Saturday, August 11, 2012

Quality Life For DeKalb - No Cell Tower On School Grounds


Viola Davis (RNwhocares@gmail.com) wanted to share this with you.

Please send CEO Burrell Ellis a message to unify with DeKalb BOC and uphold our local laws and ordinance by denying a permit to construct cell towers on school grounds.

In the Northlake / Tucker area back in Januay, residents protested outside T-mobile's store to show their anger at
the decision to put cell towers at 9 local schools, next to homes and without the input of the community.
Quality Life For DeKalb - No Cell Tower On School Grounds
by RNwhocares

Memo
To:        CEO Burrell Ellis
From:    Viola Davis
CC:       Unhappy Taxpayer & Voter, Get The Cell Out Atlanta, Concerned Citizens of South DeKalb, Citizens for a Healthy and Safe Environment, DeKalb NAACP, No Briarlake Tower.org, Briarcliff Heights Community Action Group, No Cell Tower Fund.com, and all appropriate parties
Date:    4/3/2012
Re:       Quality Life For DeKalb - No Cell Tower On School Grounds

Quality Life For DeKalb – No Cell Tower On School Grounds

One DeKalb Lives ... restore neighborhoods and build hope.  One DeKalb Works ... create jobs and also build hope.  These are the two DeKalb logos on the front page of the county website.  However, One DeKalb has a “new message.”

We are proud to join the basic message of One DeKalb to say that parents and homeowners from North and South DeKalb have sent a unified message that we do not want cell towers on school grounds and request CEO Burrell Ellis deny any applications for construction of cell towers on school grounds.

We are contacting CEO Ellis to move the One DeKalb political logo and slogan into a public issue action plan.  

North and South DeKalb have united to send a clear message that we do not want cell phone towers on school grounds especially within residential neighborhoods.  We have collectively petitioned our elected officials to pass laws to protect our children, protect our neighborhoods, and protect our overall quality of life.

Parents and Homeowners throughout DeKalb County take pride in the following facts:
  • The entire Board of Comm issioners has taken a position on cell towers on DeKalb school properties to not ignore its ordinances unless it has been proven in court.
  • Rep. Karla Drenner introduced HB1128, entitled “Prudent Avoidance,” and received the support of 16 out of 18 signatures from the DeKalb Delegation.

DeKalb County has not seen this level of unity before in the history of any given issue and look forward to our CEO joining this history making venture. 

We request CEO Burrell Ellis join the DeKalb Board of Commissioners to uphold our local zoning law.  We ask CEO Burrell Ellis to prove One DeKalb is more than a political slogan by joining the Board of Commissioners to send a message to T-Mobile that DeKalb deserves a high quality of life and that quality starts and ends with upholding our local laws and ordinances.
  
Time to Take Action:  Please write, email and/or phone CEO Burrell Ellis and request he join the Board of Commissioners and DeKalb Delegation to send T-Mobile a message that “it is the policy of DeKalb County to prohibit cell towers on single-family residentially-zones properties” and “this zoning ordinance was established to ensure the safety of county residents and to protect property values of single-family homes” as quoted from Crossroads Newspaper.

Contact CEO Burrell Ellis:

CEO Burrell Ellis
Chief Executive Officer
DeKalb County Government
330 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, 6th Floor
Decatur, GA 30030

Copy (Optional) to:
For extra assurance your letter of support
reaches the right people, you may wish to send a copy to:

The Director of Public Works
The Director (or Interim Director) of Planning & Sustainability
The Chief of Staff for the Office of Community Relations.

Phone Numbers:
404-371-2881 Executive Office
404-371-2521 Neighborhood Empowerment
404-371-6301 Scheduling Line


Contact Your County Commissioners
Please send an e-mail/letter thanking the entire Board of Commissioners for their stand and letting them know that we are making our concerns known to Burrell Ellis.

Tell your district representative (or all of them) you are taking the next step to ensure the CEO knows the letter they penned is also backed by the wishes of the people of DeKalb County.

Contact details can be found here: http://web.co.dekalb.ga.us/boc/contact.html.
Attend a BOC Meeting
If you have not already, please take a morning, attend and speak at one of the BOC meetings which occur twice a month. They are held beginning at 9:00 AM on the second and fourth Tuesdays of every month.

This is an important opportunity for you as a citizen in DeKalb County to participate in the county’s operation. These meetings have been extremely educational and experiential for all who have taken the time. 

BOC Meetings are held at the Maloof Auditorium at 1300 Commerce Drive in Decatur.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Pricey 'stingray' gadget lets cops track cellphones without telco help

Does DeKalb County have a STINGRAY? 
Not the kind pictured above, from the Georgia
Aquarium, but the kind that allows them
to track cellphone users without having
to go through the redtape of getting
a warrant or even using the help of the
telecom's to get details about your
activity and conversations.  Read more at:
NBC's article on the Prciey Stingray.
By Bob Sullivan
NBC News
April 3, 2012

Why would the well-heeled suburb of Gilbert, Ariz., spend a quarter of a million dollars on a futuristic spy gadget that sounds more at home in a prime-time drama than a local police department?
The ACLU caused a stir Monday with its extensive report of cellphone surveillance by local police departments, which routinely request location information and other data from cellphone providers, often under vague legal circumstances.

But one bit of information provided by Gilbert officials suggests that cops sometimes try to cut out the middle man. Buried in the 380 public records requests sent by the ACLU is a response from Gilbert which indicates that the town purchased a device that allows it to track cellphones on its own for $244,195.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The Gilbert Police Department obtained a $150,000 grant from the State Homeland Security Program," the agency wrote to the ACLU in response to a public records request. "These funds, along with $94,195 of R.I.C.O monies, were used to purchase cell phone tracking equipment in June 2008 (total acquisition cost of $244, 195)."

Gilbert didn't offer additional details about the device to the ACLU, and Chief of Police Tim Dorn didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

 
But several surveillance experts said the device sounds like a gadget that's sometimes called a stingray. 



Is this tower (shown in three
photos on page from different
angles) near Lakeside High
School in Atlanta really a STINGRAY? 
The stingray, made by Harris Wireless Products Group of Melbourne, Fla., lets users set up what amounts to a fake cellphone tower and trick all phones nearby into connecting with it.

That data can then be used to track the physical location of anyone nearby carrying a powered-on cellphone -- even if the citizen isn’t on a phone call. A stingray can also register other data, such as the phone numbers dialed by all phones while connected to it. The device reportedly cannot record or intercept the content of a phone call, so it does not act like a wiretap.

...

Matt Blaze, a computer science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on stingray-like devices, said they are a mixed bag."
Certainly these devices are powerful surveillance tools that, if misused, have the potential to be quite invasive against the privacy of innocent people," he said.  "But, then again, so do many other law enforcement investigative methods -- physical searches, hidden microphones, informants and so on. The question is how they are used, how often they are used and the oversight mechanisms in place to prevent and detect misuse."

“The real issue is that this device is about allowing police to perform surveillance when the phone company would say no,” said Soghoian, who is Graduate Fellow at the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research at Indiana University. “This is not about saving time and money … it’s about the fact that there’s no one to insist that the law be followed when a stingray is used.”
Read more here. 

Let us know in the comments section if you have seen any "questionable" cell phone towers in your area, near your home, business or school in DeKalb County. 

File a Complaint with the FCC here.

Write down the license numbers ususally posted near the tower, on the fence or equipment found at the base and you can report suspicious looking towers to the FCC who must investigate all reports they receive from consumers.  They do not have the manpower to oversee towers, so unless they are reported, there is no one looking out for your rights as a citizen. 

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Center for Safer Wireless Recognizes Get the Cell Out - Atlanta's Victory

The results of the DeKalb County election are in for July 2012 and the "nonbinding referendum" question is garnering recognition from one of the leading organizations in the nation that advocates for smarter use of wireless technology - The Center for Safer Wireless.

The Center for Safer Wireless is most well-known for hosting and organizing the "Wireless Safety Summit" in Washington, D.C. in October 2011. 

