contracts with valid expiration dates are Narvie J. Harris and Lakeside, but Lakeside's contracts is not signed by T-mobile so we are unsure if it is valid.  And the Narvie contract mentions "Panthersville" which is the nearby stadium that does look like it already has a cell tower, so we are not clear on whether there is actually one intended for the school grounds or not.

We Need Your Help, Too!

At Get the Cell Out - ATL, we are doing our best to keep our schools and communities informed about anything related to the cell towers, which voters said by a large majority that they did not want to see at our schools.  We believe there was more to the push for the towers than just the money or even the coverage at Lakeside.  We have been on a mission to find the answers and stay ahead of the game because we do not want to see a threat to our safety, property and health be another reason to drive good families away from our  area.  

Check for new tower permits near your address here:
http://antennasearch.com/

But, ultimately, we cannot do it all without your help.  So, if you live near a site that might have an old AllTell FCC permit, or you are not sure, or your school was on the original list of 12 targeted by the school board, then please take time as soon as possible to search the database at http://antennasearch.com/.  Plug in your address and you will see a list of towers within a four mile radius.  If you see one near your school, click  on it and it will tell you who owns that license.  This is the first step ATT will need before they can build.  So, the information you see will be the same thing they use to ask for a county building permit.  

Help Us Help You!

We can help you speak out at any public hearings in order to stop the permit from being issues, if such meetings are held.  But, first we have to know about the threat before we can determine the best course of action.  So, if you find that there are AllTel tower permits out there and they appear to be in residential zoned parts of the county, or right on public school grounds, please let us know as soon as possible.  You can send an email to: sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.  We have several attorneys we may be able to get you in touch with who are aware of this situation and can fight to stop the towers from going up near your home or school.

And, don't worry, this is one lawsuit that won't cost the school system since it is between you and the tower company.  And, your have the right to collect attorney fees under the FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996 so long as you bring forward your protest within the 30 day shot clock window that is mandatory before a building or land use permit can be issued.  

Now... on to the news....

From TechnoBloom Technology Blog:  

AT&T acquires Alltel network to increase coverage and speed

AT&T is one huge company and it has no problem buying small telecommunications companies to increase even further. According to a press release issued today, AT&T acquired Atlantic Tele-Network Inc’s retail business. The retail business actually operates under the Alltel Brand name. If you are not familiar with Alltel, the company has coverage areas in Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Ohio, North Carolina and South Carolina. The network is considered to be a CDMA network and is the same technology used by Verizon Wireless and Sprint. AT&T has plans to convert the CDMA towers over to GSM in order to increase the overall coverage they provide in those areas already.

Both AT&T and AllTel customers will benefit with better and faster data connections after the acquisition. Once the deal is complete, those consumers on the Alltel network will need to upgrade their phones to work on the AT&T network, but the company did not provide any specific details regarding that right now. The deal is set to be closed during the second half of 2013, according to the report and then other details will be revealed. AT&T will not be the first mobile company to own Alltel, in fact Verizon bought the company back in 2009.

When the deal with Verizon Wireless went through, the FCC made the company divest more than 100 markets. At that time, AT&T went ahead and bought up 79 of those markets, leaving just 26 markets, which AT&T is looking to buy now. If you remember early last year AT&T tried to buy the T-Mobile network which was blocked by the FCC and turned out to be a big issue for AT&T. AT&T was looking for more towers and more spectrums and since the T-Mobile merger was blocked, the company was left looking elsewhere for both.

Now that AT&T has dropped away from T-Mobile, T-Mobile has been looking to buy MetroPCS. Other companies like Sprint have been looking for easy ways to expand as well and is in the middle of a merger with Clearwire. On the other side of the world, Softbank in Japan is looking to buy the Sprint network, so you can see that mergers and acquisitions are nothing uncommon in the wireless industry these days.

Charter Schools: Dialogue Between Dumb, Greedy and Corrupt

Virtual Charter Schools? What the Amendment is Not Telling You.

(click headline to read more...)

 

Is this what you were expecting from the charter school amendment?

