Comments on: Fill Your Swimming Pool at the Gas Station?

By: Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer — Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:44:54 +0000

I do have a bit of knowledge as to the T-Mobile v. San Francisco case, and what it means at the trial, appellate, and California Supreme Court levels. I served as the wireless technology expert witness for the City and County of San Francisco at the trial. As for the deeper analysis I mentioned, that comment was aimed at our law firm clients who regularly read this blog; not non-clients like the wireless industry readers of this blog, of which there appear to be many! Admittedly I did not make that clear in the posting. -Jonathan

By: Cynthia Papermaster

Cynthia Papermaster — Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:01:30 +0000

Dear Mr. Kramer,
As you asked what our opinions are re. local regulation of 5G, I’d like to question your opinion on whether or not local governments can strictly regulate 5G.

I find it strange that you neglect to mention the 2019 California Supreme Court decision, T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, S238001, California Supreme Court. “The city has inherent local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction,” the California Supreme Court ruled. “That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use.” (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-04/san-francisco-can-reject-5g-equipment-it-views-as-too-ugly)

I believe that the City of Berkeley needs to have a strong, protective ordinance, and want to share an excerpt from Petaluma’s ordinance with you, and ask that you incorporate as many of these “Basic Requirements’ as possible in Berkeley’s amendments to our telecommunications ordinance, in order to protect our community from the dangerous effects of 5G. If you don’t agree to incorporate these requirements, please explain why not. The Berkeley community is counting on you to give us strict regulations and we are going to do everything in our power to make sure that happens.

I look forward to your response.
Best,
Cynthia Papermaster, homeowner and Berkeley resident since 1964

14.44.095 Small Cell facilities—Basic Requirements.
Small Cell facilities as defined in Section 14.44.020 of this chapter may be installed, erected, maintained and/or operated in any commercial or industrial zoning district where such antennas are permitted under this title, upon the issuance of a minor conditional use permit, so long as all the following conditions are met:
A. The Small Cell antenna must connect to an already existing utility pole that can support its weight.
B. All new wires needed to service the Small Cell must be installed within the width of the existing utility pole so as to not exceed the diameter and height of the existing utility pole.
C. All ground-mounted equipment not to be installed inside the pole must be undergrounded, flush to the ground, within three (3) feet of the utility pole.
D. Each pole is to have its own, dedicated power source to be installed and metered separately.
E. Each Small Cell is to be no less than 1,500 feet away from the nearest Small Cell facility.
F. Aside from the transmitter/antenna itself, no additional equipment shall be visible.
G. No Small Cell shall be within 200 feet of any residence.
H. An encroachment permit must be obtained for any work in the right-of-way.
http://petaluma.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=31&event_id=43128&meta_id=397675

By: jenny miller

jenny miller — Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:16:09 +0000

For someone so incredibly attached to the law, and so deeply involved in this issue, I’m amazed that the CA Supreme Court decision in the case of T-Mobile vs the City of San Franciso has escaped your notice. In that case, the court ruled that the city had the obligation to protect the health and safety of its citizens in regard to cell tower placement. Another case that seems to have escaped your notice is the one in DC where the NRDC and some Native American tribes sued to have the FCC regs overturned and were partially successful, in that the court ruled that NEPA still needed to be followed re cells

By: phoebe sorgen

phoebe sorgen — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:13:50 +0000

You ask for readers’ opinions. Pls inform how we may read other readers’ replies/comments. I see no comments after your articles. Is is a one way (dead end) street?
.

By: Phoebe Sorgen

Phoebe Sorgen — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:57:06 +0000

Thank you for asking our opinions and for expressing yours. On April 4, in your “Cal Supreme Court Rules for San Francisco against T-Mobile in PROW Case,” you wrote that you will provide deeper analysis shortly. Did you do so? I didn’t find it. In that ruling, I believe it was decided that local officials may consider health factors when regulating telecom. Elected officials have a sworn duty, and a moral obligation, to protect the public interest.

Wireless 5G close proximity cell installations are ugly, true, and would be a blight on the historic nature of many neighborhoods. But there are many other reasons to deny 5G permits besides aesthetics and proven adverse effects on human health, pollinators, etc. Wireless 5G is predicted to decrease property values substantially (~30%), decrease weather prediction accuracy by ~70%, and destroy our 4th amendment right to privacy. Wireless 5G is insecure, unreliable, and uses far more energy than previous telecom generations and than wired alternatives the are superior in every way (except mobility and industry profit.) Are you familiar with Dr. Timothy Schoechle?

The pool analogy is cute but insulting. People who ask their local elected officials to stand up to Big Telecom (and the unelected, industry-captured FCC) in protecting our towns have also — for decades — been attending FCC hearings, weighing in in writing, contacting Congress and our Senators, fighting SB 649, etc. as well as working to get the laws changed that gave for-profit corporations the power to run and to ruin our whole world.

Thank you for suing the FCC. Be strong. No kowtowing to the corporatocracy. Like Lawrence Lessig, fearlessly defend the public, please, at the local and national level.