Company Agrees to Relocate 300 Cell Towers Due to Health Complaints

GTCO-ATL Notes:  As our county commissioners determine how to please the public without feeling the wrath of the telecommunications industry, this article from India seemed to be very appropriate.  A large telecom there is being forced to take down 300 towers and relocate them outside of any residentially-zoned communities.

Just like we told you when Canada started paying to have the wireless in their schools ripped out while we were just beginning the discussion about whether or not to put wireless technology into our schools, it's high time our elected officials start paying attention to the fact that there is a whole big world out there.  They don't have to decide everything while living in a vacuum.  Most of the things happening to us here have already happened to others elsewhere.  

It only takes a short moment to find stories, like the one below, where the "bad ideas" we all know should not be made, but government makes them anyway, turn out and bite us in the end.
We either need better elected officials, or we need a full time research staff that can advise them of how their brilliant ideas have worked (or not) elsewhere before they just plow straight ahead.  

MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013

Author:  Nina Kuhmar

NOIDA TO RELOCATE 300 MOBILE TOWERS

In the wake of health risk posed by mobile phone towers, the Noida Authority has decided to relocate all such antennas from residential areas of the city. The authority will identify locations in isolated places — far from residential colonies — where they will be relocated.
There are over 300 such towers that need to be relocated. The recent move of the authority has been initiated after court's direction to allocate mobile towers at isolated locations rather than sealing them.

The officials of the Noida Authority said that earlier they had planned to seal illegal towers, but they are working now on the guidelines of Allahabad High Court, which has ordered to shift all such towers from residential sectors to other places.

A building in India will soon have to take its towers down as
residents of nearby apartments prepare to file lawsuits stating
their health issues were caused by their living conditions.

"We have ordered the officials to conduct a detailed survey and figure out alternate locations so we could ask mobile tower operators to shift their existing towers to those places. We have also ordered to get rid of the towers from institutional and hospital structures with immediate effect and shift them to other places," said PK Agarwal, Additional CEO of Noida Authority.

In a meeting of senior officials of the Noida Authority recently, the officials planned to shift these towers either to community centers at various sectors or at sparse places so radiation from these towers could not affect the local people.

The officials also decided to stop mobile tower operators from installing more towers in residential areas as city already has around 600 mobile towers for the population of seven lakh. During the meeting, it was also planned to eliminate towers installed atop hospital and institutional buildings.

According to the survey conducted by the Noida authority and city police last year, it was found that out of 600 mobile towers, 300 towers were illegally installed on the roofs of residential units. Twenty per cent of the towers have been illegally installed over institutional and hospital buildings.

In a 2010 sealing drive initiated by the authority, 200 towers were sealed from residential areas.  Meanwhile, the Federation of Noida Residents Welfare Association (FoNRWA) has also written to Noida authority seeking removal of mobile towers from the roofs of residential units.

“As residents are suffering from various health disorders due to high radiation from these towers, we have urged the competent authority to take penal action against the companies responsible for their wrongdoing,” said NP Singh, president of FoNRWA.

Please leave respectful comments below:

Can a Cell Site’s Neighbors Use Diminution of Property Values as Substantial Evidence? Here’s a Federal Decision That Says “Yes”

Reprinted from Plan Wireless website: http://planwireless.com/wellington.htm

Conceled cellphone tower sites.

(click headline for full text.)

Plan Wireless is a consutant group that helps cities and counties plan their wireless, negotiate their leases and make the best choices.  http://planwireless.com/thepw.htm

The Village of Wellington is a high-end community in a high-end county: Palm Beach County in Florida. Metro PCS (a regional carrier) used a site acquisition consultant to propose a “stealth”[1] flagpole on a golf course.

The Village of Wellington, “based on objections by the residents, refused to issue a permit to construct the pole. The residents’ primary concern, voiced at a June 2003 meeting, was the impact the pole would have on the value of their property.”

The neighbors argued that they would not have “purchased their homes if the pole was present and a local realtor testified the pole would adversely impact home resale values.”

The site acquisition consultant (Mr. Linet) countered, stating:

these objections amount to an impermissible pure aesthetic or “not in my back yard” objection. He (Linet) maintains that the only factually based testimony was provided by two non-residents. The first, an executive director of another telecommunications facility that had constructed a similar cell site after resident opposition, testified that the pole would not adversely impact property values. The second, a real estate appraisal executive, provided similar testimony based on a study involving condominium sales in Boca Raton, Florida.

While the site acquisition consultant raised other claims, he was essentially denied on all of them at the District Court level.

The site acquisition consultant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit Court upheld the district court on all counts. The three-judge panel found that:

Our cases highlight that a common objection residents have to the construction of a cell site is that it detracts from the aesthetic appeal of the community. See, e.g., Am. Tower, 295 F.3d at 1208; Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2002). A blanket aesthetic objection does not constitute substantial evidence under (the Telecommunications Act of 1996).

This is why Kreines & Kreines, Inc. recommends that “aesthetics” not be used as a word or as the basis for a denial in cell site decisions.

But the Eleventh Circuit goes on to say:

• Aesthetic objections coupled with evidence of an adverse impact on property values or safety concerns can constitute substantial evidence.

Further, the three-judge panel found that the district court held correctly that the Village’s decision to deny Linet’s permit was based on substantial evidence received at the June 2003 hearing. We have held that the “substantial evidence” standard is the traditional substantial evidence standard used by courts to review agency decisions.

The Village met this standard. It heard objections from residents and a realtor concerning the cell site’s negative impact on real estate values.

More importantly, the court noted the site acquisition consultant’s “expert testimony contradicting the adverse property value impact concerns was provided by a telecommunications executive who placed a tower in a different part of the community and a realtor who based his knowledge on condominium sales in a different county. This does not change our conclusion. The residents were worried about the impact of this tower on the golf course within their community, not a different tower, different location, or different community.”

PlanWireless has identified two other cases where property values were shown to be diminished by a proposed cell site. But no case so clearly indicates that aesthetics alone is not a valid concern. However, when coupled with property values, the concern may be substantiated for purposes of denying a cell site.

So, what do we learn from this case?

· Aesthetics by themselves do not constitute a valid issue.

· Property values, when coupled with aesthetics, are a valid issue.

· Residents and realtors can testify as to property values and their testimony can constitute substantial evidence.

Kreines and Kreines, Inc. often hears from appointed and elected officials: “Don’t testify regarding diminished property values because we don’t want to hear it and it won’t influence us.” Well, that’s fine; but if it influences the courts, shouldn’t local governments consider the property values argument?

Finally, your local government may encounter the attitude: “Don’t tell us about Florida and the Eleventh Circuit. That’s a unique state and we’re not in the Eleventh Circuit. There is no such thing as ‘parallel precedent,’ so what they find doesn’t influence our courts.” PlanWireless is not a lawyer’s newsletter, and Kreines & Kreines, Inc. is not a law firm. But every case at the federal appeals court level has borrowed decisions on cell site issues from other circuits. Except for the Abrams v. Rancho Palos Verdes, the Supreme Court has yet to deal with telecommunications issues regarding wireless and Abrams was solely concerned with collecting damages.

This case, which is known as Michael Linet, v. the Village of Wellington is important for all local governments in the U.S.

___________________

[1] Kreines & Kreines, Inc. advises clients not to use – or accept – the term “stealth” in an application. “Stealth” means sneaky, which may be acceptable for the industry to admit to, but not befitting the open decision process of local governments.

Drenner Legislation May Stop Cell Towers at Schools in DeKalb County

Drenner (D) -
DeKalb County
State Representative

(click headline for full story)

A hearing was held yesterday, 2/21/12, by Representative Karla Drenner (D) - Avondales Estates - to gauge the public support or opposition to proposed legislation that would limit or ban cellphone towers from being constructed near schools and daycares in DeKalb County and statewide.  Drenner stated she planned to introduce both a local and state bill next week, but she will need her fellow legislators to approve the placement of the issue onto the agenda for this term.  Of the 60 or more people in attendance, all were in favor of the idea of legislation on the issue.  There were only two people who were in attendance to represent the viewpoint of the telecommunications industry and their statements were not really geared toward the specific issues being faced in DeKalb County.