From The Tucker Patch:  http://tucker.patch.com
Posted on October 15, 2012 at 12:25 am

 

 

Are there people out there just waiting to start charter schools but somehow cannot get them approved? 

 
Are there really charter schools that can operate on only the state's portion of the funding?
Who are these people and what kind of schools are they wanting to open here? 
 
Changing the state constitution is a big request. Before we vote on Nov. 6, let's make sure we know exactly what is at stake. 
 
Here's one possible scenario:

"Gee, I wonder how we can start a charter school without a building or enough money to pay lots of teachers," says nonexistent person #1.

"Yeah, and the 13 other charter schools, dozen or so magnet and theme schools, IB program schools, technological schools and neighborhood schools are just not enough. By golly, I need another choice," says fictitious person #2.

"I have a solution," says slick dressed K-12 or "Connections Academy" or "Other New Online School" sales and marketing representative.

"Wow, you look really smart," responds bozo actor #1.

"That's because I am," says the K-12 associate with his General American dialect so as to not give any clue to the fact that he is from out of state, or even another country.

"Have you considered a virtual charter school? Here are some fancy pamphlets I just so happen to have on this high gloss, heavy weighted paper stock, so you know you can trust what is typeset onto its pages."

"Yeah, we thought about that," says well paid spokesmodel #2, "but our local board of education will never approve something like that. We tried and tried to get them to approve a school with a promise of less than 50% graduation rate and a high drop-out after less than a year attendance, but they didn't like that idea. And they have really low standards."

"We can appeal to the state board of education, but they keep telling us we are broke and need to close schools, not start new ones. I'm guessing they wouldn't overturn the decision."

"Looks like we're stuck with the multiple options to choose from that we already have now. Plus, all the church-based schools and community schools. We are in the Bible Belt, after all."

"Don't forget about the private schools, honey. And the home school options," says the Man #1.

"Oh yeah, that's right. We have those options, too. Plus a state run online school and a local cyber-academy."

"Awwwww.... that's too bad," says Mr. K-12 man. "I have an idea for a virtual charter school that I need to sell to someone stupid. I thought you might want to try convincing a bunch of parents who don't know any better and like the idea of free laptops to sign their kids up! Their moms or dads will likely be expected to stay home with them, of course."

"What makes your school better than others?"

"We were first."

"Oh."

(awkward silence)

"And we have better graduation rates than other online schools, but not as good as brick-and-mortar schools."

"Uh-huh."

(Man #1 and Woman #2 start to walk away. But then..)

"Say, did I mention that we make millions and millions in profit? And we hardly cost the school district a thing?" says desperate salesman from K-12. "As long as I can keep signing the suckers, errr... I mean, kids....up, we can keep hiding the actual churn rate of our attendance and bragging about our annual enrollment increases. The more I sell, the more money for me and my bosses."
"Wow, you must be rich!"

"Yes, but don't worry about that. Besides, I have to watch out for some pesky lawsuits coming from New Mexico and Virginia. Oh, and Florida, too, I think."

"Awwww, you poor, misunderstood salesman. It's tough out there, isn't it? Here, let me count how much money you might have in that wallet for me and my friend here. We might be able to help you out," says greedy snake in the grass #1.

"What's your idea, Jim Bob?" says idiot actress #2.

"Well, the way I see it, we can help each other," says paid actor #1. "I have this friend who is in the state legislature. You know, the people who make the laws n' stuff. I will tell him the problems with the local school board and ask if he can help me start a virtual charter school."

"Once he hears about all the money, he'll surely say yes!" says doll face #2.

"Right! And then he can pass a law that says that some kind of a fake, made-up, overpaid board of people can approve our virtual school. Then we can hire Mr. K-12 here to run it for us and we won't have to worry about things like walls, ceilings, or teachers. We won't need libraries, or a football team or even books.  Think of how cheap this could be!"

"Then how will the kids learn?" says suddenly concerned accomplice #2.

"Who cares? Didn't you hear the man say he make lots of money?" says childless man #1.

"Yeah, but... I don't...."

