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
Showing posts with label Brairlake Elementary School. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brairlake Elementary School. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Saturday, June 9, 2012
YOUTUBE VIDEO: The Trashy Side to Lakeside
The housing market in Atlanta has taken a hit, like most areas of the country, but the pricey homes near Lakeside High School have managed to maintain their value and, in some cases, even increase. Ever wonder how?
Real estate agents might tell you that it is due to their well-known high school, Lakeside.
But, as this video suggests, perhaps the inflated home values are the result of "McMansions" being built on lots far too small for them.
It's a builders way of preserving a declining home market in a bad economy. The high priced homes infused into reasonable priced neighborhoods makes every home value in the area go up, whether the actual buildings next to the McMansions are actually worth it or not.
The home buyers are told the school is the reason. But when construction plans fell short due to abuse of taxpayer funds, the boosters devised a plan to "finish the dream." It involves claiming to want a cell tower while knowing they would never get one. Then sticking 8 other nearby schools with them, thus lowering the appeal of those neighborhoods while you rake in all the money through an agreement you've made with your school board member and the cell tower company.
It appears there is one thing that is available on a more "equal opportunity" basis in Atlanta than education - is the corruption. Thankfully, the trials of Crawford Lewis, Pat Pope Reid and Tony Pope are expected to begin this September. Perhaps the outcome could signal the end of an era, and the beginning of something better.
Before anyone provides feedback, please understand that this video is not intended to offend anyone who lives near Lakeside or attends school there. We love the area. We have friends who live nearby. We think they should feel the same way we do.
In fact, even the folks at the Yahoo news group must have similar questions. Check out this story, titled "The American Dream is a Myth."
We don't want to harm anyone's neighborhood. And, we don't think the ordinary citzens who live near Lakeside would want that, either.
Instead of allowing corruption to ruin our schools, which harms everyone's property values, we need to vote the most responsible school board members into office and weed out the ones who are pitting us against each other.
Let's take matters into our own hands. We can apply for the SPLOST oversight committee! We can encourage responsible people to run for the school board (in two years) and we can vote for the best choices availabe on July 31. We can vote NO on the cell tower question.
We can speak up at board meetings, but not just for our own schools. Let's start speaking out for the sake of ALL our schools and ALL our neighborhoods.
We can encourage others to vote. Talk about the important issues. Make a difference. Do the right thing instead of trying to help those who are digging themselves in deeper, we should take a step back and look at our own behavior. Let's be role models for our children and show them the way things SHOULD work.
Let's leave a legacy that will make them proud of us!
[ ] YES “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
[ ] NO elementary, middle, or high school property?"
VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO!
Real estate agents might tell you that it is due to their well-known high school, Lakeside.
But, as this video suggests, perhaps the inflated home values are the result of "McMansions" being built on lots far too small for them.
It's a builders way of preserving a declining home market in a bad economy. The high priced homes infused into reasonable priced neighborhoods makes every home value in the area go up, whether the actual buildings next to the McMansions are actually worth it or not.
The home buyers are told the school is the reason. But when construction plans fell short due to abuse of taxpayer funds, the boosters devised a plan to "finish the dream." It involves claiming to want a cell tower while knowing they would never get one. Then sticking 8 other nearby schools with them, thus lowering the appeal of those neighborhoods while you rake in all the money through an agreement you've made with your school board member and the cell tower company.
It appears there is one thing that is available on a more "equal opportunity" basis in Atlanta than education - is the corruption. Thankfully, the trials of Crawford Lewis, Pat Pope Reid and Tony Pope are expected to begin this September. Perhaps the outcome could signal the end of an era, and the beginning of something better.
Before anyone provides feedback, please understand that this video is not intended to offend anyone who lives near Lakeside or attends school there. We love the area. We have friends who live nearby. We think they should feel the same way we do.
In fact, even the folks at the Yahoo news group must have similar questions. Check out this story, titled "The American Dream is a Myth."
We don't want to harm anyone's neighborhood. And, we don't think the ordinary citzens who live near Lakeside would want that, either.
Instead of allowing corruption to ruin our schools, which harms everyone's property values, we need to vote the most responsible school board members into office and weed out the ones who are pitting us against each other.
Let's take matters into our own hands. We can apply for the SPLOST oversight committee! We can encourage responsible people to run for the school board (in two years) and we can vote for the best choices availabe on July 31. We can vote NO on the cell tower question.
We can speak up at board meetings, but not just for our own schools. Let's start speaking out for the sake of ALL our schools and ALL our neighborhoods.
We can encourage others to vote. Talk about the important issues. Make a difference. Do the right thing instead of trying to help those who are digging themselves in deeper, we should take a step back and look at our own behavior. Let's be role models for our children and show them the way things SHOULD work.
Let's leave a legacy that will make them proud of us!
[ ] YES “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
[ ] NO elementary, middle, or high school property?"
VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO!
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Dear Commissioner Elaine Boyer,
(click headline to read full text of this letter)
Original email dated Sept. 14, 2011
Dear Commissioner Boyer,
I am contacting you on behalf of a group of concerned citizens, parents, homeowners, taxpayers, residents, association members and business owners. Our group covers every demographic category and the full span of this county, from the South, Central andd North Regions. We have assisted with lobbying the school board to remove three schools prior to their vote on cell towers on school grounds back in July. At that time, we were all told that the other schools would have an opportunity to address the zoning issues during the public comment portion of their Special Land Use permitting hearing. We have now been told the school board is claiming exemption to this entire process, but no one has cited any case law to back up their claim.
(Get the Cell Out, by the way, has cited case law to various members of the commission that shows that the school exemption does NOT apply when the property being leased will be used for proprietary purposes.)
We are very concerned about the recent actions of the School Board, which they took while the Interim Superintendent was in place, and without following their own rules of conduct which require them to hold a public forum and consider the input of their communities before voting. This has not happened and their own vice-chair Paul Womack has admitted that the notice was not sufficient during a meeting at Briarlake Elementary.
A partial transcript of that meeting is available on the DeKalb School Watch Blog. Mr. Womack's comments are very shocking as he bluntly tells the parents that the school board did not put up signs, and they did not knock on the doors of the residents immediately surronding the school's property. He claims they used other media outlets, but this is a misleading statement. The AJC article being referenced was not published until after all the meetings had already been held, except the three schools that were scheduled for the last day of meetings. WSB-TV has found no record of anything airing on their station except for a story the night prior to the July vote, but that story was initiated by us and was not an announcement of any meetings. It was a story about our efforts to get the word out ourselves because the school board had not done it themselves.
We are counting on you to get this information into the right hands so that the county can consider it and take appropriate action. Please do not let these cell towers go up if you are not certain the decision has been made following the letter of the law. T-mobile has been known to start construction without required permits and will build towers that are not up to code. Specifically, the base of these towers is not planned to be up to the Rev-G standard the is necessary to ensure stability in high wind conditions. This should be of particular concern when you think about the fact that they want to put the towers with "fall zones" that include schools and homes.
They have not proven that their towers will comply with the regulations necessary for respect of airspace since they will be near the DeKalb-Peachtree airport. They have not shown anyone that they will respect the necessary setback requirements and they have not given anyone their plans for the cabinet or building structures that will be at the base of the towers or the fencing planned that will have to be sufficient to deter children from getting into the restricted area and trying to climb the towers. Please remember, many elementary school children do not read or are just learning to read. Typcial warnings on cell towers will not have any meaning to them and we have heard no plans for how they will be training anyone on staff at the school about what to do in an emergency or what to tell the children to ensure they understand the dangers.
During the meeting at Brairlake, Mr. Womack even admitted that he did not carefully read the contract. Did anyone? How can we allow HAZMAT materials and a dangerous, tall industrial structure to violate the very essense of our zoning codes without questioning whether these leases are even legal and the structures will be sound? And, if there is truly nothing to worry about, then why isn't anyone coming forward to tell us that?
We are not involved in this issue because it is interesting to us. We are involved because we feel we are being compelled to do so because of the lack of knowledge, accountability, interest or even minimal response we are so far getting from anyone and everyone we would expect should be wanting to protect us, the taxpayers, the ones who have elected all of you for the specific purpose of representing us.
We don't know anyone who wants these towers. So, who exactly is being represented and what do we need to do to show you that there are a lot more people on our side than they have on theirs?
Sincerely,
Get the Cell Out - Atlanta
Please visit our Facebook page, www.facebook.com/Get.the.Cell.Out.ATL, currently at 10,184 page views for this month alone, up 167% from this time last month.
NOTE: The RF Emissions Report submitted by T-mobile to the school board is dated 2009 and is certified by someone in Colorado, not Gerogia. The pole document is from Fulton County and the mount evaluation does not meet current safety codes. We are not experts, but these were all errors that were easy for us to spot. If you are looking at an application, we are sure you will see many more issues that concern you as well.
Original email dated Sept. 14, 2011
Dear Commissioner Boyer,
I am contacting you on behalf of a group of concerned citizens, parents, homeowners, taxpayers, residents, association members and business owners. Our group covers every demographic category and the full span of this county, from the South, Central andd North Regions. We have assisted with lobbying the school board to remove three schools prior to their vote on cell towers on school grounds back in July. At that time, we were all told that the other schools would have an opportunity to address the zoning issues during the public comment portion of their Special Land Use permitting hearing. We have now been told the school board is claiming exemption to this entire process, but no one has cited any case law to back up their claim.
(Get the Cell Out, by the way, has cited case law to various members of the commission that shows that the school exemption does NOT apply when the property being leased will be used for proprietary purposes.)
We are very concerned about the recent actions of the School Board, which they took while the Interim Superintendent was in place, and without following their own rules of conduct which require them to hold a public forum and consider the input of their communities before voting. This has not happened and their own vice-chair Paul Womack has admitted that the notice was not sufficient during a meeting at Briarlake Elementary.
A partial transcript of that meeting is available on the DeKalb School Watch Blog. Mr. Womack's comments are very shocking as he bluntly tells the parents that the school board did not put up signs, and they did not knock on the doors of the residents immediately surronding the school's property. He claims they used other media outlets, but this is a misleading statement. The AJC article being referenced was not published until after all the meetings had already been held, except the three schools that were scheduled for the last day of meetings. WSB-TV has found no record of anything airing on their station except for a story the night prior to the July vote, but that story was initiated by us and was not an announcement of any meetings. It was a story about our efforts to get the word out ourselves because the school board had not done it themselves.
We are counting on you to get this information into the right hands so that the county can consider it and take appropriate action. Please do not let these cell towers go up if you are not certain the decision has been made following the letter of the law. T-mobile has been known to start construction without required permits and will build towers that are not up to code. Specifically, the base of these towers is not planned to be up to the Rev-G standard the is necessary to ensure stability in high wind conditions. This should be of particular concern when you think about the fact that they want to put the towers with "fall zones" that include schools and homes.
They have not proven that their towers will comply with the regulations necessary for respect of airspace since they will be near the DeKalb-Peachtree airport. They have not shown anyone that they will respect the necessary setback requirements and they have not given anyone their plans for the cabinet or building structures that will be at the base of the towers or the fencing planned that will have to be sufficient to deter children from getting into the restricted area and trying to climb the towers. Please remember, many elementary school children do not read or are just learning to read. Typcial warnings on cell towers will not have any meaning to them and we have heard no plans for how they will be training anyone on staff at the school about what to do in an emergency or what to tell the children to ensure they understand the dangers.
During the meeting at Brairlake, Mr. Womack even admitted that he did not carefully read the contract. Did anyone? How can we allow HAZMAT materials and a dangerous, tall industrial structure to violate the very essense of our zoning codes without questioning whether these leases are even legal and the structures will be sound? And, if there is truly nothing to worry about, then why isn't anyone coming forward to tell us that?
We are not involved in this issue because it is interesting to us. We are involved because we feel we are being compelled to do so because of the lack of knowledge, accountability, interest or even minimal response we are so far getting from anyone and everyone we would expect should be wanting to protect us, the taxpayers, the ones who have elected all of you for the specific purpose of representing us.
We don't know anyone who wants these towers. So, who exactly is being represented and what do we need to do to show you that there are a lot more people on our side than they have on theirs?
Sincerely,
Get the Cell Out - Atlanta
Please visit our Facebook page, www.facebook.com/Get.the.Cell.Out.ATL, currently at 10,184 page views for this month alone, up 167% from this time last month.
NOTE: The RF Emissions Report submitted by T-mobile to the school board is dated 2009 and is certified by someone in Colorado, not Gerogia. The pole document is from Fulton County and the mount evaluation does not meet current safety codes. We are not experts, but these were all errors that were easy for us to spot. If you are looking at an application, we are sure you will see many more issues that concern you as well.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
DeKalb County, GA, Code of Ordinances - Sec. 27 - 779 Telecommunications Towers and Antennas
(Click headline for full story)
We were honored to have the opportunity to speak at the Feb. 21 public hearing held by Rep. Karla Drenner regarding cellphone towers on school grounds.
Upon the conclusion of that meeting, another DeKalb resident who was there to state opposition to the cell towers asked us about the DeKalb County zoning codes and whether we had seen the long list of precautions and guidelines already in place.
In fact, we were very familiar with these guidelines as we originally thought that we would have an opportunity to address the areas where we thought T-mobile might be in violation of them, based on the information that was submitted to the DeKalb County School Board last summer and posted for public review.
However, as we began asking questions about this process in an effort to assist the schools wishing to protest, we learned something that we had not expected to hear... the DeKalb County Office of Planning and Sustainability which reports directly to CEO Burrell Ellis was claiming that it actually had zero oversight of the DeKalb County Schools. Read the response we received back in June 2011.
We have summarized our thoughts and the information we have uncovered regarding the issue of permits for telecommunications towers and the zoning laws in Dekalb County. Remember, these are the specifications already on the books regarding the placement of cell phone towers in a reasonable manner to protect the health and best interests of the citizens of our county.
Sen. Jason Carter is working on new legislation to clairfy when and how these rules apply, but first let's acknowledge that our county is actually several steps ahead others when it comes to protecting its citizens from cell towers. Many local municipalities do not realize they have a need for these type of regulations until it is too late. Here in DeKalb, it would seem, we are all ready for the cell companies to come knocking because the laws are in place to establish and maintain our communities. Or are they??
At the bottom of this article, we have copied the applicable zoning laws and included the link in case you want to check out the original for yourself. If T-mobile were required to apply for a Special Land Use Permit, these are the guidelines they would be expected to follow. We would like to think these are the same rules that would apply even if T-mobile were to be allowed a Special Administrative Permit.
Sadly, we fear that the Administrative (or closed door) route is being taken here in an effort to AVOID following the rules. Hopefully, this is the loophole that Sen. Jason Carter is attempting to close for us so that future schools will not face the same legal battles that our current cell tower schools are being forced to consider.
But, let's just consider the current zoing laws and the towers that are on their way to our schools right now. Clearly, many of the towers planned for school grounds would be in serious violation of these requirements. But, according to the DeKalb County Commissioners we've contacted (and their responses are printed on this website), they believe that the school system deserves a special exemption from this normal application process, but why?
The exemption has been clarified by the Supreme Court of Georgia to apply ONLY when the use of the property is for governmental purposes and NOT when the use is for proprietary purposes (such as a private company like T-mobile seeking to make a commercial profit from the operation of a cell tower). See summary: http://www.lawskills.com/case/ ga/id/274/39/index.html
So, why is Burrell Ellis's office planning to issue "Special Administrative Permits" to T-mobile that will allow them to ignore our county's zoning codes and will not allow public input or comment? We have attempted to contact the CEO, but have not had any luck since that initial email reply we received that stated his office had no control over the school board. Read the text here. We asked him about this subject in a public meeting, but he defered to the commissioners who promised to get back with us. They didn't.
Is this an issue of the school board claiming to be exempt? Then, why doesn't the CEO tell them that the exemption does not apply?
Is it a question of T-mobile claiming to be able to utilize the exemption that is normally offered to the school board for building educational builidings? Then why doesn't the CEO correct that assumption and set the record straight?
If you write or call your own county commissioner, or if you get an answer to any of these questions from CEO Burrell Ellis, please email us and let us know. We would like to print any responses you receive on our website so that we can all stop spinning our wheels and understand this process together. Your identity will not be revealed.
Email your responses to sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.
We are not accussing anyone of doing anything wrong. But, this is a government that is supposed to be "for the people," right? So, why is it so difficult for "the people" to get an explanation that makes sense?
Dekalb.county.telecommunications
If you have questions, like we do, please direct them to these individuals at the county level:
CC: your emails to the following:
We were honored to have the opportunity to speak at the Feb. 21 public hearing held by Rep. Karla Drenner regarding cellphone towers on school grounds.
Upon the conclusion of that meeting, another DeKalb resident who was there to state opposition to the cell towers asked us about the DeKalb County zoning codes and whether we had seen the long list of precautions and guidelines already in place.
However, as we began asking questions about this process in an effort to assist the schools wishing to protest, we learned something that we had not expected to hear... the DeKalb County Office of Planning and Sustainability which reports directly to CEO Burrell Ellis was claiming that it actually had zero oversight of the DeKalb County Schools. Read the response we received back in June 2011.
We have summarized our thoughts and the information we have uncovered regarding the issue of permits for telecommunications towers and the zoning laws in Dekalb County. Remember, these are the specifications already on the books regarding the placement of cell phone towers in a reasonable manner to protect the health and best interests of the citizens of our county.
Sen. Jason Carter is working on new legislation to clairfy when and how these rules apply, but first let's acknowledge that our county is actually several steps ahead others when it comes to protecting its citizens from cell towers. Many local municipalities do not realize they have a need for these type of regulations until it is too late. Here in DeKalb, it would seem, we are all ready for the cell companies to come knocking because the laws are in place to establish and maintain our communities. Or are they??
At the bottom of this article, we have copied the applicable zoning laws and included the link in case you want to check out the original for yourself. If T-mobile were required to apply for a Special Land Use Permit, these are the guidelines they would be expected to follow. We would like to think these are the same rules that would apply even if T-mobile were to be allowed a Special Administrative Permit.
Sadly, we fear that the Administrative (or closed door) route is being taken here in an effort to AVOID following the rules. Hopefully, this is the loophole that Sen. Jason Carter is attempting to close for us so that future schools will not face the same legal battles that our current cell tower schools are being forced to consider.
 |
| Richard Marion (above), a representatives from No Tower Briarlake, LLC, along with others from Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter and the Briarcliff Heights Neighborhood Action Group appealed to the DeKalb County Commissioners on Feb. 28, 2012. These citizens argued to the commissioners that a moratorium on cell tower construction is needed. They urged the officials to protect the rights of the citizens and children of our county. They stated a countywide sentiment that we do not want cell towers to be built at 9 public school campuses, especially without due process and notification under our county's own zoning laws and regulations. Click the video at the bottom to view these public comments. |
But, let's just consider the current zoing laws and the towers that are on their way to our schools right now. Clearly, many of the towers planned for school grounds would be in serious violation of these requirements. But, according to the DeKalb County Commissioners we've contacted (and their responses are printed on this website), they believe that the school system deserves a special exemption from this normal application process, but why?
The exemption has been clarified by the Supreme Court of Georgia to apply ONLY when the use of the property is for governmental purposes and NOT when the use is for proprietary purposes (such as a private company like T-mobile seeking to make a commercial profit from the operation of a cell tower). See summary: http://www.lawskills.com/case/ ga/id/274/39/index.html
So, why is Burrell Ellis's office planning to issue "Special Administrative Permits" to T-mobile that will allow them to ignore our county's zoning codes and will not allow public input or comment? We have attempted to contact the CEO, but have not had any luck since that initial email reply we received that stated his office had no control over the school board. Read the text here. We asked him about this subject in a public meeting, but he defered to the commissioners who promised to get back with us. They didn't.
Is this an issue of the school board claiming to be exempt? Then, why doesn't the CEO tell them that the exemption does not apply?
Is it a question of T-mobile claiming to be able to utilize the exemption that is normally offered to the school board for building educational builidings? Then why doesn't the CEO correct that assumption and set the record straight?
If you write or call your own county commissioner, or if you get an answer to any of these questions from CEO Burrell Ellis, please email us and let us know. We would like to print any responses you receive on our website so that we can all stop spinning our wheels and understand this process together. Your identity will not be revealed.
Email your responses to sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com.
We are not accussing anyone of doing anything wrong. But, this is a government that is supposed to be "for the people," right? So, why is it so difficult for "the people" to get an explanation that makes sense?
Dekalb.county.telecommunications
If you have questions, like we do, please direct them to these individuals at the county level:
Send your emails to:
DeKalb County Planning and Sustainability - grants permit
And also send emails to:
Gary Cornell - Interim Director, gacornell@dekalbcountyga.gov
NOTE: THIS IS A NEW INTERIM PLANNING DIRECTOR
If you have already attempted to contact this department, please try again
and ask for Gary Cornell. Perhaps we will have better luck with him than we did
with the former Interim Director, Andrew Baker.
Suite 400, 1300 Commerce Drive
Decatur, GA 30030-3221
Phone: (404) 371-2607
CC: your emails to the following:
Elaine Boyer 404-371-2844 ecboyer@dekalbcountyga.gov
Jeff Rader 404-371-2863 jrader@dekalbcountyga.gov
Larry Johnson 404-371-2425 larryjohnson@dekalbcountyga.gov
Sharon Barnes Sutton 404-371-4907 sbsutton@dekalbcountyga.gov
Lee May 404-371-4745 lmay@dekalbcountyga.gov
Kathie Gannon 404-371-4909 kgannon@dekalbcountyga.gov
Stan Watson 404-371-3681 stanwatson@dekalbcountyga.gov
BCC: your emails to us at: sayno2celltowers@yahoo.com
if you would like us to help keep track
of how many people have asked the same questions
and received the same responses (or no responses).
Monday, February 6, 2012
Lakeside or Briarlake: Where do They Draw the Line?
A big issue plauging the NoBriarlake Tower campaign is that they were orginally named by the school board as being in favor of the towers. In fact, their own PTA President admits that she was given a flyer and information to distribute to the members of the PTA back in May 2011. Stephanie Byre, the self-appointed leader and spokesperson of NoBriarlake Tower has encountered questions about her husband Mark's role in the protest as he has not stepped forward to support his wife's efforts, speak to the media or answer questions about his reported attendence at the T-mobile meeting in May.
Making the waters as murky as Echo Lake, the actual lake that gives Lakeside High School its name, is that the families at Lakeside High School have been reportedly in favor of the cell towers and are the ones who initiated the request for cell towers in the first place, not just this time, but also a few years ago.
So, if these two schools don't see eye to eye, with one of them in favor and one of them opposed, who do you believe? And, wouldn't there be some families who actually have children at BOTH schools? Which side are they on? And, how can Paul Womack claim he accurately represented this community which, on the surface would appear to be in the middle of heated debate against one another as to what is right for the community?
And, has anyone wondered why T-mobile would need two towers this close together anyway? And, how will MORE towers help a small little area where DeKalb's upper 1% hides out with their complaints of dropped calls. Experts have pointed to the fact that TOO MANY towers may be the real problem here.
So, what is it with this group? Are they for or against? Do they need more or less? Is it for the coverage or the money? Do they believe in RF radiation dangers? If so, why are they raising money for IPads instead of for attorneys to protect their children's rights?
And if they did not speak up between May - July, 2011, when they had a legitmate chance to make a plea to the Board of Education, why are they speaking up now? And why do they continue to show up for events outside their own area when they have publically stated that any efforts they engage in are strictly for the purpose of helping their school and their school alone?
Shame on you, Briarlake. Shame on you, Lakeside. It's not just YOUR future on the line here. Your ties to ATT are evident and there are a lot of people upset that you would claim otherwise. At the very least, if you do not care about the other 99% of the county, the least you can do is keep your protest confined to your area.
You have the money, the power, the connections ... exactly the reason why your school also wanted the towers in the beginning. You want our other schools to take the hit while your schools rake in the funds. We hope the NAACP, the media and the voters can see through this chaurade.
Like a poorly constructed school that relies on SPLOST funds, your walls will come crumbling down.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Georgia Green Party Wants You to Know ...
(click headline for the full story)
Check Out the New Link at the TOP of our Page for Upcoming Events, Meetings and Dates relative to opposing cell towers on school grounds countywide, not just for those with the financial resources to demand change. RF Radiation doesn't discriminate, so why should our elected officials and lawmakers?
Are environmental hazards putting the health of our families at risk? Is the health and well-being of our children for sale in DeKalb County?
 |
| The Georgia Green Party Lists Its Ten Key Values that include such radical statements as "Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another." Surely, they must be from another planet, right? |
TOWN HALL MEETING
Georgia Piedmont Technical College
495 N. Indian Creek Drive
Clarkston, GA 30021
INVITED TO ATTEND: All residents and residential property owners in DeKalb County who have an interest in learning more about these topics and what you can do to help.
Special invitation is made to the families near Smoke Rise and Jolly Elementary Schools as they are in close proximity to the meeting location and have not been able to vocalize their objections as loudly as the other communities with more affluent populations backing their efforts.
 |
| Click on Map to enlarge to see the schools that the DCSS agreed to lease our public property to T-mobile for commercial gain. |
Parents of children within the DeKalb County School District are also invited to attend, however it is advised that you make daycare arrangements if possible as the subjet matter will be complex and children may become bored and restless. Also, please be advised that the subject of cell towers on school grounds may be upsetting to children if they hear discussion about the dangers and health hazards associated with this topic.
If you do bring children to this meeting, please plan to bring activities that will keep them quietly entertained as no on-site daycare will be avialable.
For further information, please contact:
For further information, please contact:
Richard Searcy and Dr. Jewel Crawford, MD
Co-Chairs, Green Party of DeKalb County
GTCO-ATL Involvement: We are working on a list of questions that we would like for the organizers of this event to put forth to the panel of speakers. If the questions are asked and answered, we will post them here for everyone to read. At this time, we must follow the advice of legal council and will therefore be unable to participate on the panel of speakers.
GTCO-ATL Involvement: We are working on a list of questions that we would like for the organizers of this event to put forth to the panel of speakers. If the questions are asked and answered, we will post them here for everyone to read. At this time, we must follow the advice of legal council and will therefore be unable to participate on the panel of speakers.
Dr. Darren Harper - dharper1of5@netzero.net
Janice Harper - jnh2005@netzero.net
For more details about these topics and the Georgia Green Party's position, please visit their website at: http://georgiagreenparty.org/content/dekalb-greens-co-host-urgent-town-hall-meeting
For more details about these topics and the Georgia Green Party's position, please visit their website at: http://georgiagreenparty.org/content/dekalb-greens-co-host-urgent-town-hall-meeting
Saturday, January 7, 2012
FOX5 VIDEO: GTCO-ATL "Person of Interest"
Updated: Monday, 11 Jul 2011, 10:42 PM EDT Published : Monday, 11 Jul 2011, 6:47 PM EDT
Reporter: Chris Shaw
Reporter: Chris Shaw
 |
| Stephanie Byrne spoke with reporter Chris Shaw prior to the July 11 DCSS meeting that resulted in cell tower leases for 9 schools, including Briarlake Elementary in Decatur and nearby schools Margaret Harris Comprehensive and Lakeside High School, both in Atlanta. |
As a PTA board member, she is in charge of the grounds and outdoor classroom for the Briarlake Elementary School. Yet, she claims to be caught totally offguard about the signs of site testing taking place practically in the wooded area between her home and the school, right on top of the outdoor classroom. As one of only two people associated with the new Briarlake Foundation, which started in October 2011, the same time the T-mobile talks started, she is part of a group that hopes to give an Ipad to every student. Ipads actually use the very technology that the tower will be providing, so isn't the goal of one group going to create a need for the very thing that the other group is supposed to be opposing?
Previously, the PTA had been told by Paul Womack in a public meeting that they would have a say in the location of the tower. Once it was announced to us by Byrne that the Briarlake PTA had decided to oppose the tower formally and their first step in that process was to begin talking about their playground, it made us immediately consider the second location as a more real possiblity for the tower. We kept and eye on that location and had to announe on this blog the fact that the land was being disturbed and an entire area was marked off for where the trees would soon be cut down.
T-mobile denyed that they would give the PTA any choice on the location and informed Brairlake that the company would only be dealing directly with the school board on the issue. Who is the contact at T-mobile that is answering questions for Briarlake and why did the press report that Steve Donahue gave them a letter that included the research studies the school board had relyed upon? Is the school board giving special treatment to Briarlake? If so, why does it not appear to be having any effect on the efforts of T-mobile to move forward? And why is ATT the ones doing all the work in the neighborhood right now, appearing to be laying the infrastructure needed for the eavesments that will be needed to access the property and run the high voltage transmission lines needed to power a\ 150' tower for the next 30 years.
If this type of construction, not at all related to education, residential use, or even public enjoyment, were going to be starting up right next to your home or even right at the end of your street or around the corner, wouldn't you expect someone to at least notify you that is was about to begin? Wouldn't you be upset if the only group being relied upon by both the school board, T-mobile, ATT AND the county zoning department was the privately-held non-profit parent-teacher association. And, even at that, the only notification they have admitted to receiving at your school was a generic flyer that did not indicate the school was a location.
Double Identity?
Yes, this is the same person. In one interview prior to the July school board vote, Byrne seems very unconcerned and mostly wanting to get some financial reward for the "perceived inconvenience" of a cell tower in her backyard.
 |
| July 2011 |
After being reassured that Byrne's group would hand out flyers and focus on the community that did not have any notice from the school because they do not have children at Briarlake, Byrne instead insisted on remaining friendly and focused upon the school board. She never spoke out publically and has never stated her own reasons for opposing the tower, except in the July FOX interview. She failed to mention that her backyad was identified as the actual site for the cell tower and, instead, spent considerable time preaching about her disgust at the thought of the kids losing their playground.
 |
| Nov. 2011 |
When we realized her group, nobriarlaketower.org, LLC had not informed Margaret Harris as they told us they would and had not included any of the other schools during their conversations with state legislators, we again got involved and informed the Margaret Harris community (after also doing our best to alert all other schools on the list).
When Byrne realized Margaret Harris would be speaking out in November, she finally decided to do the same, taking a later position in the speaking lineup and the claiming that all the people assembled were part of a Briarlake opposition. And, when learning of Margaret Harris's Open Records Request (at our urging) she managed to do the same for Briarlake and broke the "news" of her victory one day before their's. Again, no mention of the other schools or if anyone tried to get copies of their leases for them.
There is still more to be unravelled in this saga, but we'll save it for our next announcement. Just remember that corruption runs deep in this school system. It is important to make sure you undersand the motivations of every person you deal with before you trust them with any information that is valuable to you or a cause you believe in. I wish we knew that back when we met with Brairlake for the fist time. We would have done background checks first instead of just assuming that all parents would want to protect their children from harm.
Cell Phone Towers Coming to 9 DeKalb Schools: MyFoxATLANTA.com
dekalb-county-schools-cell-phone-towers-20110711-es
dekalb-county-schools-cell-phone-towers-20110711-es
CLICK VIDEO AT LEFT TO PLAY JULY 2011 REPORT FROM FOX5 NEWS
This FOX News story is interesting as it shows Brockett Elementary at the beginning, but did not mention our protest in the content. It mentions that the Medlock community is against the tower, but interviews someone who is pro-cell tower. The reporter appears to be implying that Briarlake's community is pro-cell tower, but the interview is with someone (Byrne) who is against it, mainly for the lack of financial disclosure, according to her statements.
The financial information has been the primary hot button for the Briarlake PTA as well. One board member called the $25,000 offer the school board made to them "insulting" as they are capable of raising much more on their own.
So, this begs the question: if these protest leaders get the financial payoff they have been hoping for, what willl become of the interests of the 200 reported followers Byrne mentioned at the December board meeting that she represents?
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Signs of Soil Testing at Margaret Harris Comprehensive School
(click headline for the full story) Despite the community's recent objections to the DeKalb County School Board, it appears as though T-mobile has started the soil testing process which is one of the steps they need to complete in order to apply for the Special Administrative Permit that they expect will be "rubber stamped" in a closed meeting with the Interim Director of Planning & Sustainability, Andrew Baker, sometime this month or early first quarter.
The community members have started their own Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Briarcliff-Heights-Community-Action-Group/278307285544800?ref=ts. We are rooting for them to catch up quickly so we can pass them the ball and let them run it in for a touchdown! If they can stop their tower, that means there is still hope for the other schools, too, so don't give up if you are still trying to find a way to oppose the tower near you! Seek legal advice outside of the county if you are having trouble finding council in DeKalb. Many land use and environmental attorneys here are already working on retainer with a cell company and cannot accept a job that would be a conflict of interest.
An important distinction to make is that between three similar sounding schools that have all been a part of the cell tower protest: Brockett Elementary School is located in Tucker. Community members there rallied early and were able to have their school removed from the school board's list in July. By August, these parents started organizing an outreach campaign to inform the communities surronding the 9 schools still on the school board's list.
The first school that Brockett Elementary, via Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter, reached out to assist was Briarlake Elementary School in an unincorporated part of DeKalb that uses the name of Decatur. And, just recently members of GTCO-ATL were successful in reaching the Margaret Harris School in Atlanta, a community known as Briarcliff Heights. To make matters even more confusing, Lakeside High School, the school that reportedly started the initial inquires into placing cell towers at schools to assist with their dropped call issues, is located in Atlanta on Briarcliff Road.
If you can keep all those "B's" straight, we'll give you an "A" for effort!
The community members have started their own Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Briarcliff-Heights-Community-Action-Group/278307285544800?ref=ts. We are rooting for them to catch up quickly so we can pass them the ball and let them run it in for a touchdown! If they can stop their tower, that means there is still hope for the other schools, too, so don't give up if you are still trying to find a way to oppose the tower near you! Seek legal advice outside of the county if you are having trouble finding council in DeKalb. Many land use and environmental attorneys here are already working on retainer with a cell company and cannot accept a job that would be a conflict of interest.
 |
| Signs of land distrubing activity in expectation of a T-mobile tower took place in the Briarcliff Heights neighborhood which is located in a part of Atlanta that is considered to be unincorporated DeKalb County. |
The first school that Brockett Elementary, via Get the Cell Out - Atlanta Chapter, reached out to assist was Briarlake Elementary School in an unincorporated part of DeKalb that uses the name of Decatur. And, just recently members of GTCO-ATL were successful in reaching the Margaret Harris School in Atlanta, a community known as Briarcliff Heights. To make matters even more confusing, Lakeside High School, the school that reportedly started the initial inquires into placing cell towers at schools to assist with their dropped call issues, is located in Atlanta on Briarcliff Road.
If you can keep all those "B's" straight, we'll give you an "A" for effort!
Monday, December 5, 2011
Suggestion to Briarlake: Find out who this person is...
From the Womack / Briarlake transcript: please read below:
Womack: One of your neighbors, I discussed it with him because he, uh, came. And I asked him, “what’s your interest?” And I said, “are you concerned?” and he said, “Oh, no. no.” He said, “I’ve put cell towers up all over the country. Now you may know who I’m talking about, somebody right around here. I live, not quite as close as you are. I don’t know what to tell you. I didn’t know why you didn’t know it because we tried to get the message out.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Clarification About Permits / Shining a Light on the Truth
An update about what we know about the permit process... the permits that were posted on www.antennasearch.com and also mentioned on this blog are what we believe to be FCC permits, not DeKalb County permits. At this time, we do not know of any formal permit applications with the county, however the signs of soil testing, electric testing, lines being run, tress being run over, etc. appear to be the first steps in the process.
If you are planning to seek legal help, you should take photos of these events. You should also try to photograph the "balloon test" from the perspective of your own property when/if you are able to capture it when it happens. The balloon test is when they fly a weather balloon to the height of the tower. They will use their photos to show how your property will barely be affected, while you can show a different angle than their's in order to prove otherwise.
To Brairlake: Everyone involved with GTCO-ATL has been trying to help you in the best ways we can. We do not live in your neighborhood, but we do know many people who do. We have alerted everyone we can think of and we even asked reporters to meet us at your school in August, where we did an interview with FOX News stating that even though we had been successful in getting our school, Brockett Elementary, off the school board's initial list (with the help of many, many neigbhorslk), we still did not think the other communities were alerted and that was not fair. So, we have tried and tried to let you know what has been going on, from our perspective.
We have no other intentions than to get the TRUTH to you so that you have every opportunity to protect yourselves, your home values and your children. We feel this way about all the schools invovled and we have tried our best to travel to each and every community either personally, or through the help of other volunteers who have assisted us in our efforts.
We have searched for an attorney who would help us either pro bono or on a condition of payment only if it could be collected from T-mobile in a victory, but we have not had any luck so far. That does not mean that you should give up. Our time and resources are limited, just like anyone else's would be. By spreading the word and working together, everyone has a better chance of finding the right solution and the right help.
We have been asked why we continue to state that Briarlake and Lakeside wanted the towers. Clearly, we do not believe this to be true of the massive amounts of uninformed homeowners and parents in either of these communities. That is our point - this decision was made without proper notification and without letting the community decide what would be best in their own neighborhoods. The voices of a very few were somehow given more weight and credibility than common sense, which would tell you that no one would want a cell tower this large, this ugly, this dangerous and this controversial in their backyard, front yard or at their school. I doubt anyone is really comfortable with how close we see these towers to our grocery stores, drug stores, doctors' offices and hospitals either.
But, if you would please WATCH THE VIDEO as we have asked so many times - where the July 11 vote takes place at the school board. It is mentioned there that there are two schools who WANT the towers. And, everyone we know agrees that Lakeside WANTED the towers and kicked off this entire request. But, do the Lakeside residents feel the same way? Do they know how many towers they currently have in a 4-mile radius? This community is living under constant radiation from more than one hundred towers already! Why do they need MORE? Why do they still have problems with their simple voice service? How can MORE towers possibly solve this problem? Isn't it more likley that the number of towers match the level of competition there is for this area of our county that has some of our wealthier residents? Doesn't it sound likely that the towers match the competition and they are drowning each other out, interfereing with each other's signals, and fighting for the top position as the best provider? We do not think MORE is what is needed here. We think the county ZONING department needs to step in an insist on a wireless PLAN. With a reasonable GRID that will divide up the space and ensure equal access for all carriers, the number of towers could likely be REDUCED significantly and the overall ongoing levels of RF radiation could be LOWERED while cell service could be IMPROVED. Again, we are not experts here - but if we lived there, those are the questions we would be asking. We hope someone in that area will pick up this issue and take it to the proper channels they need to in order to get some results.
Cell towers used to be structures that could carry a signal as far as 5 - 15 miles when we all used our phones for voice-only. The 4G revolution is all about heavy data content, high intensity graphics, steaming HD quality movies. Do we NEED these things on our phones while we are mobile? Do these "luxuries" have to be wireless for us to enjoy them? And are we all comfotable making this decision, not just for ourselves, but for everyone in our entire community and for children who have absolutely no voice in the matter whatsoever?
We do not know how a school board in this or any county could even consider placing a structure like a cell tower next to children who are required by law to attend school. We, as parents, are upset and angry that they expected us to be okay with a decision like that. We have learned, from our own experience at our school and from talking to other people with similar experiences at other schools, that there were one or two PTA officers who either knew about what was going on ahead of time, attended the T-mobile meeting, or learned about the true intentions of that meeting after the fact.
We do not know specifics about what they did or said after they learned about the cell tower proposal. We only know what we did. We alerted as many of our neighbors as possible from the very first moment we found out. We made up flyers and distributed them. We started send out emails. And we do not even live within eyeshot of the school. We went over to our school and knocked on doors of every property owner with adjacent property and we distibuted small flyers to every other door we could in the very short timeframe we had. We spent our own money, used our own resources to get the job done and we were cut out of any former communications circles we had been a part of before because the people at the school were not happy with what we were doing.
We did it anyway. This issue is that important.
We don't know anything about how other schools reacted and why they did or did not spread the word to the community the way we did. We called the national PTA to find out their position and they told us they were starting a committee to review the subject. We have not heard anything further.
When we alerted the community at Briarlake, the PTA got involved and took over the campaign to inform the rest of the neighborhood. We thought they were doing a great job and they told us they did not need our help. Unfortunately, it looks now like they are not passing the information along to anyone who can actually help and they are not doing much more than just making a lot of noise, but they are not passing along information that can actually help. We do not think they are being truthful on a lot of issues. Those are the issues we are trying to point out here.
We have no alterior motives. Our child is no longer enrolled in public school. We are not in the position to accept special favors, not that we would if they were offered to us. We care about our community and we have many friends who live all over this county. We don't want to see this happen to anyone. We hope everyone who comes here understands that we have done everything we can think to do that might help others. We have had nothing but honest reasons to be good neighbors and set a morally acceptable example for our child that will hopefully help her understand why we had to take her out of her school after only a year.
If we were acting in a selfish or self-serving manner, we would have shut up and moved on a long time ago. Without a cell tower, our neighborhood would stand to benefit if some of the other communities nearby ended up with towers in the middle of them, but we still speak out. By keeping quiet, the school our child could one day attend might be the recipient of a lot of the cell tower funds, making it a better place for her future educational needs, but still we speak out.
Think of it like this:
If you saw someone else and you thought they might be in danger, would you at least try to alert them to watch out? Or would you turn the other way and just be relieved that you were safe? That was the question we were faced with after Brockett in Tucker was removed from the list. Do we keep quiet and be happy we can move on with our own lives? We didn't think we could possibly do that and watch as towers continue to pop up all around us.
What T-moble is doing here is nothing new. It has happeend and contiues to happen all over this country. It has happened in Cobb County, Fulton County, Cherokee and others. People everywhere are getting more and more angry, but we cannot give up. We have to keep speaking up to our elected officials and let them know this is not okay. And, we have to back up what we say with how we vote.
We urge everyone concerned about this issue to please stay involved. Do what you can to tell the people you know, bring this topic up in conversation and educate others who are unaware of the problem. Look out for your family and help those around you. And, please, don't shoot the messenger - we don't like the message any more than you do! And we wished this would have never happened to us, either.
If you are planning to seek legal help, you should take photos of these events. You should also try to photograph the "balloon test" from the perspective of your own property when/if you are able to capture it when it happens. The balloon test is when they fly a weather balloon to the height of the tower. They will use their photos to show how your property will barely be affected, while you can show a different angle than their's in order to prove otherwise.
To Brairlake: Everyone involved with GTCO-ATL has been trying to help you in the best ways we can. We do not live in your neighborhood, but we do know many people who do. We have alerted everyone we can think of and we even asked reporters to meet us at your school in August, where we did an interview with FOX News stating that even though we had been successful in getting our school, Brockett Elementary, off the school board's initial list (with the help of many, many neigbhorslk), we still did not think the other communities were alerted and that was not fair. So, we have tried and tried to let you know what has been going on, from our perspective.
We have no other intentions than to get the TRUTH to you so that you have every opportunity to protect yourselves, your home values and your children. We feel this way about all the schools invovled and we have tried our best to travel to each and every community either personally, or through the help of other volunteers who have assisted us in our efforts.
We have searched for an attorney who would help us either pro bono or on a condition of payment only if it could be collected from T-mobile in a victory, but we have not had any luck so far. That does not mean that you should give up. Our time and resources are limited, just like anyone else's would be. By spreading the word and working together, everyone has a better chance of finding the right solution and the right help.
We have been asked why we continue to state that Briarlake and Lakeside wanted the towers. Clearly, we do not believe this to be true of the massive amounts of uninformed homeowners and parents in either of these communities. That is our point - this decision was made without proper notification and without letting the community decide what would be best in their own neighborhoods. The voices of a very few were somehow given more weight and credibility than common sense, which would tell you that no one would want a cell tower this large, this ugly, this dangerous and this controversial in their backyard, front yard or at their school. I doubt anyone is really comfortable with how close we see these towers to our grocery stores, drug stores, doctors' offices and hospitals either.
But, if you would please WATCH THE VIDEO as we have asked so many times - where the July 11 vote takes place at the school board. It is mentioned there that there are two schools who WANT the towers. And, everyone we know agrees that Lakeside WANTED the towers and kicked off this entire request. But, do the Lakeside residents feel the same way? Do they know how many towers they currently have in a 4-mile radius? This community is living under constant radiation from more than one hundred towers already! Why do they need MORE? Why do they still have problems with their simple voice service? How can MORE towers possibly solve this problem? Isn't it more likley that the number of towers match the level of competition there is for this area of our county that has some of our wealthier residents? Doesn't it sound likely that the towers match the competition and they are drowning each other out, interfereing with each other's signals, and fighting for the top position as the best provider? We do not think MORE is what is needed here. We think the county ZONING department needs to step in an insist on a wireless PLAN. With a reasonable GRID that will divide up the space and ensure equal access for all carriers, the number of towers could likely be REDUCED significantly and the overall ongoing levels of RF radiation could be LOWERED while cell service could be IMPROVED. Again, we are not experts here - but if we lived there, those are the questions we would be asking. We hope someone in that area will pick up this issue and take it to the proper channels they need to in order to get some results.
Cell towers used to be structures that could carry a signal as far as 5 - 15 miles when we all used our phones for voice-only. The 4G revolution is all about heavy data content, high intensity graphics, steaming HD quality movies. Do we NEED these things on our phones while we are mobile? Do these "luxuries" have to be wireless for us to enjoy them? And are we all comfotable making this decision, not just for ourselves, but for everyone in our entire community and for children who have absolutely no voice in the matter whatsoever?
We do not know how a school board in this or any county could even consider placing a structure like a cell tower next to children who are required by law to attend school. We, as parents, are upset and angry that they expected us to be okay with a decision like that. We have learned, from our own experience at our school and from talking to other people with similar experiences at other schools, that there were one or two PTA officers who either knew about what was going on ahead of time, attended the T-mobile meeting, or learned about the true intentions of that meeting after the fact.
We do not know specifics about what they did or said after they learned about the cell tower proposal. We only know what we did. We alerted as many of our neighbors as possible from the very first moment we found out. We made up flyers and distributed them. We started send out emails. And we do not even live within eyeshot of the school. We went over to our school and knocked on doors of every property owner with adjacent property and we distibuted small flyers to every other door we could in the very short timeframe we had. We spent our own money, used our own resources to get the job done and we were cut out of any former communications circles we had been a part of before because the people at the school were not happy with what we were doing.
We did it anyway. This issue is that important.
We don't know anything about how other schools reacted and why they did or did not spread the word to the community the way we did. We called the national PTA to find out their position and they told us they were starting a committee to review the subject. We have not heard anything further.
When we alerted the community at Briarlake, the PTA got involved and took over the campaign to inform the rest of the neighborhood. We thought they were doing a great job and they told us they did not need our help. Unfortunately, it looks now like they are not passing the information along to anyone who can actually help and they are not doing much more than just making a lot of noise, but they are not passing along information that can actually help. We do not think they are being truthful on a lot of issues. Those are the issues we are trying to point out here.
We have no alterior motives. Our child is no longer enrolled in public school. We are not in the position to accept special favors, not that we would if they were offered to us. We care about our community and we have many friends who live all over this county. We don't want to see this happen to anyone. We hope everyone who comes here understands that we have done everything we can think to do that might help others. We have had nothing but honest reasons to be good neighbors and set a morally acceptable example for our child that will hopefully help her understand why we had to take her out of her school after only a year.
If we were acting in a selfish or self-serving manner, we would have shut up and moved on a long time ago. Without a cell tower, our neighborhood would stand to benefit if some of the other communities nearby ended up with towers in the middle of them, but we still speak out. By keeping quiet, the school our child could one day attend might be the recipient of a lot of the cell tower funds, making it a better place for her future educational needs, but still we speak out.
Think of it like this:
If you saw someone else and you thought they might be in danger, would you at least try to alert them to watch out? Or would you turn the other way and just be relieved that you were safe? That was the question we were faced with after Brockett in Tucker was removed from the list. Do we keep quiet and be happy we can move on with our own lives? We didn't think we could possibly do that and watch as towers continue to pop up all around us.
What T-moble is doing here is nothing new. It has happeend and contiues to happen all over this country. It has happened in Cobb County, Fulton County, Cherokee and others. People everywhere are getting more and more angry, but we cannot give up. We have to keep speaking up to our elected officials and let them know this is not okay. And, we have to back up what we say with how we vote.
We urge everyone concerned about this issue to please stay involved. Do what you can to tell the people you know, bring this topic up in conversation and educate others who are unaware of the problem. Look out for your family and help those around you. And, please, don't shoot the messenger - we don't like the message any more than you do! And we wished this would have never happened to us, either.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
VIDEO: Updated: Exactly What Happened During "The Vote"
There have been questions posed to us lately about the school board's vote back in July to lease the public school property at 9 schools to T-mobile.