A good play-by-play of this hearing was logged live by Jonathan Cribbs from the Briarcliff-Druid Hills Patch.  You can read it here:  http://northdruidhills.patch.com/articles/live-cell-phone-towers-hearing-in-atlanta.  You can practice the art of patience while you wait for a brief video commercial before the article is displayed.

A packed house at the Coverdale Legislative Building where
DeKalb residents showed up in strong unity to support
Rep. Drenner's proposed legislation that will directly
impact the placement of cell towers, keeping them away
from schools and daycare centers.

The issues discussed at the hearing are nothing new for those who have been involved in this controversy, thanks to the decision made 10 months ago by the DeKalb School Board while in the midst of interviewing canidates for the Superintendent position.  In fact, the issues being discussed are not really new anywhere.  See this article from a county in Baltimore that was going through the exact same thing.  Only difference?  This article is from FOUR YEARS AGO! 

But there was something new for DeKalb County that came out of this meeting - unity.  Perhaps more important than what was said was the convening of all these groups of concerned residents into one room. 

Be Proud, One DeKalb!
If you took the time to look around and see who was represented, you would be proud to be a resident of DeKalb County.  There were quality citizens present from every community and every neighborhood affected by this issue.  Every school, every age group, every socio- or economic group came out to attend this hearing.  And it was clear that every child who might be affected by the unwelcomed and unannounced intrusion by T-mobile at his/her school was represented in some way by at least one adult in that room.  And every single person sounded sincere and ready to take action in order to stand up for his or her rights, the rights of the children and the rights of each other.  In a county that may be often divided in its politics and is known as being the most diverse county in the state of Gerogia, there was a common and united bond that could be heard through the words that were spoken, and witnessed by the silent nods of approval for one another, the polite and supportive "golfers" claps for the speakers and the actions of those in the room.  If one were able to contain the feelings of outrage and betrayal and make them somehow civilized and well-mannered, that is what you would use to describe the feeling in the room at the Coverdale Legislative Building.

Perhaps the silver lining to this issue will be the combining of forces within our county to achieve a common goal.  As each person got up to speak, every other person in the room listened and understood.  We all recognized that we are on the same path.  We all recognized that we share the same concerns.  And we validated these concerns for one another.  Many of those who spoke did so with compassion and intelligence and everyone sensed the fact that the interests of all involved were being considered by Rep. Drenner.

It was almost like a support group meeting, or perhaps just a group of citizens who realized for a moment that we are all more alike than we are different.  And we can all spin our wheels letting the system work us over and spit us out.  Or, we can join forces and take back the rights that belong to the people in the first place.  If we can work together, we can stop these cell towers.  If we can work together, we can stop other cell towers from going up in other neighborhoods, or perhaps even set a precedent in our state.  We can work together to put the welfare of children first and show our leaders that we do not want them to place their quest for funding above all other needs.  As the members of the group CHASE were there to represent, we all have rights to live and raise our children in an environment that is both safe and healthy. 

We noted the following groups represented at the hearing: 

• Get the Cell Out - Atlanta (countywide opposition group started by parents from Brockett),
• Briarcliff Heights Community Action Group (started by residents of the community near Margaret Harris Center),
• Briarlake Elementary School (ties to Lakeside High),
• Jolly Elementary School, Medlock Elementary School, 
• Concerned Citizens of South DeKalb (Narvie J. Harris, MLK High School, Flat Rock Elemenary),
• NAACP (including ties to Princeton and Smoke Rise),
• Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter (ties to Jolly and Smoke Rise),
• Martin Luther King High School,
• Citizens for a Safe and Healthy Environment (CHASE) (ties to Morehouse College,
• The Georgia Green Party (on behalf of all schools and neighborhoods),
• Private Citizens Also in the Medical Community, Education / Instruction Community and the Legal Community,
• The Champion press,
• The Braircliff-Druid Hills Patch, The Tucker Patch, The Stone Mountain Patch, The East Metro Patch,
• WSB-TV and Radio,
• The AJC,
• DeKalb School Watch,
• The Georgia Telecommunications Group and
• T-Mobile. 

Notably absent from the hearings were any official representatives from the school PTAs or except for Brairlake Elementary School, any representatives from the DCSS or the DeKalb County Commissioners.

Reasonable People.  Reasonable Requests.
No one was anti-technology or even anti-cellular communication.  Everyone was in favor of setting reasonable limits to protect our investment in our homes and the health of our residents and children. 