"If we get the state to appoint a board and let them approve schools, then we can probably get a bunch of money, too!! You know, just like they promised the PTAs that kept quiet about the cell towers. Come to think of it, what ever happened with all that ... "

"But the kids..."

"Ma'am, don't worry about the kids. They will be fine. If they do not keep up, we have friends in the private prison industry who will be happy to take them in. They also make lots of money. Not your kids, of course. Other kids. Ones you won't even see because the school is online, remember??" says drooling K-12 representative as he gets out the contracts.

"Oh, I see. But, won't this take money away from the other schools?"

"Yes, some of it, but we will take a lot of the kids away, too. So, that local group of elected folks will actually have fewer kids to pretend to be educating, until ours start dropping out, of course, and returning to their local schools. But we will have the funds up front. That's all that really matters to us. See, It's a win, win!"

"Except for the kids...."

"Yeah, yeah, the kids," says the man #1 as he signs the contract. "There's always THAT, but ... think of all the money! As soon as the plan gets rolling, you will have enough to put your kids in any private school you want, so who cares what happens to the charter after that? We'll be long gone before anyone notices that the drop-out rates are alarming, some of the teachers aren't certified, some classes have as many as 400 students in them at once, the money goes out of state to help a business stay out of Chapter 11, the people can't threaten to vote for a new board since they were appointed, or that the kids are only using their computers to play games and cyber-bully their friends. And, if one gets lost, dropped or stolen, their parents have to reimburse us for 3X what it cost us. Remember, this is GEORGIA. We're #49th in the nation for education. There is no way the people here would ever think of all of the possible outcomes. They are all stupid."

"Wow, honey, you are a genius."

"Yeah, I went to community college for a year before I dropped out."

"Do you think the people in Georgia might vote NO to Amendment 1162 on Nov. 6?"

"Not a chance. Remember, Mr. K-12 is putting lots of money into the advertising. And people here will believe ANYTHING with a fancy slogan. Remember 'Untie Atlanta'? Oh wait... well, that was different... this will be different. It's for the kids."

"Okay, if you say so. Thank you Mr. K-12!"

"Don't thank me. Thank your legislators for joining The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, so they can further the profit-generating ideas of big businesses like mine instead of protecting the rights of the people like they were elected to do. You can read about them here."

"And, we can thank our uninformed, easily misled or generally apathetic voters for not showing up at the polls even for a Presidential election," says smug man #1 counting his money.

"Yes, and thank you to K-12 and Connections Academy, T-mobile, ATT and all those sneaky little people behind the scenes who have quietly been laying the infrastructure to make this all possible while they thought we were not paying attention," says woman #2 as she books her plane ticket to Hawaii.

"Thanks are in order all the way around," says man in new leadership position of heading up a charter school for the kids #1. I can now say that I helped bring two great ideas together - profiting off the low achievement and lack of parental involvement in my community and a way to use technology to give the appearance of real education to an entirely new generation of families."

"And, by piggybacking off the national obsession with charter schools, we can use the good reputation of that phrase to trick voters into approving HR 1162 on Nov. 6. Funny how a country can be at war protecting freedom while at home they are willing to just give their rights away."

"Funny?"

"Well, not funny ha-ha. More like funny / sad."

The Devil is in The Detail (How the Cell Tower Votes Shine a Light on DeKalb's "Corridor of Corruption")

Wonder exactly how the cell tower vote shook out and whether or not your own community said they were for or against the idea of cell towers at schools? 

Read more by clicking the headline for the full story. 

On July 31, 2012 Georgia voters took to the polls in the election primaries. In Dekalb County, a question popped up on the ballot with little explanation:

"Should the local, charter or independent school system of Dekalb County place or operate a telecommunications tower on any elementary, middle or high school property?"

The phrase, "The Devil is in the Detail," refers to a catch or mysterious element hidden in the details.^[1]

While opponents  of cell towers on school grounds were happy when the outcome was a strong 62% of voters saying "NO," GTCO-ATL was wondering if there was more we could learn from the data.  So, we dug a little deeper. 

From the start, we were critical of the validity of any data that might come from this question. First, it was asking too many things at once which is a common error people make when they are not properly trained in survey data analysis or proper question techniques.  We tried to alert those who were responsible for the question, Rep. Karla Drenner and Rep. Chuck Sims, but they did not respond. We then asked Gov. Deal to not sign the referendum as it was vague, not necessary and did not come from the people. He signed it anyway.

So, we determined that even though it might not go our way, at least it would tell us a few things that could be beneficial.

1. First, any area that answered yes, or even close, could be an area that is uninformed of the dangers and problems a cell tower could bring. We could focus more effort with our PR there.
2. Second, if we felt there were areas well informed that still said yes, we might be able to see specifically where corruption was influencing the voters.  Why wouldn't we think a yes could be a sincere, honest vote? Because we have been at this for more than a year and have never met anyone who has thought it was a good idea. Even those who like to debate us on the blogs will not take a pro-cell tower stance.
3. The third thing we thought we would learn would be where these "rural" Dekalb areas actually are located where Mr. Cunningham said they "welcomed the towers." Going by the way things appeared in the media, the South regions wanted the towers and money, while the North was leading the protests against them.  What we expected was to see strong opposition regardless of the location.

But, oddly enough, here is how the vote shook out:

(click chart to enlarge)

Here are some questions we had:

• Are these areas (highlighted in yellow) actually ignorant of the dangers of cell towers?
• Is the difference of just a few percentage points even enough statistically to be concerned about or is it safe to say that overall the entire county was against the idea of placing cell towers on the public school grounds?
• Should the school board inform T-mobile about the few areas that skewed slightly in favor of cell towers so they can be the ones to receive them?
• Is there a chance that the very few areas that skewed in favor of the towers had some sort of "inside information" to reassure them that they would not actually be the ones to receive the towers? 
• Are the areas of the county that were not selected for tower placements not going to receive the cooresponding technology either? 
• What is the purpose of a "non-binding advisory referendum" anyway?  Why did state legislators create this alternative to the total ban on towers that the citizens wanted?
• What did they expect to do with the results of this referendum?
• But, who are we advising?  Who will listen? 
• Who will actually do something with these results?
• If no one is going to act upon this ballot question and it will not influence (or "advise") anyone in a decision-making capacity, then why did taxpayers have to pay for it? 
• Why did we even have to take our time and resources to educate people about the question, and its poor wording, if the outcome was for no viable purpose? 
• Or, as we suggested originally, was this question created for someone else?  Someone OTHER than the citizens?  Perhaps if the results would have gone in the favor of the towers, they would have used the results.  If that is the case, then shouldn't THOSE PEOPLE (or businesses) be the ones who should have paid for it?  Not the voters of DeKalb County. 
• Were we really successful in stopping the towers? 
• Is the school board aware that the contracts have expired?
• Why won't our School Board or our county CEO tell us anything?

We may never know for sure, but we plotted the districts marked in yellow, above, on a map of the voting precincts.  After studying the areas and their relationship to each other, here's what we saw. 

 

(We are working to get a scanned version of this map

uploaded here for you.  Check back soon.)

WHERE WERE THE YES VOTES?

1. A small number of Dunwoody communities, and a

2. A small portion of the Lakeside or Emory-Lavista "Corridor" of schools.  

Note:  Almost all areas in favor were ITP, or "Inside the Perimeter."

WHO COULD THEY BE?

Of course this is all speculation on our part, but there could actually be four types of "yes" votes in these areas:

1. Voters who are completely unaware of the issue (just like we once were before this started)
2. Voters who think tower radiation is harmless for children and therefore our public land should be leased to T-mobile without concern (we have not actually met anyone like this, have you?)
3. Voters who have been told to vote yes (by an employer or friend) and do so because they do not have a personal, vested interest in the outcome.
4. Voters who have spoken to their board member, believe they will not be receiving a cell tower and therefore they do not care if a tower goes up somewhere else.

Note:  It is important to note that none of the areas (in the chart in yellow) actually had a cell tower going up near them. 

Of course we have no way of knowing why people voted the way they did.  We cannot go back and review the votes to ask follow-up questions.  And, people who were unaware of the issue had no way of selecting "I don't know" or "unaware" as their response.  These are just a few of the reasons we asked the Governor to veto this bill, but he went ahead and signed it.