Here's what they said about us:
*********************************************************************************
Victory for Get the Cell Out in Atlanta

  • On Tuesday, July 21, exactly 71,690 voters in Dekalb County, Georgia voted against cell towers on school grounds. The Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter worked hard to raise awareness of the many problems associated with cell towers on school property. More than 60% of voters 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?"
  • Consider working to get a similar question on voter ballots in your area.

  *********************************************************************************

Thank you to Christine Hoch, the leader of this powerful non-profit, for lending your help and support throughout our campaign to save our schools from certain demise and for keeping Atlanta in mind as you advocate for safer wireless across the U.S.!

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Second Response from DeKalb County Registration & Elections Office

****  In Response to our Inquiry about the Title of the Cell Tower Ballot Question as it appears in all the Summary documents on the final elections website:  www.dekalbvotes.com.  ******


From: Daniels, Maxine W
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:58 AM
To: GTCO-ATL
Cc: Weeks, Mary Frances ; Drenner, Karla  ;  Ty Tagimmi
Subject: RE: Unofficial Summary of July 31 vote - PLEASE MAKE THIS UPDATE TO YOUR SUMMARY

Good morning (GTCO-ATL)

I cannot address the T-SPLOST issue because it was done by the Secretary of State’s office.  The Brookhaven incorporation bill did not specify the title so it was at the discretion of the superintendent (our Board). In the case of this referendum, the bill stipulates a heading and we are obligated to use that wording.  I do understand your concern but the place to address this was in the approved bill.  Also, as I mentioned before, we are unable to change anything on the ballot or the reports at this time. 

Respectfully,

H. Maxine Daniels
Director
DeKalb County Registration & Elections
Office:  404-298-4020  Fax: 404-298-4038
www.dekalbvotes.com

**********************************

From: GTCO-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:32 AM
To: Daniels, Maxine W
Cc: Weeks, Mary Frances ; Drenner, Karla  ;  Ty Tagimmi
Subject: Re: Unofficial Summary of July 31 vote - PLEASE MAKE THIS UPDATE TO YOUR SUMMARY

Good morning Ms. Daniels,

I understand and appreciate your explanation.

Thank you for your service to DeKalb County.

Kind regards,

GTCO-ATL

DeKalb School Watch Congratulates Get the Cell Out - Atlanta!

The well-known and respected watchdog of our education system recently posted the following on their website. 

In the battle between good, evil and education, there could not be a higher compliment than this one from the dedicated folks who tackle all the difficult issues and work hard on volunteer time to make sure the truth gets out, the rumors are discussed and the corrupt know they are being watched. 

Thank you, DeKalb School Watch for inspiring us and many others to speak up and speak loudly for the many voices of the children that are not being heard. 

                - GTCO-ATL




CONGRATULATIONS, Get The Cell Out – Atlanta!!
Posted on August 1, 2012

Woo-hoo!  You did it!  Your determination and your perseverance won the day!

The “NO!” vote was 62% of the total votes cast!

Thank you, on behalf of DeKalb County’s students.  Without you and your hard work, Paul Womack (who we hope will soon be a former board member) would have succeeded in selling those students down the river.

We are proud to know you.


****************************

6 Responses to CONGRATULATIONS, Get The Cell Out – Atlanta!!




GTCO-ATL says:

 August 1, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Thank you School Watch and to everyone who comes here to participate in the discussions. We are so happy that the citizens of DeKalb came through for their neighbors and the children to learn about this issue and then get out and vote appropriately.

We have remained motivated to stay vigilant on this issue because it truly has helped us to work with people across all barriers that those currently in power would like to think will keep us all divided.
We have learned that there are many misunderstandings and rumors that lead us to all fight against each other when, in reality, we are all being pitted against one another when all we want are the same things (well, there are a few exceptions, but … for the most part…) ETHICS, TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY and a school board that is concerned about instruction over construction (to coin a McMahon phrase).

When it came to an issue that really mattered, we were able to spread the word, work together, stand up for each other, understand one another…. it has really been inspirational at times. We still need help with putting pressure on the CEO’s office to deterine the status of these current contracts and the construction timelines. Twice our Open Records Requests have been denied for information we know they must have because it is referenced in the contracts themselves. But, we have heard some talk from Rep. Karla Drenner’s office that T-mobile is on the ropes and is considering backing out of the contracts. Perhaps Drenner will come through for us after all and negotiate with them to leave our schools alone. We will keep everyone posted if we have anything new to share!

