GOACT Scores Second Big Victory 3


T-Mobile told area neighbors and Glendale Organized Against Cell Towers (GOACT) members yesterday that it will not build a cell tower at the Cumberland Road site for which the company had already received a city permit. This victory follows GOACT’s first success in persuading Glendale, California’s city council to unanimously enact a 45-day moratorium on all cell tower construction in order to draft a comprehensive wireless facility ordinance.

After the announcement at a community meeting the company organized, T-Mobile asked for ideas about how the company could work in a more effective way with residents and the city. Residents asked them to also withdraw T-Mobile’s application for a nearby site at Glenwood Road and Clement Street, and insisted that the carrier install fewer and longer-range towers on city-owned hillsides far from homes.

Proliferation of towers emerged as a big concern. Since the proposed installation was a “micro-site” that would only have a range of two to four blocks, this was only the first site in the area. Many other cell carriers would be allowed to compete (and install more sites) on the same basis if one became established.

T-Mobile acknowledged that they didn’t do a good job of working with the community in obtaining this permit. They also said that their demand, capacity, and coverage research wasn’t as thorough as John McMahon’s door-to-door effort (posted at youtube.com under “get the cell out of here”), which apparently has also convinced them that they don’t need a tower at the Cumberland location.

The permit path and T-Mobile’s move into data services were both subjects of concern at the community meeting. All neighbors at the meeting wanted a better process with the opportunity for public input, before installations are approved. Councilman Frank Quintero, who was in attendance, asked specifically about T-Mobile’s “build-out” plans to expand broadband services, and received a vague and unsatisfactory answer from company representatives.

GOACT is now mobilizing for its next big effort: working with the city of Glendale to draft a wireless facility ordinance that
• keeps towers out of residential neighborhoods
• checks cell site proliferation by requiring carriers to plan for fewer towers overall
• guarantees strong design review oversight over location and construction.

Keep informed by checking the group’s website, www.getthecelloutofhere.com and this blog!


3 thoughts on “GOACT Scores Second Big Victory

  • Miriam

    Congratulations to the neighbors on Cumberland for winning their fight with T-Mobile. At the Community meeting T-Mobile rescinded their application for that location. The tremendous community reaction sent a strong message to T-Mobile as well as to the Glendale City Council that they did not want this cell antenna in their neighborhood. I have worked two years to get Cellular Regulation in the City of Pasadena. At this point the City Staff has drafted a proposal for a Wireless and Cable Ordinance that is very pro-industry and not pro-neighborhood and offers little protection and no oversight. The Pasadena neighborhood groups are disappointed in the proposed wireless and cable ordinance. We hope that the City Council will give equal weight to the public’s knowledge and comments of this complex issue. The last Pasadena City Council hearing was continued to February 23, 2009. Congratulations GO ACT

  • Sally Hampton

    Congratulations on a well deserved victory to GoAct and I hope Los Angeles County will follow the lead of the courageous Glendale City Council and Mayor – kudos to them, too. See this article published just today: http://blog.telephonyonline.com/unfiltered/2009/02/05/t-mobile-caught-in-the-middle/

    We have to keep reminding our local officials that there is NO new and growing market demand to fill, no legit reason for new towers. So, why are they allowing this unnecessary blight in residential areas and unnecessary risk to the public? So the cell carriers can drive a new market to keep up sales? Sell us expensive new services that we don’t need? Should wireless providers be allowed to market to kids? Why are we not demanding the fiber optic that consumers already paid for to begin with? (read about this here: http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm )

    We need moratoriums (citywide, county wide, statewide) to allow time to investigate, study and incorporate the most “public friendly” local policies that state and federal laws will allow. We need our local jurisdictions to lobby to help change the unjust and unwise state and federal laws.

    We need feedback from an informed public, which requires an honest and open forum. (How do we get that?) With all the true facts and a full understanding of the tradeoffs, what would the public choose? Do we want to receive the bulk of our broadband internet, video/TV and home phone services via wired infrastructure or via microwave antennas on every other corner? I bet I know.

    We should also have programs to encourage landlines for 911 safety instead of allowing companies like T-Mobile to mislead people into giving up their best lifeline for their profit. Putting up more towers has nothing to do with ensuring that someone on a cell phone will get 911. 911 calls from any cell phone has priority over all calls and will pick up any signal of any carrier so their whole coverage and capacity claim is the most irritating lie and they should be called on it. Especially considering the industry refuses to provide at least 8 hours of back up batteries in the event of emergencies. The industry also seems to have no problem with the many terrible accidents caused by drivers distracted on cell phones. Or the people recently killed by the train accident caused by a conductor text messaging on his cell phone. Why are citizens not protected from these scenarios the way we are protected from second hand smoke?

    These are all questions that need to be answered sooner, rather than too late.

Comments are closed.