Dunwoody

Those who voted in the Dunwoody area may have done so because they were not faced with this issue at their local schools.  Dunwoody did not have any of their schools on the original or reduced list for cell towers.  Does this mean they do not get the technology, either? 

If cell towers are actually a means for distributing the material of a virtual charter school, did certain folks in Dunwoody already know about this concept?  They have been advocating on the School Watch Blog for separate school districts.  So, have they been promised a way that they can make this happen in return for supporting the cell tower idea? 

Do we have a case of ignorant, but financially well-off, neighborhoods where they do not follow school news?  Or is this a case of yet another area of DeKalb selling someone else's neighborhood out when offered something they want for themselves? 

Lakeside / Fernbank and the Emory-Lavista Corridor

That leaves only a few districts that were either divided in their responses or barely tipped the scales in favor of towers on school grounds. But, with the exception of Lakeside High School, these areas were not facing the possibility of a tower at their own neighborhood school, at least not according to our Open Records Requests to see their contracts. 

So, Lakeside High area again emerges as one sticking out like a sore thumb. The school that reportedly initiated the request to their district representative, Paul Womack, who in turn brought the item to the Budget, Finance and Audit Committee while he was the chairman. Lakeside High School wants a tower, and the money of 12 towers so the Vallhalla Group can "finish the dream."   And the rest of us must endure all the baggage that it means to get roped into this issue while they sit back and smile.

In the Oct. 1 meeting agenda, a donation was accepted to finish the Lakeside construction for an outdoor eating area.  Yes, you read that correctly....

Did people really just vote "yes" to radiating other people's children for 30 years in exchange for an outdoor pavilion so their kids can get a little sun while they eat their non-free, non-reduced priced lunches?  Tell us that is not what is happening here? 

Then again, Lakeside has so many towers in a four mile radius, one more could not have possible been what made the difference, could it?

It appears that everything is proceeding according to plan.   But, who's plan is this??

Protests Come From the "North" (But the Public Votes Yes?)

"South" Board Members Vote Yes, but the Public Votes NO? 

Don't you find it interesting that we saw bigger than life protests coming from the areas where many people voted to be in favor?  AND, at the other end of the county, in the areas where we were told they "welcomed the towers," we saw the largest portion of people who voted against it? 

Have you figured out that things are not always as they seem here in DeKalb? 

And, many board members publically stated that they would have voted differently if they knew then what they know now.  See our story on this subject, here.

The cell towerss are a great lesson in not judging a book by its cover.  Rather, we should be judging our school books by the fact that they will soon not have any covers, just screens.  Hell, we don't even have librarians any longer! 
 
Most important:  Most People in Most Places Across the County Said NO CELL TOWERS AT OUR SCHOOLS.  And, for those of us who agree, if it is not a good idea for my school, then it is not a good idea for any school!

But, these are just a few of the ideas we came up with.  We would love to hear what you think.  Email us at sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com and let us know!

We did it once, now let's do it again! 

Vote NO on the charter school ammendment this November!  This is NOT about charter schools!  It is about creating virtual schools under a sneaky initiative put forth by corporations seeking new ways to profit, NOT about our children or parental choice.

VOTE NO to changing the state's constitution! 

NO MORE CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORITIES!

Don't GIVE AWAY our power!  Let's Take it BACK! 

What can we do instead?  Start looking for well-qualified people to run for the School Board in the next election!  WE can do this if we keep working together!  Stick up for your beliefs!  Inform your neighbors!  Talk about what is happening so that others will not have to suffer the same thing happening to them! 

See you at the upcoming meetings!  (see our meetings page) Ask Questions!  Remain Alert!  Do not Trust those in power who have something to gain from you.  Seek advice only from those uninterested third parties or people whom you trust before acting upon anything you see or hear in this school system.   

 

 

For more info, watch "The United States of ALEC" here:  http://billmoyers.com/



 VOTE NO TO CHARTER SCHOOLS! 