Speaking of Womack… it’s our understanding that a person is not eligible to run for office if he/she is the holder of unaccounted for state funds. So, where exactly IS that cell tower money, anyway? Has anyone seen a projected line item, an actual or even minutes from the prior meeting where the Budget, Finance and Audit committee discussed the funds and how they would be handled?
 



****************************

Poster says says:
 August 1, 2012 at 10:48 PM

I didn’t think that was a binding vote and didn’t think it affected the deals that have already been made. Am I correct?


****************************

Denise McGill says:
 August 1, 2012 at 11:24 PM

It just goes to show you that hard work, dedication, and constant consistent, and effective communication are keys to success. GTCO have a passion, they have stayed focused, asked the hard questions and KEEP THE COMMUNITY INFORMED!!!! This is a MAJOR accomplishment and they deserve much respect and applause for their hard work and dedication.

****************************

DS_K1975 says:
 August 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Denise…You keep fighting. Wish I still lived in DeKalb so I could vote for you.

****************************

GTCO-ATL says:
 August 2, 2012 at 1:02 PM

It affects whether or not the CEO Burrell Ellis decides to sign the permits to allow the construction to go forward. I think they were hoping that voters would be uninformed and would assume, like they normally do, that anything that can get money to the schools must be a worthy cause.

Fortunately, we were able to get the word out across the county and keep pressure on the commissioners to keep everyone informed about the process. They commissioners will not approve Special Land Use Permits and have penned a joint letter to the CEO telling him that. The CEO will risk major backlash if he goes around the will of the people to approve construction now.

T-mobile has the option to back out of the contract without owing the school system any more funds, if they have paid any at all to date. Only they have an out clause based on failure to secure proper permits, so the ball is in their court.

We are hopeful that the CEO will not approve and/or that T-mobile will back down. They have already stated that they will not try to build their towers in areas they are not wanted.
We hope they are finally getting the message that they are not wanted!


****************************

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Response from DeKalb County Registration & Elections

GTCO-ATL received this email in response to our request that the voting summary data from the July 2012 election be labeled as "Telecommunications Tower Referendum" or "Cell Tower Question" similar to the way the other issues on the ballot were labeled in the summary documents. 

Instead of anything that identifies the subject matter, the cell tower summary section is simply labled "Non-binding Advisory Referendum." 

We assume this is the main reason why most of the major media outlets completely overlooked the results, which were 62% of voters saying "No" to cell towers on our school grounds.

Here is the response:

8/2/2012

Good morning,

The cell tower question was placed on the ballot as the result of the passage of House Bill 1299.  That bill specified the title to be used on the  ballot as “Nonbinding Advisory Referendum”.  Since our election summary is limited as to the number of characters that may be used, the title was shortened to fit the allocated space.  When the title is specified in the approved bill, we are obligated to use the language provided.   Further, we are prohibited from making any changes such as this in our database that tabulates the election and provides the summary reports after the ballots are generated which was done in early June.  While I appreciate your concerns, I am unable to accommodate your request.

Respectfully,

H. Maxine Daniels
Director
DeKalb County Registration and Elections
Office:  404-298-4020  Fax: 404-298-4038
www.dekalbvotes.com

Saturday, August 4, 2012

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

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Yes, a Cell Tower Will Lower Property Values. And, Yes, Lower Property Values Result in Less Money for the Operating Fund of Our Public Schools

We have been talking about the many, many reasons why there might be some upset people when they wake up in DeKalb County, after an overwhelming majority of voters sent a clear message that we do not want T-mobile towers on our school grounds... only to see a giant cell tower going up right outside their window. 
One good reason they might be concerned is that their property values, already taking a beating, might get even worse.  And, they would probably be justified in thinking that way.
 
Who would want to live right next to one of these things, seriously?
 
The DeKalb County School Board Chairman Dr. Eugene Walker said he would take one in his front yard, but that was before a cell tower in Lilburn caught fire and fell over.  He probably had second thoughts after he saw that happen.
 
