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

Posted on 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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

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

Posted on 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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Goodbye, Jenn Ward

Goodbye, Jenn Ward

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer

jennwardJenn 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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Anyone receive a cease and desist letter?

Posted on 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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

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

Posted on 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

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Smart People at Smartlink

Posted on 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!

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

California Assembly Bill 2788 is DEAD

Posted on 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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

AB2788 Webinar for Local Governments June 27 at 10:00

Posted on 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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
A Massive Land Grab by Wireless Hits California Legislature

A Massive Land Grab by Wireless Hits California Legislature

Posted on by Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer
Mike Gatto Wants to Put A Cell Tower in Your Front Yard

Assembly Member Mike Gatto

The elected official, along with his wireless industry patrons, who Wants to Put A Cell Tower in Your Front Yard WITHOUT Any Local Government Discretionary or Aesthetic Review.

 

Assembly member Mike Gatto introduced legislation on June 13 on behalf of his wireless industry patrons that would be the biggest land grab by wireless companies in the history of the state. The vehicle for this huge land grab is Assembly Bill 2788.  Mr. Gatto switched Ab2788 from a completely different purpose to now be a huge gift to wireless companies over the values of his own constituents.

Mr. Gatto wants to allow his wireless company partners to place all sorts of wireless towers in the public right of way (that’s right in front of your home) WITHOUT giving you, your city or county, any say in the design or location of the cell site. 

The legislation he introduced, ghosted by wireless industry attorneys and helped by other wireless industry firms, would DENY any local government the ability to require a different and less intrusive location, or any different or better design that is more harmonious with the surrounding.

Mr. Gatto wants to fling open every right-of-way to his corporate wireless industry patrons.

Mike Gatto, who represents Burbank, Glendale and nearby areas in the state Assembly, is the head of the Assembly’s powerful Utilities and Commerce Committee, which oversees the California Public Utilities Commission, as well as wireless and telephone operators in California.  This means that Mr. Gatto has the power to move this anti-resident bill forward.

Most recently, Mr. Gatto co-sponsored a bill to BREAK UP THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. That breakup would destroy most of the state oversight of wireless and other utilities. That bill passed the Assembly, but it looks like cooler heads in the State Senate will prevail, so that the CPUC break up bill looks like it will die.

Now Assembly member Gatto, pushed by his corporate sponsors, wants to destroy aesthetics of communities everywhere in California by opening the front of your home to a cell site, with no local discretionary review.

The wireless company wants to stick a cell site in front of your home?  Boom: Gatto says it’s done.

But that’s not all: Mr. Gatto’s proposed legislation will REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS to make all of their property…not just the right of way…available for cell sites.  Except fire stations. To grease the support of the firefighters union, the bill has a special carve out for fire stations. They don’t have to be made available for cell sites. Nice political twist, Mr. Gatto.

Under Mr. Gatto’s proposed law, schools run by cities or counties would also be fair game for new cell sites, regardless of how the parents might feel about that.

If you want a 28-cubic foot box in front of your home attached to an unknown number of 6-cubic foot antennas, go see Mike Gatto.  Has he got a deal for you!

A Gift from Mike Gatto and his Wireless Industry Partners

A Mandatory Gift to Everyone in California from Assembly member Mike Gatto and his Wireless Industry Patrons. Thanks, Mr. Gatto.

 

If you want to preserve the aesthetic appeal of the front of you home, and your community’s aesthetics overall, then TELL MIKE GATTO TO KILL HIS WIRELESS GIFT BILL.  The only gift is to his corporate wireless industry patrons, leaving just a lump of coal for his constituents.

Mr. Gatto’s proposed is is bad for everyone in California EXCEPT for Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Crown Castle, Extenet, Mobilitie, T-Mobile, every other wireless firm, and of course Mr. Gatto.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE BILL as of June 14, 2016.

Here is Mr. Gatto’s contract information:  Why don’t you ask him why his corporate patrons are more important (really, more valuable) than those who elected him to office.

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0043
Tel: (916) 319-2043
Fax: (916) 319-2143

District Office:
300 East Magnolia Boulevard
Suite 504
Burbank, CA 91502
Tel: (818) 558-3043
Fax: (818) 558-3042

@MikeGatto

#TellGattoNO

#KillAB2788

Copy and paste into your social media feeds:

#TellGattoNO #KillAB2788 Gatto can’t give away our homes to his wireless co. patrons. #KillAB2788 – the Wireless Give-a-Way!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail