California: PUC Sec. 7901/7901.1 Loc. Gov. Aesthetic Control Upheld

Posted on September 15, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Today the California Court of Appeal (1st) affirmed the trial decision in T-Mobile v. San Francisco (San Francisco City and County
Super. Ct. No. CGC-11-510703).* That decision held that local governments in California have rather broad aesthetic control over wireless facilities in the public right-of-way.

This decision is hot off the press, so a deep analysis will follow. For now, let the reading begin!

a144252

-Jonathan

* Disclosure: I served as the wireless communications expert witness for the City and County of San Francisco.

Who are John DuBois, Suzy DuBois, Tracy Pielemeier, Kristen Burkman, and Ginny Kelleher and why are they important?

Posted on September 5, 2016September 12, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

When Crown Castle was unhappy with a decision by the City of Westfield, Indiana denying a cell site application, they sued Westfield in state court. The case is:

Crown Castle Towers 06-2 LLC v. City of Westfield, Tracy Pielemeier, Ginny Kelleheret al, Case No. 29C01-1511-MI-009308.

Of course Crown Castle sued the City of Westfield. No surprise there. But Crown Castle through its attorneys took the nearly unheard of step of suing John DuBois, Suzy DuBois, Tracy Pielemeier, Kristen Burkman, and Ginny Kelleher, all of whom spoke out against Crown Castle’s project at a City of Westfield public hearing.

Okay, Crown Castle said in a statement delivered to the local press that they no choice to include John DuBois, Suzy DuBois, Tracy Pielemeier, Kristen Burkman, and Ginny Kelleher in the suit. Hogwash. It was, I believe, a stupid and ill-sighted move to stifle future public comment on matters of public interest, specifically pending cell site applications.

SLAPP and ANTI-SLAPP

I’m not expert on Indiana law, but Indiana has an “ANTI-SLAPP” statute designed to quash law suits filed to stifle political speech in public forums. A SLAPP is a “strategic law suit against public participation” and an ANTI-SLAPP is a law suit to quash the SLAPP. See the Digital Medial Law Project website for more information on SLAPPs and ANTI-SLAPPs in Indiana. It seems to me that Crown Castle’s inclusion of John DuBois, Suzy DuBois, Tracy Pielemeier, Kristen Burkman, and Ginny Kelleher in the suit against the City of Westfield amounted to a SLAPP.

Had Crown Castle (or any other similarly-situated plaintiff) included as law suit defendants parties merely testifying against it at a public hearing in California or New Mexico, where I am licensed to practice law, I would have immediately recommended filing an ANTI-SLAPP to dismiss those parties. They simply wanted their voices to be heard during the public hearing on a matter of public concern. I would have also recommend seeking attorneys fees against Crown Castle on behalf of the SLAPPed defendants.

Apologies are Due

I believe that Crown Castle and its local counsel of record, Matthew Price, Esq., Scott Leisz, Esq., and Joshua Burress, Esq. jointly owe John DuBois, Suzy DuBois, Tracy Pielemeier, Kristen Burkman, and Ginny Kelleher a public apology. They should also publicly commit to not making law suit defendants out of those who speak against Crown Castle at public hearings.

Sue the public agency for denying a cell site application? Fine. Let the decision stand the test of the Act and other laws. Sue the public who stand up against Crown Castle at a public hearing? Not fine.

Judge Felix’s April 15, 2016 opinion, remanding the case back for further hearings, can be found HERE.

jlk

Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq., JD, LL.M, DLP

Posted on August 30, 2016September 6, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’m very pleased (and relieved) to report that this morning I successfully defended my doctoral thesis, “Cell Towers, Community Perspectives, and Hedonic Price Modeling: Utility, Limitations, and Localism.” It was wonderful the be greeted with, “Congratulations, Doctor Kramer” when the three thesis committee members came back from their private discussions after my defense.

This marks the completion of my doctoral studies at Northeastern University in the Doctor of Law and Policy program. This does not mark the end of my research.

More information regarding my doctoral studies at Northeastern University may be found at http://JonathanKramer.com, my personal blog.

Jonathan

Goodbye, Jenn Ward

Posted on August 3, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Jenn Ward of Lorman Education Services was taken from us last Saturday night. Yet another victim of senseless gun violence, she was a kind heart wrapped in a caring body who protected the lives of her children by giving up her own. She was truly a human being.

Jenn, beyond being the lecture coordinator for John Pestle and myself, was a friend. She put up with a lot from us with her own humor and grace.

This is very, very sad. This is senseless.

Jonathan

Anyone receive a cease and desist letter?

Posted on July 13, 2016July 13, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

It appears that a certain wireless construction company has directed its attorneys to send cease-and-desist letters to people who have a different view from their own. Apparently several letters hit their targets yesterday or the day before.

If you happen to receive one, congratulations and thanks for your public participation in an important national discussion.