And imagine what it’s like for people who purchase or build their dream home or neighborhood, only to later have an unwanted cell tower installed just outside their window? 

This negative effect can also contribute to urban blight, a deterioration of neighborhoods and school districts that can happen when residents move away or pull their children out of school because they do not want to spend so much time near urban health hazards, like cell towers.


People don’t want to live next to one not just because of health concerns, but also due to aesthetics and public safety reasons.  Cell towers become eyesores, obstructing or tarnishing cherished views, and also can attract crime, are potential noise nuisances, and fire and fall hazards.  There is also concern for injuries to people and property on the ground below a cell tower in winter as ice and debris often accumulate up top, then fall to the ground as the weather gets warmer throughout the day. 
 
These points underscore why wireless facilities are commercial / industrial facilities that don't belong in residential areas, parks and schools.  In addition, your county officials have the power to regulate the placement and appearance of cell towers, as long as such discrimination is not unreasonable, and especially if you show them that you already have coverage in your area.


A recent map of the U.S. was released by the FCC to show the areas deficient in 3G wirelss coverage and guess what... DeKalb County, GA, was not on it!  So even the FCC has your back on this one, DeKalb... we are NOT considered to be deficient in our current coverage.  These towers are simply not needed.  They are just an attempt to gain closer proximity to our homes and to push their 4G coverage products on us without consumer demand for them.  This mindset is the opposite of safe cell siting procedures.  The FCC clearly defines the "need" for a tower as something that must come before the approval to build.  That's why T-mobile wants to go around the standard process and use our schools as their accomplice.  They don't care about the fact that children will lose playground space or that their health might be at risk.  They care about profit and nothing else.


Putting cell towers near residential properties is just bad business.
*  For residential owners, it means decreased property values.
*  For local businesses (realtors and brokers) representing and listing these properties, it will create decreased income.
*  For county governments, it results in decreased revenue (property taxes).
*  For state and local school boards, it results in abandonment of schools and distrust of elected officials.
 
Read this New York Times news story, "A Pushback Against Cell Towers," published in the paper's Real Estate section, on August 27, 2010:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=1&ref=realestate
 
A number of organizations and studies have documented the detrimental effects of cell towers on property values.  
 
1.  The Appraisal Institute, the largest global professional membership organization for appraisers with 91 chapters throughout the world, spotlighted the issue of cell towers and the fair market value of a home and educated its members that a cell tower should, in fact, cause a decrease in home value. 

The definitive work on this subject was done by Dr. Sandy Bond, who concluded that "media attention to the potential health hazards of [cellular phone towers and antennas] has spread concerns among the public, resulting in increased resistance" to sites near those towers.

 

Percentage decreases mentioned in the study range from 2 to 20% with the percentage moving toward the higher range the closer the property.

 
These are a few of her studies:
 
2. Industry Canada (Canadian government department promoting Canadian economy), “Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review, Section D — The Six Policy Questions, Question 6. What evidence exists that property values are impacted by the placement of antenna towers?”; see attached. Source: Industry Canada http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.html website,
 
3. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, “Appendix 5: The Impact of Cellphone Towers on Property Values”; see attached. Source: New Zealand Ministry for the Environment website, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/nes-telecommunications-section32-aug08/html/page12.html
 
 
On a local level, taxpayers have informed local school board, county government and administrative offices and state legislative officials.
 
1.  Santa Cruz, CA: Also attached is a story about how a preschool closed up because of a cell tower installed on its grounds; “Santa Cruz Preschool Closes Citing Cell Tower Radiation,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 17, 2006; Source, EMFacts website: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=466.
 
2.  Merrick, NY:  For a graphic illustration of what we don't want happening here in DeKalb County, just look at Merrick, NY, where NextG wireless facilities are being installed, resulting in declining home real estate values.  Look at this Best Buyers Brokers Realty website ad from this area,  “Residents of Merrick, Seaford and Wantaugh Complain Over Perceived Declining Property Values: http://www.bestbuyerbroker.com/blog/?p=86.
 