The idea that an urban location, such as Atlanta and any of its suburbs, can claim that towers are needed is a distortion of the truth.  In all urban communities today, there are ample towers to provide access to cellular services.  There is no part of the law that states that every carrier must have 100% coverage in all areas or that they must be allowed to expand based on the load or demand that is placed upon their particular network at various times of the day. 

They are not obligated to sell to every person who wants to buy from them.  Just like a restaurant is not obligated to serve a meal to every person who shows up at their door when they are already seated at maximum capacity.  The towers that are in place right now in our county provide adequate coverage for voice communications and data transmissions, like texting and basic Internet access.  Of the five major providers, all have the ability to use the existing towers and provide continous availability of the basic service to their customers without interruption.

In fact, all school locations being considered already have at least 20 towers in the near vicinity.  Some have far more towers, such as the Margaret Harris School which has nearly 155 in a four mile radius already!

The problem is not about "need" for towers.  The issue is about the desire and greed of the telecommunications industry to provide customers with the ability to do more with their wireless devices so they can charge higher rates for their services, regardless of whether the features they are adding are anything the customers have asked for or even considered.  It is the large data demand they are consciously placing on their own networks that is leading to the consumption of space the towers can accomodate, such as streaming of live video or ability to watch a movie wirelessly on a mobile device in high definition. 

In short, the new towers T-mobile wants are 4G wireless technology towers that we are not even using currently.  There is no "need" or demand on the consumer side of the equation.  These towers are not about making phone calls.  And, if they were subjected to the standard process for permitting of cell towers, they would likely not be allowed as they are non-compliant on many issues that the zoning committee would typically oversee, such as setback requirements of 200 ft. from any home or building.

The claim that the towers are needed for 911 service is completely inaccurate as all cell towers are required by law to be 911 cell towers.  The 911 service is set up to operate on a totally different frequency that regular cellular transmissions, something that resulted from the tragedy of Sept. 11 when police and fire crews had difficulty using their communication devices due to the demand placed on the cellular networks due to family and friends trying to place calls into and out of New York City. 

The claim that the schools need the towers to operate their wireless devices is also untrue.  The way many people have wireless service in their homes can also be set up in schools.  The data connection is secured through a standard phone line or cable connection and then a wireless router deploys the signal inside the building.  Cell towers are not only not needed for this type of wireless setup, but they are also less secure and therefore not the top choice when looking at an IT solution to allow the use of wireless devices inside an office building or school.  Of course, the only "safe" way to transfer data in a school is through a wired solution, something we have urged the board to consider.

Chance for a Temporary Moritorim (Halt) on All Cell Tower Construction?
If Drenner is successful at getting her proposed legislation on the agenda for consideration, Attorney Lauren Staley, who lives near the Margaret Harris School in Atlanta, stated that she believed there would be grounds to call for a moritorium on all cell tower construction while the issue is being decided by the legislature. 

That could be enough relief for the current schools to halt the plans of the DeKalb County School Board to have construction begin as early as next month.  Staley and her husband Joe Staley are leading their neighborhood opposition and speaking up for the children who attend their local school which is specifically for the county's most severely disabled children, both mentally and physically.  Many of these children have coclear implants, hearing devices that can be damaged permanently from the radiofrequency waves emitted by cell towers.

While in the hearing, a member of the audience read information from an email, presumably from the county permit department, that indicated April would be more likely of an expected timeframe for the permits to be approved.  That means we could see the start of construction sometime in April, or more likely in May, after school is out for the Summer.  It will be a full year since the first cell tower public meetings.  As of today, no permit applications have been made public and the county commissioners are unilaterally denying that this issue falls into their jurisdiction to approve.

So, if the the county is not reviewing the cell tower plans, then who is?  These structures are very complicated and dangerous, especially when placed so close to homes and schools.  GTCO-ATL has uncovered evidence that the plans submitted by T-mobile to not meet current industry standards for the base plate and pole mount evaluations, making them more suspectible to falling over in high winds.  Who will monitor the towers after they are built?  Who will ensure they do not exceed the FCC recommendations for safe emissions to protect human life as well as animal and plant life in the areas near them? 

And, the vote that took place in July by the school board was preceeded by discussion of the fact that other communities might be unaware of the issue.  It was discussed that those folks would have an opportunity to voice concerns at the public zoning meetings, but those meetings never took  place.  Instead, the county is stating that the school board is exempt from county zoning laws and they have no oversight or control.  It is the opinion of GTCO-ATL that the exemption does not apply when the school is leasing its property for commercial activity.
The FCC standards for cell towers are sorely out of date.  The FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the standard by which today's technology is being judged, but there are vital issues we face today that were not taken into account 15 years ago.  Cumulative effects of radiation are not accounted for in this Act when judging the necessity or safety of a proposed tower.  Just because the tower itself gains approval for emissions under the regulated standards (which are still far higher than in other countries, esp. those that subsidize their own healthcare systems), does not mean that a person or child at ground level is not being exposed to levels above FCC standards. 

Pres. Bill Clinton signed the FCC Act of 1996
on Feb. 8. as VP Al Gore watches.

If there are multiple towers with overlapping zones of coverage (which is necessary for the towers to work correctly without dropping calls) or if there are multiple towers competing for the same coverage area, then there are likely to be many different sources of radiation that are falling upon the ground simultaneoulsy.  Add to that the emissions of our devices themselves, like GPS, tablets, wireless routers or modems, laptops, etc. and it is very easy to encounter "hot spots" that create danger zones for human exposure, especially the most vulernable populations.  Rep. Drenner stated that we would not consider standing right next to a microwave oven all day, every day.  So, why would it be okay to stand next to a cell tower?

Seeking Republican Support
In an interesting bill also being considered in Georgia, state Representative John Albers (R) - Roswell, wants to allow Georgia to have authority to exempt itself from some federal laws.  Perhaps if Albers is looking for constituent support with his action, there might be a way that Drenner can work with him to ensure passing of both the exemption bill and the cell tower bill.  Then Georgia could potentially claim to be exempt from the fereral law on cell tower placements.

Most suspectible to effects of RF radiation are children as their bodies are still growng.  In children, their DNA is still developing and changing as they grow.  Rep. Drenner stated her extensive background in the area of radiation science and explained her concerns were largely due to her own knowledge about how radiation can interfere with healthy growth of cells and lead to gene mutations.  Eventually, such mutations are what can become cancerous growths or childhood leukemia, a cancer of the blood.  This form of cancer has been seen in many of the schools and neighborhoods that are currently involved in lawsuits against the telecommunications industry right now. 

Due to the large bankroll of the cellphone companies, these cases are likely to be dragged out for several years before the outcome is made public.  Or, if the families bringing the lawsuits forward do not have an endless financial fund by which to continue their fight, a settlement will likely occur that prohibits the familes from going public with their claims. 

It may be many more years before the truth of the dangers is actually common knowledge.  If you have a child at one of these 9 schools in DeKalb County, then you likely agree that, given a choice, no parents would knowingly, intentionally take a chance with their own child's life by exposing them to a known or possible human carcinigen. 

A school system that is paid for by taxpayers for the express purpose of educating the young and ensuring the future of a community, has no business accepting financial support from a business that clearly has only one purpose in its bid to use our land - to increase profit for its shareholders.  The cellphone industry is not trying to be our "partner in education" as some corporatations have done successfully.  They simply want to build the cheapest equipment possible to expand their infrastructure.  They want to pay as little in tax and make as much in profit from our citizens.  The fact that what they do and how they do it could possibly harm children or the envirnoment is not a deterrant for them.  And a school system that will waste time considering an offer for an insignifacnt amount of money without regard to the impact on the school, the children and the community, is a school system that is very far off track from focusing on its primary goal of education.

The risks are many.  The benefits are few.  The results will be long-lasting as 30-year agreements are at stake here.  What is decided will not only affect us and our children, but many of our unborn children and even unborn grandchildren.  Who is going to be the voice for these children?  Who can insist that their lives be put at risk simply because we choose to ignore the results of research that has prompted other countries, like Canada, the U.K. and Germany, to take action?

Please contact YOUR state legislators and let them know this issue is important to you.  Tell them you want to see it on the earliest agenda possible and you hope they will help turn it into a law that will help protect our children.  Please spread the word however you can to as many people as you can.  Cell towers do not belong in residentially zoned neighborhoods.  They do not have a place on o
our school grounds. 