If you don’t mind sharing, I’d love to see your letter. Please send it to me at Kramer@telecomlawfirm.com with the subject line “Anti-SLAPP the Hubris.”

Jonathan

Mobilitie’s Latest Awful Design in Los Angeles

Posted on July 9, 2016July 10, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Just when I thought Mobilitie had secured the position of worst in design, they proved me wrong. Mobilitie has outdone themselves with a new low in aesthetic design, here in Los Angeles on Vermont Avenue at Wilshire Boulevard. I’ve posted about 50 photos of this site in the Mobilitie Gallery at http://CellTowerPhotos.com.

Sucker Deals: Part 1 – The Cell Site Lease Illusory Rent Guarantee

Posted on June 29, 2016June 29, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

This will be the first in an occasional series of of posting describing Sucker Deals offered by wireless companies to their site landlords in connection with cell site lases. Through these postings, I hope that you will gain insights into the sucker punches thrown at landlords by carriers and tower companies. Hopefully, you will learn some tricks of the trade to avoid being tricked by the trade.

These stories come from real world sucker deals offered to our cell site landlord clients by some big American tower and wireless carrier companies.

Now on to our first sucker deal,

“The Illusory Rent Guarantee.”

The set up: The tower company approaches its landlord announcing that the tenant at the site is likely to leave in the next few months. Oh woe is the landlord who is about to lose that income!

The play: The tower company tells you, the site landlord, that they need to add more years on the back end of the lease so that they can go out and attract a new tenant. They might tell you that to attract a new tenant they need to lower your rent because they have determined that they are paying you too much.

The reply: You, the landlord, did not just fall off the turnip truck and cutting rent with an existing, unexpired tenant is senseless.

The counter: They say, okay, how about a rent guarantee? You’re Intrigued! You ask, how does that work? They say that though guarantee five years of rent and trade for no rent cut and a 25 year extension, perhaps with some other terms like a right of first refusal thrown in for good measure.You reply that you are interested, but the rent guarantee. Should not begin until the current tenant leaves.

The sucker deal: They say, NO. The rent guarantee must start immediately upon the execution of the deal amendment. That’s the sucker punch of the sucker deal. What happens if the landlord accepts the deal but the current tenant does not leave (and may have never have intended to lease)? You burn through your guarantee period with no benefit, and the they tower company laughs all the way to their 25 year extension.

You ask yourself the rather embarrassing question, “did I get taken?”

Yeah, you probably did.

Don’t fall for he sucker deal!

Jonathan

Smart People at Smartlink

Posted on June 25, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Yesterday, June 24, Tripp May, Michael Johnston, and I lectured to about 60 team members of Smartlink, a major site acquisition firm. Smartly, Smartlink conducts ongoing training of its professional staff via its ‘Smartlink University’ program. Even smarter, we were asked by Smartlink to provide guidance to their staff in multiple locations around the country on how they can better accomplish their jobs working with local government officials, and cell site landlords.

The official title of our lecture was, “Time-Tested Ways to Muck Up the Leasing and Zoning Process.” We covered the topic in about 2 hours, and really enjoyed our interactions with Smartlink staff who peppered us with questions.

Huh? Those guys were telling the industry how to better do their jobs? Who do they work for!?

Actually, for years we’ve made it a point as a firm to teach the industry how to do better. Why? Because when they do their job better, better projects for the public are the result. About once or twice a year we accept an invitation to lecture like this.

Huh? You’re taking money from the industry?

Nope. We do not charge for the lectures, and when they are in far away cities we pay our own way to go. This is about education, not profit.

Thanks, again, to Smartlink for inviting us (actually, Alexis Hadley gets major credit for having the courage to reach out to me to see whether we’d lecture to the ‘other’ side).

Smart, Smartlink. Smart!

California Assembly Bill 2788 is DEAD

Posted on June 21, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

I’m very pleased to report that Assembly Bill 2788 (AB2788) is DEAD.

Assembly Member Mike Gatto pulled AB 2788 this afternoon. When I say it’s dead, it is NOT being converted to a 2-year bill. It’s simply dead.

Many, many community activists, mayors, council-members, supervisors, and local government staff all have worked to kill the misguided ‘wireless tower in front of every home’ bill.

Now we need to start preparing for next year when the wireless industry picks another member of the legislature to do its bidding.

Today is a great day.

Jonathan

AB2788 Webinar for Local Governments June 27 at 10:00

Posted on June 15, 2016 by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

Tripp May and I are hosting an hour-long webinar dissecting the layers and ramifications of AB2788. The webinar, which we are hosting at no charge to participants, will include strategies and talking points of ways local governments can rally to work together against this massive land grab by the wireless industry.

Burbank and Glendale, this bill is being perpetrated on your residents (and every resident in California) by your Assembly Member, Mike Gatto.

This webinar, set for Monday June 27 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time, is only open to local government officials and their legal counsel (in house and outside). If you’d like to register, please visit http://TinyURL.com/ab2788 and fill out the registration form.

Jonathan