We attended the meeting in person, but in case you missed it, here's how you can watch for yourself:
It is highly recommended that you watch this video of the school board vote:
* 1. Copy and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/pds-tv24/index/video-on-demand
2. Scroll down until you locate
Work Session and Business Meeting (11 Jul 2011)
3. Click the link and wait for the video to load.
4. Skip ahead more than 3/4th of the way through to 2:42:38 in the video.
* Note: Updated link information as of 11/23/11
Meeting minutes for this item are incorrect so it is important to watch the video to understand exactly what happened during the board discussion and vote, including discussion about the ability for citizens to object after the vote if they had not been previously informed, as indicated by GTCO-ATL in our petition.
What we learned from watching this video is that board member Donna Edler suggested that she would like to make an ammendment to remove all schools, but that created further discussion about the fact that there were some schools that actually wanted the towers.
Following the discussion, Ms. Edler put together her ammendment, with some help from fellow board member Pam Speaks who agreed that there were two schools that were very vocal about wanting the towers: Lakeside and Briarlake (mistakenly called Briarcliff a few times).
First vote was on Don McChestney's ammendement to remove Brockett, Meadowview and Medlock. It passed, but was a bit confusing because Mr. Womack indicated that the vote would not only remove the three, but also approve the others. He started to move on to the next item (as chairman Bowen was absent so Womack was chairing the meeting), but was instructed from the floor (presumably Legal) that the main motion still required a vote.
Donna Edler then made her motion which would remove all remaining schools EXCEPT TWO: Lakeside High School and its feeder elementary school, Briarlake, because these were the two schools that were known to be in favor of the towers. How they made this determination, we don't know, especially since it is now so clear that the majority of the parents and community were not informed at all.
The Briarlake community has launched a huge public awareness campaign to voice their opposition to the cell tower. It's been stated that only 2 people attended the T-mobile meeting from Briarlake. We are guessing these are the same two people now named as the co-chairmen for the new Briarlake Foundation which will likely receive the lump sum payoff from T-mobile. But, that's just speculation from the peanut gallery. The names of those people may eventually surface, but regardless of whether we know who showed up, what's more important is who are these people that were in favor of the towers? They were apparantly so in favor that several of the board members agreed that it would not be fair to remove all the schools because these schools were so vocal in wanting the towers for the financial aspect of it (which had only been disclosed publically about 24 - 48 hours prior to this meeting) but also for the benefit (better cell phone coverage for T-mobile customers?).
A few PTA board members at almost every school have now admitted to being "in the loop" with the proposal from the beginning, so we can only assume that they are the ones who stated their opinions on behalf of the school community. We are not vilianizing them for having an opinion that might be in favor of cell towers. Perhaps they were told something that the rest of us were not. The part we object to is that there appears to be a change of heart, and opinion, with at least one school's PTA that is now speaking out against the towers. But, if they are not telling the truth about their invovlement from the beginning, how can we be so sure they are working in the best interest of the anti-cell tower community now? And, why are these parents so confident that they speak for the entire PTA membership? Clearly, this is a controversial topic and most people would expect an organization like the PTA to err on the side of caution, to protect children from all harm above all else. And if there is a chance that a cell tower could have unknown health effects on children, why would anyone take a default position of "go for it" without at least insisting on out-clauses in the contract, or more time to consult with the community before rendering a decision?
We are calling this to your attention so that you will know all the facts and can make your own decisions about how to proceed. It is great to work together - as along as you are all working toward the same goal. If the PTA or a similar group not directly a part of the school itself stands to get a lump sum of money, how sure can anyone be about their motivations or goals? It is one of the unfair issues forced upon the schools when T-mobile made this offer of money part of the public announcement. Can one or two officers speak on behalf of an entire association or school without so much as taking a survey or calling members to ask their feedback? Is this form of feedback a fair measure for board members to use when signing a 30-year deal? We don't think the feedback that the board relied upon was fair or accurate, but the leases have reportedly been signed, which means this is a mute point.
The issue now is whether or not these leases are legally binding and valid. And whether the school's exemption to zoning laws should apply to T-mobile. These are issues that must be decided in a court of law as they have no precedent in the state of Georgia. We do know that your right to be heard in opposition to Cell Tower applications is protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees your Constitutional right to petition government for the redress of grievances.
We attended the meeting in person, but in case you missed it, here's how you can watch for yourself:
It is highly recommended that you watch this video of the school board vote:
* 1. Copy and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/pds-tv24/index/video-on-demand
2. Scroll down until you locate
Work Session and Business Meeting (11 Jul 2011)3. Click the link and wait for the video to load.
4. Skip ahead more than 3/4th of the way through to 2:42:38 in the video.
* Note: Updated link information as of 11/23/11
Meeting minutes for this item are incorrect so it is important to watch the video to understand exactly what happened during the board discussion and vote, including discussion about the ability for citizens to object after the vote if they had not been previously informed, as indicated by GTCO-ATL in our petition.
What we learned from watching this video is that board member Donna Edler suggested that she would like to make an ammendment to remove all schools, but that created further discussion about the fact that there were some schools that actually wanted the towers.
Following the discussion, Ms. Edler put together her ammendment, with some help from fellow board member Pam Speaks who agreed that there were two schools that were very vocal about wanting the towers: Lakeside and Briarlake (mistakenly called Briarcliff a few times).
First vote was on Don McChestney's ammendement to remove Brockett, Meadowview and Medlock. It passed, but was a bit confusing because Mr. Womack indicated that the vote would not only remove the three, but also approve the others. He started to move on to the next item (as chairman Bowen was absent so Womack was chairing the meeting), but was instructed from the floor (presumably Legal) that the main motion still required a vote.
Donna Edler then made her motion which would remove all remaining schools EXCEPT TWO: Lakeside High School and its feeder elementary school, Briarlake, because these were the two schools that were known to be in favor of the towers. How they made this determination, we don't know, especially since it is now so clear that the majority of the parents and community were not informed at all.
The Briarlake community has launched a huge public awareness campaign to voice their opposition to the cell tower. It's been stated that only 2 people attended the T-mobile meeting from Briarlake. We are guessing these are the same two people now named as the co-chairmen for the new Briarlake Foundation which will likely receive the lump sum payoff from T-mobile. But, that's just speculation from the peanut gallery. The names of those people may eventually surface, but regardless of whether we know who showed up, what's more important is who are these people that were in favor of the towers? They were apparantly so in favor that several of the board members agreed that it would not be fair to remove all the schools because these schools were so vocal in wanting the towers for the financial aspect of it (which had only been disclosed publically about 24 - 48 hours prior to this meeting) but also for the benefit (better cell phone coverage for T-mobile customers?).
A few PTA board members at almost every school have now admitted to being "in the loop" with the proposal from the beginning, so we can only assume that they are the ones who stated their opinions on behalf of the school community. We are not vilianizing them for having an opinion that might be in favor of cell towers. Perhaps they were told something that the rest of us were not. The part we object to is that there appears to be a change of heart, and opinion, with at least one school's PTA that is now speaking out against the towers. But, if they are not telling the truth about their invovlement from the beginning, how can we be so sure they are working in the best interest of the anti-cell tower community now? And, why are these parents so confident that they speak for the entire PTA membership? Clearly, this is a controversial topic and most people would expect an organization like the PTA to err on the side of caution, to protect children from all harm above all else. And if there is a chance that a cell tower could have unknown health effects on children, why would anyone take a default position of "go for it" without at least insisting on out-clauses in the contract, or more time to consult with the community before rendering a decision?
We are calling this to your attention so that you will know all the facts and can make your own decisions about how to proceed. It is great to work together - as along as you are all working toward the same goal. If the PTA or a similar group not directly a part of the school itself stands to get a lump sum of money, how sure can anyone be about their motivations or goals? It is one of the unfair issues forced upon the schools when T-mobile made this offer of money part of the public announcement. Can one or two officers speak on behalf of an entire association or school without so much as taking a survey or calling members to ask their feedback? Is this form of feedback a fair measure for board members to use when signing a 30-year deal? We don't think the feedback that the board relied upon was fair or accurate, but the leases have reportedly been signed, which means this is a mute point.
The issue now is whether or not these leases are legally binding and valid. And whether the school's exemption to zoning laws should apply to T-mobile. These are issues that must be decided in a court of law as they have no precedent in the state of Georgia. We do know that your right to be heard in opposition to Cell Tower applications is protected by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees your Constitutional right to petition government for the redress of grievances.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
BREAKING NEWS: Briarlake Elementary - A Community Led Astray?
 |
Signs of the times. Trees outside Briarlake Elementary School are tagged and ready for chopping. The outside classroom bleachers and stage sadly sit in the background. It, too, will likely be a memory soon as it appers to be in the way of progress, according to the plans drawn up by T-mobile. Briarlake Elementary and Lakeside High School were the only two schools that reportedly were in favor of cell towers at the time of the July 2011 school board vote. But, after news spread about the plans, the community stepped up to tell a different story. It may be too little, too late. And, there may even be more towers on the way!
|
One of the most vocal opposition groups to the DeKalb County School Board's decision to place cell towers at 9 schools has come from the Briarlake community. GTCO-ATL was the first group to reach out to them and provide information in an effort to be good neighbors and good citizens helping to spread the word, as several school board members have admitted they did not do a very good job at themselves.
Shortly after our initial meeting, however, the PTA stepped in and decided to plot their own course. Stephanie Byrne is a parent who admits she knew about the proposal back in May, but didn't think it was anything serious enough to warrant telling her neighbors. She was even interviewed by CBS Atlanta way back then since her property backs up to one of the proposed cell tower sites and T-mobile will likely have to buy a portion of her property in order to comply with the county's setback requirements. She said she followed the story until June when it was postponed and she didn't hear any more about it until after the July vote.
 |
An ominous scene on Nov. 11, 2011. Cell tower near Briarlake Elementary School and the address for the newly formed Briarlake Foundation which will be accepting money for iPads, despite RF radiation concerns growing worldwide.
|
While other neighbbors are in a panic to sell, from the looks of all the signs around the school, the Byrne household is only interested in setting out exensive signs opposing the towers and handing out buttons. Maybe that is because Stephanie and Mark Byrne have also been lucky to learn that their property values have somehow been swapped around just in 2011 where the property is valued far higher than the building. That should work in their favor when T-mobile comes knocking. Hopefully they will knock loud since they don't respond well to visual cues like the ones in orange and green all over the landscape that will soon be chopped and shreaded.
GTCO-ATL has recently learned that the timing of initial cell tower talks (Fall 2010 according to a statement by Womack) coincides with the application submitted by a big name construction law firm to file the paperwork for tax-exempt status and set up the Briarlake Elementary School Foundation, which can receive gift donations. Byrne and a fellow Briarlake parent, Michelle Decker, a parent council represenative, are the only ones with their names tied to any of the information that can be found online about this foundation, except the pricey paralegal who filed the paperwork. With only 22 "likes" on their empty Facebook page, it is difficult to determine how a school of only 400 students has raised more than $4,000 with very little publicity for their efforts. Even more baffling is why they would state that their annual goal is $100K, which rivals that of Lakeside High School's similar foundation, The Valhalla Group, which is in a higher income bracket neighborhood and has more than 1,500 students.
Where Did They Go Wrong?
The questions are many and the answers are few. GTCO-ATL encourages anyone in the Briarlake community sincere about wanting to stop the cell tower to take their own actions rather than waiting for Superman, or anyone else, to do it for them. This is a long-term deal, spanning 30 years, that will be much more difficult to undo once the tower is up than it will be to stop it from going up in the first place.
 |
Wonder if these folks know that the person who voted yes
at the School Board Meeting in July lives directly across
the street. It would have been easier to walk over and talk
to Paul Womack about the decision than use an expensive
yard sign to send a message, don't you think? Then again,
maybe they are already acquainted and that's the reason
for the metal fencing around the property, too.
|
DeKalb County commissioners have stated that T-mobile claims it is exempt from following our county's regulations for proper zoning procedures, but that issue is debatable and has not been decided in a court of law. They have also stated that their power is limited by the FCC ruling of 1996, but we suggest that there is language indicating that local govenment still has some control over the placement and location of towers, especially in residential areas.
Can a school board that is only elected for 4 years and is headed by an Interim Superintendent, sign a contract with little or no community input, for 30-years that will lease public school property that is actively being used for the primary purpose of educating children? And, if so, should they disclose the terms of the ageeement to the public?