It is time to STOP FEEDING THE BEAST!

1. ^ ^{a b c d} Titelman, Gregory, Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings, Random House Reference, March 5, 1996p

Some School Board Members change position on cell tower issue

Thank you to Crossroads News for bringing so much needed attention to this very important issue in DeKalb County.  We cannot thank the editor and reporters and everyone else involved enough for giving fair coverage of the controversy and helping expose the deceipt and uncover the truth behind the towers! 

We urge everyone who has the opportunity to vote in the runoff elections for Districts 4 and 6 to please do so, by absentee ballot (see www.dekalbvotes.com) or at the polls on Tuesday, Aug. 21. 

If Districts 4 and 6 do not elect new leaders in Jim McMahan and Denise McGill respectively, then these areas will both be vulnerable to the type of mindset that led to cell towers and a jobs program for friends and family.   If these voters re-elected the old guard, they will place their own communities at risk of lower property values, more waste, more programs to benefit the few at the expense of quality education for our children across the county, from the gifted to the disabled, from the wealthy to those in poverty, from the north to the south, and every child in between. 

Thank you for your "No" vote on cell towers.  Thank you for the much improved voter turnout.  Thank you for showing up to vote one more time so we can get this job done right!                      

                                                                                               - GTCO-ATL

From Crossroads on July 28 (prior to the election):

On July 31, DeKalb voters will be asked in a non-binding advisory referendum whether the school system should be allowed to place or operate telecommunications towers on school property. (And the answer was an undeniable "No.")

State legislators have been seeking ways to prevent the location of more cell towers on DeKalb Schools property after a July 11, 2011, vote by the DeKalb School Board to allow T-Mobile to locate 150-foot-high towers on nine school properties for up to 30 years. Seven of the schools are in South DeKalb.  (We disagree about this point as we believe the towers appear eqaully spread across the north, south and central regions, but it really does not matter as no one deserves to have a cell tower at their school or in their community.)


Over the life of the lease, T-Mobile will pay the school district just over $2.3 million in rent. (Approximately $1 million will be paid up front through bonus payouts and the initial year's rent.  The low annual payments afterwards will take the next 30 years before another $1 million is gained.  None of these amounts take into consideration that property values will likely be lowered as much as 20% for homes in sight of a tower as a result and should be factored into any cost/ benefit anaylsis.)

Construction of the first cell tower is expected to begin in August.  (Construction is dependent upon receiving county permits, either via Special Land Use Permitting with the county commissioners and the Office of Planning and Sustainability or though an Administrative Permit through the Office of Public Works or the CEO directly. GTCO-ATL is hopeful that neither will be possible after the results of the referendum are taken into consideration.)

The measure passed in a 7-2 vote, with District 7 board member Donna Edler and District 1 board member Nancy Jester voting against it. (Actually, it was 6 - 2 - 1 with Tom Bowen, who was board chairman at the time, absent even after speaking to the WSB-TV news about the vote live on the 11 p.m. news the previous night. So, that means Womack, Walker, Cunningham, Copeland-Woods, Speaks, McChesney voted in favor.)

Twelve schools were originally on the list, but three were removed after parents and the community around them raised concerns about health risks. (We also raised concerns about the improper notification, property values and safety risks.)   Board members said they didn’t hear about other communities in opposition until after the vote was taken.  Opponents in other areas said they didn’t find out about the cell tower proposal until after the School Board vote.

Here’s how School Board members say

they’ll vote on the cell tower ballot question:

Nancy Jester (District 1): Voting no.

“I feel it’s a good neighbor issue. I wouldn’t want someone to vote to put a tower next to my house so I’m not going to vote to put a tower next to somebody else’s house. It’s also a distraction, and it has nothing to do with educating children.”

(At the time of the vote, she also pointed out the absurd length of the contract, the lack of time to study the financials, the poor disclosure to the public and concern that other schools may have objections, like the three that were removed.)

Donald E. McChesney (District 2): Voting no.

“I wouldn’t support putting the cell towers on school property, not when the community says they don’t want them.” 

(And, he did make the ammendment that removed the three schools that spoke up in opposition prior to the vote.)