Practice "prudent avoidance"  We should all heed the advice of Representative Drenner and practice "prudent avoidance" of the areas we know will expose us and our children to RF radiation until safe, practical methods for cell service are developed and deployed in the U.S., as has been taking place in other countries. 

A DAS, distributed antenna system, is a good alternative that has been suggested in areas where cellular service is needed but cell towers are not desired.  We suggest that T-mobile representatives start coming up with alternatives to our schools is they wish to improve the service they provide. 

The T-mobile representative at the hearing suggested that Drenner include something in her legislatin that would include suggesting of alternate locations if the school is determined to be a poor fit.  GTCO-ATL is hopeful that Drenner does not include any such language.  Just like it is not the business of the school system to solve the problems of the cellular industry, it also is not the job of the county's government officials or citizens to solve these issues for them.  We are not aware of the specifications by which they determine the exact need for more towers, nor do we wish to learn how to do their jobs for them. 

 In the meantime, we suggest that customers of T-mobile consider other carriers (such as Verizon which works fine at Lakeside) rather than forcing industrial structures into parts of the county that are not zoned for such dangerous structures.

Any proposal that is intentionally held back from the public instead of explained with a rational pro/con approach is suspect.  The "public information sessions" are actually in violation of the Georgia Open Meetings Laws that require advance and proper notice for meetings where public input is sought.  T-mobile had an opportunity to tell the public the benefits, but they chose the coward's way out. 

They decided to host low attndance meetings and urge our school board to sneak their vote past us over the Summer.  They thought the people of DeKalb County would either not be smart enough to realize what happened or would not care enough to do anything about it. Clearly, they were wrong! 

Legal action is currently being considered by individual communities as well as by some groups working for multiple locations involved in this matter.  If you are interested in helping this effort or joining up with one of these groups, we can get you in touch with the right people.  Just send an email to us at :  sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.

Know Your Rights!

Reprinted in part from http://anticelltowerlawyers.com/

As an individual or an association, you have the right to fight against sustaining the adverse consequences which you may suffer in the event that a Cell Tower were to be installed in close proximity to your home, or in your community.

You have the right to fight against sustaining a loss to the value of your property as a result of the installation of a Cell Tower in close proximity.

You have the right to protect yourself, your family, friends and neighbors against against the dangers of Cell Tower collapse, which occurs more often than the average person realizes.

You have the right to fight against having the installation of a Cell Tower adversely effect the character or aesthetics of your neighborhood.

You also have a right to protect yourself, your family, friends and neighbors against against the potential adverse health impacts associated with continued exposure to RF emissions from Cell Towers.

What you may not know is that, in addition to any rights you possess under state law, your right to be heard in opposition to Cell Tower applications is also protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees your Constitutional right to petition government for the redress of grievances.

Your Right to Petition, encompasses a federally protected right to be heard before any local Planning Board, Town Board or Zoning Board, and to make submissions to same, for the purpose of opposing any Cell Tower application pending before any such board or boards.

Read more at http://anticelltowerlawyers.com/

Note:  GTCO-ATL is not associated with a law firm and is not recommending any particular attorney or law firm.  We do believe that it is a good idea to consult with one or more attorneys in order to determine if your rights have been violated and if there is anything that you can do legally to stop a cell tower from being built near your home or your child's school if you have concerns about the health and saftey issues, as we do. 

We are only trying to put forth the best information we have found in order to help our neighbors try to fight back against what we believe has been an unfair process for approval and zoning of public property to a commercial entity without input from the taxpayers.  Every community must work together to get the best results they can for their circumstances.  We encourage all communities, when speaking out, to be sure to mention that this process has been unfair to all schools involved.  We are hoping that, by working together, we can collectively stop a dangerous precedent that leaves the taxpayers, residents, parents and every other citizen that might be affected by a zoning decision of this magnitude out of the loop and places children in harm's way.  What is the purpose of zoning regulations in the first place if they cannot protect a residents from having a huge industrial structure built in the middle of their neighborhood?

If you have information you would like to share on our site in order to help others, please email us at sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.  Thank you!