Can they agree to allow some or all of the money to be directed toward individual PTAs or private foundations being led by PTA board members who also state they are against the cell tower and that they formed a resolution to official declare thier opposition?
And, most importantly, does the exemption to zoning regulations that is provided to the school system automatically apply to a commercial entity (and not even an American-based company at that), not at all related to education or providing any educational value, so that it may also enjoy the tax exempt status and the lax building approval process that the county gives its own school system?
Too Little, Too Late
At GTCO-ATL, we know what we would do. And, we are quite surprised to see how easily a community can be led astray without questioning the intentions of the people stepping in to help, the funding by which they are doing so, and the steps they are advocating in order to bring about a change.
 |
Thowing out the Trash, alongside the SPLOST. Briarlake's PTA also advocated
for SPLOST despite their "outrage" over the school board's recent decisions.
Henderson Middle and Lakeside High School are their feeder schools. Henderson
is slated for SPLOST IV dollars while Lakeside is under construction with
SPLOST III. What the SPLOST couldn't pay for, they hope cell towers will.
|
The community website Nobriarlaketower.org is now listed as an LLC. And, the organizers are not returning our calls. The site is updated on a regular basis, but has no mention of the activity at the cell tower site and only suggests the community do more of the same - which has so far resulted in nothing more than a lot of attention that could have been spent alerting the other 8 schools rather than just listening to the outcry from one.
And, we continue to wonder if the entire education system is so badly broken here in DeKalb that no one remembers to think about the most important thing at the bottom of all this mess - the children. If anyone bothered to ask them, what do you think they would say?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Vote NO on SPLOST IV
We will encourage everyone at a school or neighborhood slated for a cell tower to vote NO ON SPLOST IV on November 8. Why? For starters, because your BOE decided to lock you into a 30 year deal for a dangerous cell tower on public school property without even asking you if it was okay. Then, they pulled a card out of their bag of tricks to again deny you the chance to be heard at the county zoning level by claiming they are exempt from the normal zoning process. Yet school board officials and county commissioners have not been able to tell us what specific law they are referring to when they are making this claim.
So, not only do they not wish to consider your input on a major decision that could affect your health, your property value and your safety from strangers in your neighborhood and at your school, they also wish to completely silence you from being heard at all, even as a courtesy, in a public comments portion of a zoning meeting.
They negotiated the cell tower contract to bring in merely $400 a month, when the average price T-mobile pays elsewhere, like in Gwinett County, is between $2,000 and $3,000 a month for county property leases. While early rumors had some schools expecting they might see substantial benefit from a tower, they have more recently learned that all the tower income will be deposited directy into the DCSS general fund.
One board member, Paul Womack, reported to parents and community members in the Briarlake neighborhood in Decatur that DeKalb is in such "good shape" financially that the cell tower proposal was not even about the money. He claims that the main purpose was to improve the cell service at Lakeside High School. As a side note, the topic was originally introduced to DCSS by a board member who served the Lakeside community and is now a member of the school's booster club, The Valhalla Project. See: http://www.wix.com/dbbaker/thevalhallaproject. Unlike the other schools receiving towers, Lakeside will allow the booster to direct any tower money that may be allocated for renovation projects, rather than the PTA.
What we cannot understand is why it takes 12 schools spread out across the county to improve the dropped call ratios at Lakeside. And, why is the school board suddenly feeling so commpelled to solve this issue when students are not even supposed to use their cell phones on campus? Verizon coverage seems to be fine in the area, so perhaps there are other business connections between Lakeside and T-mobile or AT&T.
If you would like to read the transcribed conversation that took place between Mr. Womack and the people in his district who turned out for a meeting after the vote was already rendered and the contracts were signed. Many of these people had not been informed about the cell tower proposal until it was too late to even voice their opinions. (See partial transcript below.)
We are republishing the transcipt as a reminder of how much our board believes they can operate without even caring about public opinion. If you are as mad as we are when you read Womack state, “I really don’t care.” Or, “If I said yes, it would be a lie, if I said no, it would be a lie,” then please join us in sending them a clear message:
Here is the transcript as promised:
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Meeting with Paul Womack at Briarlake Elementary School
Transcript of Meeting Between School Board Vice Chair Paul Womack and Concerned Parents and Residents discussing the cell towers.
Transcription of 8/31/11 (Reprinted with permission from DeKalb School Watch Blog.) Womack = Paul Womack, elected again in 2008, having served for twelve years in the 1970s, currently District 4 Rep - School Board Vice Chair / Acting Chair During July 11 board meeting in which a contract was agreed to that will put cell towers at 9 public schools in DeKalb County. Womack is the district representative for 5 schools on the original list of 12: Lakeside, Briarlake, Brockett, Jolly and Princeton.
Interesting to note that this meeting was assembled on short notice within about two days time and 22 people attended, many of whom were not actually invited and the meeting hosts were unsure how they even found out about it. The meeting that was held in May regarding T-mobile’s proposal that Mr. Womack mentions in the transcript below, was supposedly highly publicized and every attempt was made to let the community know about it. That meeting had only 3 attendees from Briarlake. (The Lakeside meeting was held at the same time one mile away.) The Brockett meeting had 5.
===
Womack: You can use [the money from T-Mobile] for improvements, things for the school, room parties, things like that. It’s up the community how you’re going to spend that $25,000. There has been no location so far. They have looked at a couple of sites, but I have been assured by T-Mobile that the community will be able to say yeah or nay as to the actual placement. Questions?
F1: The literature from the World Health Organization from December, 2010, mentioning the RF that comes from cell phones as inconclusive regarding damage as well as the RF from cell phone towers. Five months later they came out with a major study that’s conclusive that long-term usage of cell phones can be (damaging). There’s also a study due out in 2013 about cell phone towers and exposure to those. Shouldn’t we consider waiting until…
Womack: (Steps on speaker)The contract has already been signed. That’s a given. Uh, you get more radiation from your microwave than you do...
F1: But that’s not constant exposure.
Womack: I understand, but when you use this, that’s your choice. That will not be your choice. (chatter) Excuse me, one at a time, please. One at a time. Uh, I can’t say that that study is right or wrong, but I know that the federal government says that it cannot be taken into consideration. But there is no concrete, proven fact. I haven’t seen that study, but I will ask the administration to look at it. I will get an answer.
F2: Will you take a look at this study of dairy cows in Germany? It shows a verifiable link between the RF emissions and the cow’s behavior. They were aborting their calves, not producing enough milk, and when they were removed from that range, everything went to normal.
Womack: Ok. Now you had a comment back there.
F2: Well, my point is, if this is such a controversial issue, why are we taking the risk with our children? Aren’t we supposed to protect children?
Womack: Your name is…
F2: (Answers) I’m just concerned that we are thinking “oh we’re going to get all this money, so that makes it ok”.
Womack: No. It doesn’t. We held a seminar here. We advertised it for a month. Put it on the website. The community was told, but everybody said, “oh it was the end of school, we didn’t have time”. We had about ten people that showed up for that presentation from T-Mobile. And I only heard one question during that presentation that was anywhere in voicing a concern. And the community over at Medlock voiced major concern and we took it off of the contract. But their voice was not from the safety, they were mad because Medlock had been closed. They didn’t want any encroachment. We’ve tried to follow what communities wanted and very frankly, I’ve only had 4 or 5 questions out of this community as to whether it was safe, why did you do it. If the community does not speak up, I can only support or not support what I’m hearing.
F3: I have a comment. Many people didn’t come, because they didn’t know. Now that people know, I understand that this took place in the summer.
Womack: There was a presentation on May 3.
F3: There was a presentation but it didn’t discuss cell towers on this property.
F4: You’re right here in my neighborhood, in my backyard. I didn’t know anything about this. I’ve spoken with several of my neighbors and nobody knew anything about it. Nobody let our neighborhood know anything about any possibility of there being any cell phone towers right in our backyard. It’s the first time we’ve known about it right after your vote.
Womack: I’m sorry.
M1: Well it looks like now, it’s a done deal
Womack: It is a done deal.
F4: Unless there’s a protect order.
Womack: That won’t happen cause the county has come to us to ask how we did it cause they want to do it too. (arguing ensues)
F4: If you did it before we had a chance to know about it that was
Womack: It was on television before the vote, on all of the stations.
F4: What stations?
Womack: The television stations ma’am. It was out in the public. I can only do what I hear, not what I’m hearing after the fact.
F4: Well, if we didn’t know before the fact, then what could we say before the fact?
F5: I could find nothing online.
Womack: Well, it was on our site. It was publicized through… We had sent notices to uh, I don’t know what to tell you on that.
F5: During the vote on July 11, during the meeting it was brought to your attention that the community was not aware of this. I am very involved in the schools and I was not aware of this.
Womack: I don't know what to tell you.
F5: I do know that you pushed the vote through.
Womack: Yes
F5: You opted. Your name in the meeting minutes opted to push the vote through.
Womack: Yes
F5: And you say that the contract is now signed, but we’re saying that we didn’t know. You’re telling us we did, but I’m telling you that no, I did not.
Womack: Well, I don’t know how to get it out anymore than we tried. I don’t have the resources personally to do this. We asked the administration to post it on the site. I do know that we got it out the best we could. And I don’t care what issue it comes to a community, part is going to have it and part is not.
M2: I realize that, but at the same time, the procedures that have been used at least since the Roosevelt administration, whenever we have an issue of public necessity, vs the rights of private citizens affected by that alleged necessity, is that we have a period of adequate notice – sufficient to get the message to the members of the community that are affected. I’m just saying that if all you did was notify the PTA and you’re planning on putting a 150’ cell phone tower that’s 50 feet from my property line? And it’s my property value that’s going to be affected, then you need to notify me and other members of the community that are affected. I back up to the playground of this establishment.
Womack: One of your neighbors, I discussed it with him because he, uh, came. And I asked him, “what’s your interest?” And I said, “are you concerned?” and he said, “Oh, no. no.” He said, “I’ve put cell towers up all over the country. Now you may know who I’m talking about, somebody right around here. I live, not quite as close as you are. I don’t know what to tell you. I didn’t know why you didn’t know it because we tried to get the message out.
F6: Well, I’m right next door. We have a neighborhood alert. We have a newsletter. We have an email alert for the neighborhood. Nobody in our neighborhood knows about it and we are immediately next door. My property line is exactly next to the property line of this school. Nobody in my neighborhood knew anything about it. Not a thing.
Womack: Well, I don’t know what to say to you. We tried to get it out.
M2: Did you put signs up? I mean, did you put any signs?
Womack: No, no we did not. We did not. No.
F6: So, one meeting and that’s it? You had like one meeting and pushed it through? Is that what happened? I mean that’s what it sounds…
Womack: Well, actually, yes, I would say that is the fact of the matter, yes.
F6:That doesn’t seem right.
M3: I’d like to try to suggest a rationale for why what happened did happen. We are at a time when our county is looking for sources of revenue to keep the schools open, not have to cut services while politically it’s the wrong time to be raising taxes and here was a chance to get a hold of a cool, free half a million bucks and if we went and got this thing done without making a lot of noise, it was gonna happen and the county and the school board was willing to take the risk that there wouldn’t be a couple of lawyers living next door that might somehow find their way there might be a rite of notice and run down to the courthouse. And that’s what happened.
Womack: Well, let me, let me respond to the taxes. The school board does not raise taxes… since 2000. Ah, I was chairmen of the Budget Committee we cut 104 million dollars out of the budget. A lot of it was in the area that most people were concerned about. And that was in staff. And we got rid of a lot of things that we shouldn’t have. That we know of. This year the administration was pushing through another budget and I was able to stop it. I’m vice chair. And we cut another 15 million. We are not going into the classroom. We have increased the number of students. But we have, I think, as good of a fiscal record as any school system, probably better than most. We did not do what the county did - raise property taxes, what? 28 percent? We didn’t do that. But you know, I don’t really buy that the community did not know because Medlock and a couple of areas around the county found out. They had to have knowledge because they came to the board and said, “No.” And the board said, “Ok.” We listen you. But nobody came to, from this community and said “no.”
F7: I am new to Decatur, and I met a parent from Medlock. And, I knew nothing about the cell towers at the school before I met her and she described to me a wooing relationship with T-mobile. That they came several times and tried to tell them how good it would be, and this was before the school closed, how good it would be for the community, how, ah, they could make it look like a water tower and not like a cell tower, that it could have their mascot painted on it, and so they, in the process of wooing the community alienated the community. And that’s what I understood from this parent.