Sarah Copelin-Wood (District 3): Voting no.

“There are pros and cons about it. Some say it won’t cause lasting effects. Why take the risks when we don’t know quite yet whether there are health effects.”   

(She did speak up for one of the schools in her district and they were removed prior to the vote.)

H. Paul Womack Jr. (District 4): Undecided.

“You get more radiation from your handheld cell phone and microwave and walk-around phone at home than from cell towers.”

(He is the person who brought this idea to the board in the first place.  He says it was a direct request from his supporters at Lakeside High School who stated they wanted a tower to help with cell reception.  He did not return calls or emails from people in other parts of his district who were seeking information about the proposals before the vote.  And, he did not acknowledge several schools as even being in his district.  He did not inform his own neighborhood.  And, even now, he will not explain or defend his own decision to bring this burden to our schools at a time when the board should have been focused on finding a Superintendent and brining up achievement after fallout from a teacher cheating scandal and recent school closures.  He also should have been paying attention to his role on the Budget Committee, which made cuts at the time that we are only now learning were never made at all and have left our system broke, or so we're told.)

Jesse “Jay” Cunningham Jr. (District 5): Voting yes.

“We have schools that don’t have wireless and it’s going to give us a chance to put wireless in the schools and move them into the 21st century.” (Cell towers are not necessary for wireless in the schools.)

Thomas E. Bowen, vice chair (District 6): Voting yes.

“I am supportive of cell towers and each time, we should take it back to the community to say yes or no.”                                               

 (He's not quite as supportive as what he might like you to believe.   He was absent from the board meeting where the vote took place after being upset the evening before when he was contacted by a local TV station, WSB-TV, and asked to give a statement about the board's position on cell towers and the lack of notification that was being claimed by some upset residents.)

Donna Edler (District 7): Voting no.

 “We are not in the cell phone business.”

 (Ms. Edler was kind to return our calls initially, unlike Mr. Womack.  She claimed to be voting no at the time due to her past battle with cancer.  She voted "No" on the ammendment to remove three schools, but also voted "No" on the final vote to put towers at 9 schools.  She also made an ammendment to remove all schools except Lakeside High and Briarlake Elementary whom she believed wanted the towers.  It did not pass.  Later, Briarlake became extremely vocal in their protests against the vote having taken place over the Summer without proper notification of the community that would be affected.)



Dr. Pamela A. Speaks (District 8): Voting no.  She also said she would probably vote “no” if she could redo her School Board vote that approved the placement of towers at 12 schools.

“I probably wouldn’t vote for it because it’s not an educational issue. The school system has enough educational issues. We would have been better off not tackling this at all.”  (Dr. Speaks did return our phone calls and asked the questions we had before voting on the issue back in July 2011.  She was unfortunately given bad information which led her to believe the schools on the list wanted the towers.  Overall she acted responsibly on behalf of those who elected her to office.  She also believed that Lakeside wanted the towers.

Dr. Eugene P. Walker, chair (District 9): Voting yes.

“I would strongly vote for it [as a board member] today because I think that’s a way to help get kids into the 21st century. Cell towers are the vehicles we use to help us better communicate. I clearly don’t believe, according to the appropriate national authorities, that there’s a serious health risk.  I think we need these cell towers. I would hope the schools would benefit from them and get discounts on Internet and all these types of communication we’re moving toward.”

— Compiled by Donna Williams Lewis and Jennifer Ffrench Parker. (with comments added by GTCO-ATL)

Read more: CrossRoadsNews - Some School Board change position on cell tower issue

So, if we hed to do it all over again ...

that 6 - 2 - 1 vote a year ago July

was our school board in favor of towers...

would more likely be a 3 - 5 - 1 vote today,

with our board voting against the towers...

Great job DeKalb!  Not only did we get the word out to our neighbors and the county,

we changed the minds of the decision makers, too!

T-mobile has stated that they will not build where they are not wanted!
It's looking more like a county united AGAINST the towers every day!

Email, write and call the CEO Burrell Ellis and let him know that we do not want T-mobile to receive county permits in violation of our county ordinances for towers at our schools!