3.  Burbank, CA: As for Burbank,  at a City Council public hearing on December 8, 2009, hillside resident and a California licensed real estate professional Alex Safarian informed city officials that local real estate professionals he spoke with agree about the adverse effects the proposed cell tower would have on property values:
 
"I’ve done research on the subject and as well as spoken to many real estate professionals in the area, and they all agree that there’s no doubt that cell towers negatively affect real estate values.  Steve Hovakimian, a resident near Brace park, and a California real estate broker, and the publisher of “Home by Design” monthly real estate magazine, stated that he has seen properties near cell towers lose up to 10% of their value due to proximity of the cell tower...So even if they try to disguise them as tacky fake metal pine trees, as a real estate professional you’re required by the California Association of Realtors: that sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of a property including conditions that are known outside and surrounding areas."
 
(See City of Burbank Website, Video, Alex Safarian comments @ 6:24:28, http://burbank.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=848)
 
Indeed, 27 Burbank real estate professionals in December 2009, signed a petition/statement offering their professional opinion that the proposed T-Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon Park would negatively impact the surrounding homes, stating:
 
"It is our professional opinion that cell towers decrease the value of homes in the area tremendously.  Peer reviewed research also concurs that cell sites do indeed cause a decrease in home value.  We encourage you to respect the wishes of the residents and deny the proposed T-Mobile lease at this location.  We also request that you strengthen your zoning ordinance regarding wireless facilities like the neighboring city of Glendale has done, to create preferred and non preferred zones that will protect the welfare of our residents and their properties as well as Burbank's real estate business professionals and the City of Burbank.  Higher property values mean more tax revenue for the city, which helps improve our city."


 
(Submitted to City Council,  Planning Board, City Manager, City Clerk and other city officials via e-mail on June 18, 2010.  To see a copy of this, scroll down to bottom of page and click "Subpages" or go here: http://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/decreased-real-estate-value/burbank-real-estate-professionals-statement )
4.  And, of course, you can look at our website, www.GETtheCELLoutATL.org for  the long history we have had of fighting for the rights of our schools, children and neighborhoods here in DeKalb County, GA, a suburb area near Atlanta.
 
Here is a list of additional articles on how cell towers negatively affect the property values of homes near them:
 
 •The Observer (U.K.), "Phone masts blight house sales: Health fears are alarming buyers as masts spread across Britain to meet rising demand for mobiles," Sunday May 25, 2003 or go here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2003/may/25/houseprices.uknews
 
• “Cell Towers Are Sprouting in Unlikely Places,” The New York Times, January 9, 2000 (fears that property values could drop between 5 and 40 percent because of neighboring cell towers)
 
•“Quarrel over Phone Tower Now Court’s Call,” Chicago Tribune, January 18, 2000 (fear of lowered property values due to cell tower)
 
•“The Future is Here, and It’s Ugly: a Spreading of Techno-blight of Wires, Cables and Towers Sparks a Revolt,” New York Times, September 7, 2000
 
•“Tower Opponents Ring Up a Victory," by Phil Brozynski, in the Barrington [Illinois] Courier-Review, February 15, 1999, 5,  reporting how the Cuba Township assessor reduced the value of twelve homes following the construction of a cell tower in Lake County, IL.  See attached story: http://spot.colorado.edu/~maziara/appeal&attachments/Newton-43-LoweredPropertyValuation/
 
•In another case, a Houston jury awarded 1.2 million to a couple because a 100-foot-tall cell tower was determined to have lessened the value of their property and caused them mental anguish: Nissimov, R., "GTE Wireless Loses Lawsuit over Cell-Phone Tower," Houston Chronicle, February 23, 1999, Section A, page 11.  (Property values depreciate by about 10 percent because of the tower.)
 
 
Read about other "Tools" that may help you and your fellow residents oppose a cell tower in your neighborhood:
 
•Reasonable Discrimination Allowed
 •We Already Have Good Coverage: Significant Gap and 911
•Alternative Locations and Supplemental Application forms
•Aesthetics and Safety
•Noise and Nuisance and notes about Clearwire
•Health Effects: Science & Research
 
Also print out this helpful article on court decisions from the communications law firm of Miller & Van Eaton (with offices in D.C. and San Francisco) that you can pull and read to realize what rights you may or may not have in opposing a wireless facility in your neighborhood: http://www.millervaneaton.com/content.agent?page_name=HT%3A++IMLA+Article+Tower+Siting+Nov+2008 (click the link once you get to this page). 
  
TALK TO LOCAL REALTORS
 When opposing the zoning or construction of a cell tower, it's important to alk to your local real estate professionals as early in the process as possible.  Inform and educate them about the negative effects on local property values that cell towers have. 
 
After all, they are required by law to disclose any known environmental hazards in the area of a home they are selling, either current or future, so they are well aware that the disclosures they make directly affect the price a homebuyer is willing to pay. 
 
Ask for letters of support to be sent from the Realtor directly to the county Planning and Development officials and cc'ed to you and your local media so that you are educating and informing as many people as possible on this issue as early in the process as possible.  
 
It's very important to have your local real estate professionals back up what the experts report in their studies to make your arguments relative to your specific community. 

And, don't forget the importance of your neighborhood school on influencing your property value.  Here's one local Realtor's take on it:  http://tucker.patch.com/blog_posts/whats-a-huge-factor-in-calculating-your-property-value


HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS
 You can also educate your local homeowners' associations and neighborhood councils about the negative property value effects and have them submit letters. 
 
They may also become great advocates for your cause, helping to spread word of mouth about the pitfalls of cell towers among the community and showing up in force whenever your group is called upon to present its side of the issue at a zoning hearing or in front of a committee that must decide about an application for special use of the land in an ordinarily residential-only zone.


DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT

This area of the law is still very new and it is expected that many of the cell tower battles will be over unchartered territory.  You are expected to have to go to the judiciary system in some cases as there is no precedent to lead in either direction.  So, do what you can to stand up for your rights!  If you are fighting within the FCC "shot clock" window, you will likely have attorneys' fees refunded as well.  You are not just fighting for yourself, but for all those who will travel the same path after you.

Don't give up.  Be respectful, but take nothing at face value.  Use the media to tell your story if you can get them on your side.  But, focus on your issue, your case and get your neighbors to unite as it will affect everyone in some way.  The more you can help educate others, the better off we will all be in the long run.

If you have any questions, feel free to email us at sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.  We are not attorneys nor do we offer advice that should substitute for the advice from a qualified attorney in this area, but we have been working on this subject for more than a year and can offer practical input about our own experience that we are willing to share.  Sometimes it helps just to know you are not alone and you have people in your corner.

And, here in DeKalb County, we started with no one in our corner and, as of July 31, 2012, 75,000 voters, a whopping 62%, voted "NO" to cell towers at our schools!  Way to go DeKalb County!

"True Yes" voters may be fewer than 10%




Subtract industry workers and the uniformed.  Subtract those who do not own a home or have a child in the system.  Subtract those who do not live near a school themselves.  GTCO-ATL estimates only about 10% of the yes vote is a "true yes."  Whereas every No vote is a strong message to T-mobile to BACK OUT of the contract they have with our schools.

So, if you are like us at GTCO-ATL, you might be wondering ... who said YES?  We will be getting more into this subject later as the detailed results are made available, but here are just a few thoughts we have right now about the "true yes" voters out there... and there aren't many of them!

When you subtract the percentage of people who work for the telecomm industry, profit from corruption in the school system, or have close friends or family tied to either of these industries, the total Yes vote would likely be cut in half to only 20%. 

When you subtract the number of people who are completey unaware and uninformed on this subject, the true "yes" vote would be reduced ever further. GTCO-ATL estimates that a 10% "true yes" is the likely percentage of those in our county who would actually be okay with a cell tower at a school. 

And, of those "true yes" votes, a large portion would likely be people who do not own their own home, have children in the school system, or live near a school themselves. 

It's clear from the vote on July 31, practically NO ONE truly would welcome a cell tower near their home, their school and would not want to place that burden on anyone else in the county, either.  Great job, DeKalb County! 

T-mobile has said they will not put up towers in areas where they are not wanted.  So, if they try to come to your neighborhood next, you are now armed with valid information to fight against them.  So, when will T-mobile exercise its "out clause" and leave our schools and our residential areas alone?  The ball is in their court!