Womack: Well, that could very well be true. Yes sir?
M4: Just curious, I’m sorry. I was a little late. You may have discussed it earlier. If it is not a good decision for the three schools that you pulled off the list, and I saw this in a report I recently read and the person in that article quoted a board member as saying if they heard anything at all, then how does the logic follow through that it is a good idea for the other schools?
Womack: The, the, uh, answer to that, maybe, maybe. It was that the community came forth and said we just don’t want it. That was, that was before the vote, sir.
F5: But, you can change the vote, right? You can bring it back up?
Womack: No, no. The contracts have been signed. I’m sorry.
F5: Well, don’t you think if other schools were had a quite a lengthier notice because of T-mobile and.. and we didn’t have any interaction with the school so we didn’t have any notice.
Womack: I can’t answer that. I can’t give you an honest answer about that. If I said “yes” it would be a lie, if I said “no” it would be a lie.
F5: Well, just personally, I’m just amazed that those other schools were that together and were there at that meeting. And were, you know, in the…
Womack: They voiced it to their, their, their local boards
F5: And so, in this report of that meeting, you know, there’s all this stuff about how this school and that school went to the community and this school doesn‘t want it … and it says that cell phone towers especially near developing children could be a danger. Is there a provision in this 15-year contract if there is something in there that is damaging to children? Is there some sort of break off?
Womack: I don’t know about that. If you would make just a little note for me and I will try to get you an answer.
F5: Okay
Womack: But, I can assure you, just as one board member, if this thing proves to be detrimental, and not, uh, an eyesore, if this were detrimental to kids the board would move to break the contract.
(mumbled talking in background)
So, everything we’ve seen so far and I’ve told you the FC - the Federal Communications Act says health cannot be … it is updated… look, I can’t give you the answer. Look either you are in FAVOR of this, or you are not. Yes sir?
M5: Then I have a question. If this is a private company and it’s not a question of public perception. And if a private company can go buy private property somewhere.
Womack: Yes sir.
M5: And it wasn’t a matter of money as you said so there in your speech a while ago, then what was so seductive about this particular proposal that you had to go for it and after there are three major objections and sneak it through as you did.
Womack: We did NOT sneak it through, sir. That’s your definition. We did not sneak it through at all. The seductive part is we have poor cell service in here. Over at Lakeside. Over at Lakeside. There is no police. There’s no fire. There is no cell service across from Briarcliff almost all the way down to Clairemont and back down a great degree down… (unintelligible name of a road). And in the school last year they had a young lady that had a seizure. And that community wants a cell phone.
F7: They don’t have a land line?
Womack: They did, uh, it happened outside. And it took them something like 10 minutes to get from where they were inside because they were trying to take care of her and the seizure she had.
(His cell phone started beeping. - which was a little amusing since he was just making the point about no cell service in the area)
Excuse me. (He reaches into pocket, takes out phone and turns it off.)
Yes sir?
M6: Can, can you generally explain the electromagnetic spectrum and tell us why 120 towers isn’t sufficient for coverage?
Womack: No sir, I can’t.
M6: Because it doesn’t make any sense to have more.
Womack: You have a cell tower right down here at, uh, at uh, Oak Grove and Lavista.
M6: Here you can have the addresses. I’ll give this to, you can have the addresses of where all the towers are at.
Womack: I’ve seen that. And, I know we’ve got a lot of cells in here. But the cells - break out.
M6: How?
Womack: Sir, that’s a technical question and I’m not prepared and I will not discuss it and I am not talking about it.
M6: But, you made the decision to put the tower in. Without knowing? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Womack: That doesn’t have anything to do with…
M6: (Angry) It has everything to do with our children!
Womack: We have very limited cell service in this area.
M6: Do you want me to tell you why it is that way?
Womack: Why?
M6: Because they’ve jumbled the airwaves with all the towers in. You’ve got asymmetrical lines and you’ve got symmetrical lines. Asymmetrical are for residential areas, meaning we take in…
Womack: You’re the expert, sir. I’m not …
M6: Well then I should have made the decision! And I would have said No! Because, to me, 120 is pretty sufficient!
Womack: Okay, sir, you’ve made your point.
M6: Thank you. Appreciate it.
F8: … (unintelligible - lots of talking going on in background)… and when did the school system start making decisions about cell phone coverage?
Womack: This started, I guess, last, um, about mid-last year, well, I guess.. And we, uh, discussed it in a couple of board meetings best I can remember… lightly, not heavy, but lightly. And we said, “We have to go to the community.” And, we did that as best we could. I’m sorry we did not contact your association.
F8: Well, I would like to know where did you go?
Womack: Well, Maam’ I can’t… I can’t answer that. I’m not gonna go knock on your door and say, “Hey, we gonna put..
F8: I’m not asking you for that, but what I am asking is that you go to the neighborhood that is immediately next door and give us some kind of notice.
M7: Mr. Womack, you could have done what’s standard for zoning issues, which is that..
Womack: Post a notice out here?
F8: Exactly!
M7: You could have put up a large sign that everybody notices …
Womack: Look, we relied on our website. I’m sorry we didn’t do our job as well as we should. But, let me tell you something, whether you like what I’m going to tell you or not, I really don’t care…
M7: Obviously!
(more mumbling from audience)
F9: That’s the problem!
Womack: That is not the problem.
F9: That IS the problem!
Womack: Ma’am, when you set in my seat and you’re pulled as many ways as I’ve been pulled since I came back on this board, you would run from this job.
F9: (Angry) That was your choice! That’s not my problem. I did not force you to do that!
Womack: I understand, Ma’am. And I’m not debate that with you. You’ve got your life… I’m not, because I paid to get this job and the community asked me to do it. Now…
F9: Then don’t complain!
Womack: It is the most important job there is in the state. The school board. Because it’s charged with educating the future leaders of this country. If we fall down, the community falls down. I’m sorry that you did not get the notice that you wanted.
F9: No notice.
Womack: I said I am sorry you didn’t get it! I’m not going to play on the words. Yes, ma’am?
F10: Um, I’m not going to say if it is right or wrong because it sounds like it’s already a done deal and really there is no sense arguing over it at this point unless you’re going to bring it to court. From that vantage point, my question really comes to you is that if this was about money for the cell towers, is there any sort of written information as far as how much Briarlake is going to get for it?
Womack: $25,000
F10: And that’s it? Out of that $250…
F11: $450 (others also chime in with $450,000)
Womack: $450. Now if they put another cell phone, uh, carrier up there, you get an additional $25.
M8: But, by law, don’t they have to fill the other 120? Don’t they have to co-locate? Or do you not know the laws on that either?
Womack: Sir, I don’t know the answer. You’re an expert in the math and things..
M8: Yeah, I am, and I will be more than happy to tell ya… you’re skirting the law!
F11: That’s right!
Womack: You need to talk to our people. I’ll be glad to open that door for you.
M8:Oh yeah, I’d appreciate that. Thanks.
So, not only do they not wish to consider your input on a major decision that could affect your health, your property value and your safety from strangers in your neighborhood and at your school, they also wish to completely silence you from being heard at all, even as a courtesy, in a public comments portion of a zoning meeting.
They negotiated the cell tower contract to bring in merely $400 a month, when the average price T-mobile pays elsewhere, like in Gwinett County, is between $2,000 and $3,000 a month for county property leases. While early rumors had some schools expecting they might see substantial benefit from a tower, they have more recently learned that all the tower income will be deposited directy into the DCSS general fund.
One board member, Paul Womack, reported to parents and community members in the Briarlake neighborhood in Decatur that DeKalb is in such "good shape" financially that the cell tower proposal was not even about the money. He claims that the main purpose was to improve the cell service at Lakeside High School. As a side note, the topic was originally introduced to DCSS by a board member who served the Lakeside community and is now a member of the school's booster club, The Valhalla Project. See: http://www.wix.com/dbbaker/thevalhallaproject. Unlike the other schools receiving towers, Lakeside will allow the booster to direct any tower money that may be allocated for renovation projects, rather than the PTA.
What we cannot understand is why it takes 12 schools spread out across the county to improve the dropped call ratios at Lakeside. And, why is the school board suddenly feeling so commpelled to solve this issue when students are not even supposed to use their cell phones on campus? Verizon coverage seems to be fine in the area, so perhaps there are other business connections between Lakeside and T-mobile or AT&T.
If you would like to read the transcribed conversation that took place between Mr. Womack and the people in his district who turned out for a meeting after the vote was already rendered and the contracts were signed. Many of these people had not been informed about the cell tower proposal until it was too late to even voice their opinions. (See partial transcript below.)
We are republishing the transcipt as a reminder of how much our board believes they can operate without even caring about public opinion. If you are as mad as we are when you read Womack state, “I really don’t care.” Or, “If I said yes, it would be a lie, if I said no, it would be a lie,” then please join us in sending them a clear message:
“If you want more money from us, we are not going to just hand it over for you to do whatever you want to with it. You will have to take it from us by way of property taxes or whatever means you feel justify your actions, but we will not hand over our money until you start listening to the people you were elected to serve. You will have to take the money from us, just like criminals. You are cut off until you start following your own rules and doing the job you were elected to do – educate our children. Stop foolish spending. Stop selling out our children. Stop helping your corporate buddies. Start doing what is right or step down."
Here is the transcript as promised:
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Meeting with Paul Womack at Briarlake Elementary School
Transcript of Meeting Between School Board Vice Chair Paul Womack and Concerned Parents and Residents discussing the cell towers.
Transcription of 8/31/11 (Reprinted with permission from DeKalb School Watch Blog.) Womack = Paul Womack, elected again in 2008, having served for twelve years in the 1970s, currently District 4 Rep - School Board Vice Chair / Acting Chair During July 11 board meeting in which a contract was agreed to that will put cell towers at 9 public schools in DeKalb County. Womack is the district representative for 5 schools on the original list of 12: Lakeside, Briarlake, Brockett, Jolly and Princeton.
Interesting to note that this meeting was assembled on short notice within about two days time and 22 people attended, many of whom were not actually invited and the meeting hosts were unsure how they even found out about it. The meeting that was held in May regarding T-mobile’s proposal that Mr. Womack mentions in the transcript below, was supposedly highly publicized and every attempt was made to let the community know about it. That meeting had only 3 attendees from Briarlake. (The Lakeside meeting was held at the same time one mile away.) The Brockett meeting had 5.
===
Womack: You can use [the money from T-Mobile] for improvements, things for the school, room parties, things like that. It’s up the community how you’re going to spend that $25,000. There has been no location so far. They have looked at a couple of sites, but I have been assured by T-Mobile that the community will be able to say yeah or nay as to the actual placement. Questions?
F1: The literature from the World Health Organization from December, 2010, mentioning the RF that comes from cell phones as inconclusive regarding damage as well as the RF from cell phone towers. Five months later they came out with a major study that’s conclusive that long-term usage of cell phones can be (damaging). There’s also a study due out in 2013 about cell phone towers and exposure to those. Shouldn’t we consider waiting until…
Womack: (Steps on speaker)The contract has already been signed. That’s a given. Uh, you get more radiation from your microwave than you do...
F1: But that’s not constant exposure.
Womack: I understand, but when you use this, that’s your choice. That will not be your choice. (chatter) Excuse me, one at a time, please. One at a time. Uh, I can’t say that that study is right or wrong, but I know that the federal government says that it cannot be taken into consideration. But there is no concrete, proven fact. I haven’t seen that study, but I will ask the administration to look at it. I will get an answer.
F2: Will you take a look at this study of dairy cows in Germany? It shows a verifiable link between the RF emissions and the cow’s behavior. They were aborting their calves, not producing enough milk, and when they were removed from that range, everything went to normal.
Womack: Ok. Now you had a comment back there.
F2: Well, my point is, if this is such a controversial issue, why are we taking the risk with our children? Aren’t we supposed to protect children?
Womack: Your name is…
F2: (Answers) I’m just concerned that we are thinking “oh we’re going to get all this money, so that makes it ok”.
Womack: No. It doesn’t. We held a seminar here. We advertised it for a month. Put it on the website. The community was told, but everybody said, “oh it was the end of school, we didn’t have time”. We had about ten people that showed up for that presentation from T-Mobile. And I only heard one question during that presentation that was anywhere in voicing a concern. And the community over at Medlock voiced major concern and we took it off of the contract. But their voice was not from the safety, they were mad because Medlock had been closed. They didn’t want any encroachment. We’ve tried to follow what communities wanted and very frankly, I’ve only had 4 or 5 questions out of this community as to whether it was safe, why did you do it. If the community does not speak up, I can only support or not support what I’m hearing.
F3: I have a comment. Many people didn’t come, because they didn’t know. Now that people know, I understand that this took place in the summer.
Womack: There was a presentation on May 3.
F3: There was a presentation but it didn’t discuss cell towers on this property.
F4: You’re right here in my neighborhood, in my backyard. I didn’t know anything about this. I’ve spoken with several of my neighbors and nobody knew anything about it. Nobody let our neighborhood know anything about any possibility of there being any cell phone towers right in our backyard. It’s the first time we’ve known about it right after your vote.
Womack: I’m sorry.
M1: Well it looks like now, it’s a done deal
Womack: It is a done deal.
F4: Unless there’s a protect order.
Womack: That won’t happen cause the county has come to us to ask how we did it cause they want to do it too. (arguing ensues)
F4: If you did it before we had a chance to know about it that was
Womack: It was on television before the vote, on all of the stations.
F4: What stations?
Womack: The television stations ma’am. It was out in the public. I can only do what I hear, not what I’m hearing after the fact.
F4: Well, if we didn’t know before the fact, then what could we say before the fact?
F5: I could find nothing online.
Womack: Well, it was on our site. It was publicized through… We had sent notices to uh, I don’t know what to tell you on that.
F5: During the vote on July 11, during the meeting it was brought to your attention that the community was not aware of this. I am very involved in the schools and I was not aware of this.
Womack: I don't know what to tell you.
F5: I do know that you pushed the vote through.
Womack: Yes
F5: You opted. Your name in the meeting minutes opted to push the vote through.
Womack: Yes
F5: And you say that the contract is now signed, but we’re saying that we didn’t know. You’re telling us we did, but I’m telling you that no, I did not.
Womack: Well, I don’t know how to get it out anymore than we tried. I don’t have the resources personally to do this. We asked the administration to post it on the site. I do know that we got it out the best we could. And I don’t care what issue it comes to a community, part is going to have it and part is not.
M2: I realize that, but at the same time, the procedures that have been used at least since the Roosevelt administration, whenever we have an issue of public necessity, vs the rights of private citizens affected by that alleged necessity, is that we have a period of adequate notice – sufficient to get the message to the members of the community that are affected. I’m just saying that if all you did was notify the PTA and you’re planning on putting a 150’ cell phone tower that’s 50 feet from my property line? And it’s my property value that’s going to be affected, then you need to notify me and other members of the community that are affected. I back up to the playground of this establishment.
Womack: One of your neighbors, I discussed it with him because he, uh, came. And I asked him, “what’s your interest?” And I said, “are you concerned?” and he said, “Oh, no. no.” He said, “I’ve put cell towers up all over the country. Now you may know who I’m talking about, somebody right around here. I live, not quite as close as you are. I don’t know what to tell you. I didn’t know why you didn’t know it because we tried to get the message out.
F6: Well, I’m right next door. We have a neighborhood alert. We have a newsletter. We have an email alert for the neighborhood. Nobody in our neighborhood knows about it and we are immediately next door. My property line is exactly next to the property line of this school. Nobody in my neighborhood knew anything about it. Not a thing.
Womack: Well, I don’t know what to say to you. We tried to get it out.
M2: Did you put signs up? I mean, did you put any signs?
Womack: No, no we did not. We did not. No.
F6: So, one meeting and that’s it? You had like one meeting and pushed it through? Is that what happened? I mean that’s what it sounds…
Womack: Well, actually, yes, I would say that is the fact of the matter, yes.
F6:That doesn’t seem right.
M3: I’d like to try to suggest a rationale for why what happened did happen. We are at a time when our county is looking for sources of revenue to keep the schools open, not have to cut services while politically it’s the wrong time to be raising taxes and here was a chance to get a hold of a cool, free half a million bucks and if we went and got this thing done without making a lot of noise, it was gonna happen and the county and the school board was willing to take the risk that there wouldn’t be a couple of lawyers living next door that might somehow find their way there might be a rite of notice and run down to the courthouse. And that’s what happened.
Womack: Well, let me, let me respond to the taxes. The school board does not raise taxes… since 2000. Ah, I was chairmen of the Budget Committee we cut 104 million dollars out of the budget. A lot of it was in the area that most people were concerned about. And that was in staff. And we got rid of a lot of things that we shouldn’t have. That we know of. This year the administration was pushing through another budget and I was able to stop it. I’m vice chair. And we cut another 15 million. We are not going into the classroom. We have increased the number of students. But we have, I think, as good of a fiscal record as any school system, probably better than most. We did not do what the county did - raise property taxes, what? 28 percent? We didn’t do that. But you know, I don’t really buy that the community did not know because Medlock and a couple of areas around the county found out. They had to have knowledge because they came to the board and said, “No.” And the board said, “Ok.” We listen you. But nobody came to, from this community and said “no.”
F7: I am new to Decatur, and I met a parent from Medlock. And, I knew nothing about the cell towers at the school before I met her and she described to me a wooing relationship with T-mobile. That they came several times and tried to tell them how good it would be, and this was before the school closed, how good it would be for the community, how, ah, they could make it look like a water tower and not like a cell tower, that it could have their mascot painted on it, and so they, in the process of wooing the community alienated the community. And that’s what I understood from this parent.
Womack: Well, that could very well be true. Yes sir?
M4: Just curious, I’m sorry. I was a little late. You may have discussed it earlier. If it is not a good decision for the three schools that you pulled off the list, and I saw this in a report I recently read and the person in that article quoted a board member as saying if they heard anything at all, then how does the logic follow through that it is a good idea for the other schools?
Womack: The, the, uh, answer to that, maybe, maybe. It was that the community came forth and said we just don’t want it. That was, that was before the vote, sir.
F5: But, you can change the vote, right? You can bring it back up?
Womack: No, no. The contracts have been signed. I’m sorry.
F5: Well, don’t you think if other schools were had a quite a lengthier notice because of T-mobile and.. and we didn’t have any interaction with the school so we didn’t have any notice.
Womack: I can’t answer that. I can’t give you an honest answer about that. If I said “yes” it would be a lie, if I said “no” it would be a lie.
F5: Well, just personally, I’m just amazed that those other schools were that together and were there at that meeting. And were, you know, in the…
Womack: They voiced it to their, their, their local boards
F5: And so, in this report of that meeting, you know, there’s all this stuff about how this school and that school went to the community and this school doesn‘t want it … and it says that cell phone towers especially near developing children could be a danger. Is there a provision in this 15-year contract if there is something in there that is damaging to children? Is there some sort of break off?
Womack: I don’t know about that. If you would make just a little note for me and I will try to get you an answer.
F5: Okay
Womack: But, I can assure you, just as one board member, if this thing proves to be detrimental, and not, uh, an eyesore, if this were detrimental to kids the board would move to break the contract.
(mumbled talking in background)
So, everything we’ve seen so far and I’ve told you the FC - the Federal Communications Act says health cannot be … it is updated… look, I can’t give you the answer. Look either you are in FAVOR of this, or you are not. Yes sir?
M5: Then I have a question. If this is a private company and it’s not a question of public perception. And if a private company can go buy private property somewhere.
Womack: Yes sir.
M5: And it wasn’t a matter of money as you said so there in your speech a while ago, then what was so seductive about this particular proposal that you had to go for it and after there are three major objections and sneak it through as you did.
Womack: We did NOT sneak it through, sir. That’s your definition. We did not sneak it through at all. The seductive part is we have poor cell service in here. Over at Lakeside. Over at Lakeside. There is no police. There’s no fire. There is no cell service across from Briarcliff almost all the way down to Clairemont and back down a great degree down… (unintelligible name of a road). And in the school last year they had a young lady that had a seizure. And that community wants a cell phone.
F7: They don’t have a land line?
Womack: They did, uh, it happened outside. And it took them something like 10 minutes to get from where they were inside because they were trying to take care of her and the seizure she had.
(His cell phone started beeping. - which was a little amusing since he was just making the point about no cell service in the area)
Excuse me. (He reaches into pocket, takes out phone and turns it off.)
Yes sir?
M6: Can, can you generally explain the electromagnetic spectrum and tell us why 120 towers isn’t sufficient for coverage?
Womack: No sir, I can’t.
M6: Because it doesn’t make any sense to have more.
Womack: You have a cell tower right down here at, uh, at uh, Oak Grove and Lavista.
M6: Here you can have the addresses. I’ll give this to, you can have the addresses of where all the towers are at.
Womack: I’ve seen that. And, I know we’ve got a lot of cells in here. But the cells - break out.
M6: How?
Womack: Sir, that’s a technical question and I’m not prepared and I will not discuss it and I am not talking about it.
M6: But, you made the decision to put the tower in. Without knowing? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Womack: That doesn’t have anything to do with…
M6: (Angry) It has everything to do with our children!
Womack: We have very limited cell service in this area.
M6: Do you want me to tell you why it is that way?
Womack: Why?
M6: Because they’ve jumbled the airwaves with all the towers in. You’ve got asymmetrical lines and you’ve got symmetrical lines. Asymmetrical are for residential areas, meaning we take in…
Womack: You’re the expert, sir. I’m not …
M6: Well then I should have made the decision! And I would have said No! Because, to me, 120 is pretty sufficient!
Womack: Okay, sir, you’ve made your point.
M6: Thank you. Appreciate it.
F8: … (unintelligible - lots of talking going on in background)… and when did the school system start making decisions about cell phone coverage?
Womack: This started, I guess, last, um, about mid-last year, well, I guess.. And we, uh, discussed it in a couple of board meetings best I can remember… lightly, not heavy, but lightly. And we said, “We have to go to the community.” And, we did that as best we could. I’m sorry we did not contact your association.
F8: Well, I would like to know where did you go?
Womack: Well, Maam’ I can’t… I can’t answer that. I’m not gonna go knock on your door and say, “Hey, we gonna put..
F8: I’m not asking you for that, but what I am asking is that you go to the neighborhood that is immediately next door and give us some kind of notice.
M7: Mr. Womack, you could have done what’s standard for zoning issues, which is that..
Womack: Post a notice out here?
F8: Exactly!
M7: You could have put up a large sign that everybody notices …
Womack: Look, we relied on our website. I’m sorry we didn’t do our job as well as we should. But, let me tell you something, whether you like what I’m going to tell you or not, I really don’t care…
M7: Obviously!
(more mumbling from audience)
F9: That’s the problem!
Womack: That is not the problem.
F9: That IS the problem!
Womack: Ma’am, when you set in my seat and you’re pulled as many ways as I’ve been pulled since I came back on this board, you would run from this job.
F9: (Angry) That was your choice! That’s not my problem. I did not force you to do that!
Womack: I understand, Ma’am. And I’m not debate that with you. You’ve got your life… I’m not, because I paid to get this job and the community asked me to do it. Now…
F9: Then don’t complain!
Womack: It is the most important job there is in the state. The school board. Because it’s charged with educating the future leaders of this country. If we fall down, the community falls down. I’m sorry that you did not get the notice that you wanted.
F9: No notice.
Womack: I said I am sorry you didn’t get it! I’m not going to play on the words. Yes, ma’am?
F10: Um, I’m not going to say if it is right or wrong because it sounds like it’s already a done deal and really there is no sense arguing over it at this point unless you’re going to bring it to court. From that vantage point, my question really comes to you is that if this was about money for the cell towers, is there any sort of written information as far as how much Briarlake is going to get for it?
Womack: $25,000
F10: And that’s it? Out of that $250…
F11: $450 (others also chime in with $450,000)
Womack: $450. Now if they put another cell phone, uh, carrier up there, you get an additional $25.
M8: But, by law, don’t they have to fill the other 120? Don’t they have to co-locate? Or do you not know the laws on that either?
Womack: Sir, I don’t know the answer. You’re an expert in the math and things..
M8: Yeah, I am, and I will be more than happy to tell ya… you’re skirting the law!
F11: That’s right!
Womack: You need to talk to our people. I’ll be glad to open that door for you.
M8:Oh yeah, I’d appreciate that. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)