Use this feedback form:
http://www.burrellellis.com/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3


Or use this contact information:

Email:  Burrell@BurrellEllis.com
Home Phone:  770-469-5948
Snail Mail: PO Box 1483, Stone Mountain, GA 30086

VICTORY! NO to Cell Towers on School Grounds!

(click headline for full story)

YES!   YOU VOTED NO! 
THANK YOU DEKALB COUNTY VOTERS! 

71,690 VOTERS HAVE AGREED SO FAR! 
NO CELL TOWERS ON OUR SCHOOL GROUNDS!

VICTORY BY 60% OR MORE!

DeKalb Voters Say No to Cell Towers on School Property
Article below from The Patch
By Jonathan Cribbs
1:02 am

DeKalb County voters said they don't want cell phone towers on public school properties Tuesday.

In a nonbinding resolution – part of Tuesday's primary election – more than 60 percent of residents voted no to the question: "Should the local or independent school system of DeKalb County or a charter school in DeKalb County place or operate a telecommunications tower on any elementary, middle or high school property?"

Of 114,804 votes counted early Wednesday morning, "No" took 71,690 votes – all preliminary returns. More than 5,000 absentee ballots have yet to be counted.

The resolution will have no legal bearing on whether the DeKalb County School System continues to pursue construction of cell phone towers on school property. The school system upset a number of school communities in north and south DeKalb County last year when they agreed to let T-Mobile build nine cell phone towers on school properties across the county for up to 30 years.

************************
NEXT UP:  MAJOR CONCERN FOR LOCAL TOWER WORKERS IF T-MOBILE DOES NOT BACK OUT OF THE CURRENT DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOLS CONTRACT

The Resolution May Not Have Legal Bearing,
but it has a Moral Lesson That Should Not be Ignored

And, that leads us to the next order of business... the nine approved schools that have now been reduced to eight total signed lease agreements... when will T-mobile get the message that we do not want them to build cell towers on our school grounds?  When will they exercise the "out clause" that only they can do and escape any futher financial obligation to the school system as the inability to gain a permit is a just cause for the lease termination.  They wrote the lease, so they likely expected that it might be possible to get this far and have to back out.  So, what are they waiting for?

And, we need more than just a promise from our current board of educaiton that they will not entertain these cell tower offers again.  If Montgomery County, MD, can get a resolution passed by their board, then so should we!

If they plan to build eight or nine towers before school starts on Monday, Aug. 13, that sounds like an impossible timeline.  And, in fact, T-mobile and ATT are actually well-known for trying to pressure their workers to make unrealistic deadlines.  That pressure has led to many tower workers losing their lives trying to meet the demands of their $10 - $11 / hour job.  For more on this subject, see the in-depth article titled:  In Race For Better Cell Service, Men Who Climb Towers Pay With Their Lives.

Tower climber Jay Guilford poses atop a cell tower. He was one of 11 climbers to die while working on AT&T jobs during a wave of cell service expansion from 2006 to 2008. Photo courtesy of Bridget Pierce.

What can we do to make sure our local construction crews are safe?  We must continue writing and calling the office of the CEO, Planning & Sustainability, Public Works and our County Commissioners.  We have to tell them to put an immediate moratorium on all cell tower construction countywide so that it will not be possible for the towers to go up in an unrealistic time frame. 

And, if the permits are not in place, we need to ask our represenatives to tell us the truth - will these permit applications be accpeted?  Will there be a chance for public comment?  What is being done to disucss alternative methods of provding service to our county WITHOUT having to take up valuable school grounds and pay off our corrupt school board members?

If the ballot question was writen by the telcomm industry and its lobbyists, then we are very proud to see that their plan to find out where the opposition might be located has backfired.  Instead, it will show us where there may be corruption and that, when motivated to work together, our county CAN come together for the sake of our children!


"We're so proud of everyone who helped make this happen!  Good job DeKalb County!  We will continue to fight to see that your rights are protected and your voices are heard!"

-- Cheryl and Paul Miller, Founders, Get the Cell Out - Atlanta