Dear DeKalb Voter Registration Office...

Aug. 2, 2012
(click headline to view full letter)

Dear Voter Office,

Please direct me to whomever is responsible for the “Unofficial Summary” of the election results from July 31, 2012.

I would  like to request that the title of the last box on page 14, titled “Non binding referendum” be updated or changed to include the words “Telecommunications Towers Question” or “Cell Towers Question” or “Telecommunications Towers on School Grounds Question.” 

We believe that the current wording is misleading and is resulting in a lack of media coverage on this highly important subject.  The citizens throughout the county of DeKalb have worked very hard to petition their leaders both at the county level and at the state to let them know we do not want cell towers on our public school grounds.  The media has followed our story.  The ballot question was added at the last minute after a total ban was held up in committee at the end of the last state legislative session.  The vote was very controversial and many people were very interested in the results.  However, no one looking at your report would be able to clearly know, now or in the future, that this summary, which shows a strong 62% voting NO (more than 75,000 people) to the question.

Please make your summary document clearly show what this question asked so that the interested citizens across the county who voted and want to know the results will be able to understand that they were victorious in getting their message across.  If we cannot show the results, then the people’s voice will be drowned out and the entire effort will have been pointless.

Thank you for considering this request.  When a final “Official” summary is published, please use the updated wording as well to accurately report the question and its results.

Thank you,

Get the Cell Out – Atlanta

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

62.16% Said No!

Nonbinding Referendum


copyright 2012 by Chrishelle

62.16%  SAID NO!
75,073 DeKalb Voters United
Against Cell Towers
on School Grounds!






Based on final tally provided by www.dekalbvotes.com



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

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Get Out and VOTE!

Answer:  NO!

(click headline for full story)

Please remember to get out and vote today.  Polls close at 7 p.m., but results will start being tallied at 5 p.m. so the sooner you can get your vote cast, the better! 

In Georgia, voters do not have to declare a party when they register, so you can request ANY party ballot when you go in to vote.  If you want to be able to help select the DeKalb County CEO, you must ask for the Democratic ballot!

The last item on the ballot is the cell tower nonbinding advisotry referendum.  No one wants a cell tower in their backyard or at their school, so voting no will help protect your own neigbhorhood from this intrusion by big business.

Cell towers are currently not allowed to be placed so close to buildings that can reasonably be expected to be inhabited by humans, like schools and homes, so this ballot issue is asking if you want to give the school board the power to go around our local zoning laws, avoid the review of the county commissioners and deny the homeowners in an area from the opportunity to be informed or have their input considered in the decision to build and operate a structure  that does not comply with the zoning laws or building codes that would normally be required.

If it isn't something you would want near you, then don't give your okay for it to be built somewhere else.  The cell tower companies have other ways of providing their services that do not involve using such large, imposing structures and do not require us to give up land that we pay for specifically for the education of children. 

And, the money does nothing to help education.  Cell towers fund corruption, pure and simple.  The funds are private and therefore are not allowed to be used for teacher salaries, textbooks or anythinig that must be provided by taxpayers through the General Fund.  And, capitol improvements to buildings and other educational structures are paid for by our E-SPLOST dollars, so cell tower funds cannot be used in that way, either. 

In other parts of the U.S. where they have allowed cell towers onto their school grounds, the money has simply gone into a slush fund used by top administrators and principals for their own personal meals, gas or hotels.  The money has been used for special bonsues to employees for performance standards that are not publicized or known even to the employees themselves.  The money is a reward for bad behavior that helps those who are corrupt remain in power.

We do not need cell towers on our school grounds.  We do need quality representatives on our school board and a replacement to our current CEO who will not entertain offers that involve selling out our schools and avoiding the input of taxpayers, placing their safety and their property values in jepardy.

Above all else, remember to vote today because contrary to what you may have heard, the biggest problem facing DeKalb right now is not government corruption or a lack of cash flow.  The biggest problem is voter apathy.  Low voter turnout is what allows the corruption to continue.  Not knowing the issues or how you will vote does not help dig us out of any of our financial difficulties.

It will take work, but today is a step in the right direction if you make time to do your civic duty - get out and VOTE DEKALB!