Attorney John Flynn, who represents T-Mobile and other wireless carriers, spoke at Tuesday’s Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors meeting in favor of the installation which the board later voted to deny.
Flynn said that communities throughout the state have “an intensively emotional response to these cell sites, mainly focused on the issue of radio frequency emissions, which is legally irrelevant.” Interpretation: with the law on their side, corporations can disregard widespread public concern about cell towers and label it “irrelevant.”
Flynn referred to a property value appraisal commissioned by T-Mobile and submitted as part of the application. He neglected to mention that the appraisal referenced properties far outside the neighborhood where the cell site was planned, making it completely “irrelevant” to residents. He also said the service provider targeted this site to fill a need for service. But residents who studied the application’s coverage maps found they were outdated and didn’t reference other nearby facilities.
He asked the supervisors to approve the installation “because of the law,” apparently referring to the limited jurisdiction state and federal law gives to municipalities to regulate wireless facilities. The message in that phrase appears to be “the rules are on our side and we have the right to force our way into communities whether they like it or not.”
As I wrote in an earlier post, the wireless industry public relations playbook needs a serious upgrade. The wireless industry needs to work with communities to find appropriate sites for wireless facilities.
John Flynn’s comments from the meeting transcript/video below:
There are a couple of so-called big picture or perspective items that I’d like to focus on in my very brief comments this morning. I’ve been all over the state representing T-Mobile and other wireless service providers on matters very, very similar to this one and I know that the task you face this morning is not an easy one. When a service provider has a need that has got to be filled, as we do in this case, and we’ve chosen the least intrusive means to do it, you’re still going to get, because there’s no such thing as a perfect solution, you will still get an intensely emotional response to these cell sites, mainly focused on the issue of radio frequency emissions, which is legally irrelevant. Putting aside the fact that there really isn’t a solid scientific basis for believing that it’s going to cause anybody any harm, but it does elicit an emotional response..and we can’t deny that. But these companies, T-Mobile included, of course, try very, very hard to find the least intrusive means to take care of their customers’ needs. And they have done so in this case. There’s no perfect solution. There is no solution that’s going to make everybody happy. But in this case, we have identified the least intrusive means. We do have a significant gap that’s got to be filled. And we are asking you to approve this facility because of that need, because of the law, because of the facts. And as I said, I will be available to answer any questions the board might have. The members of the Board might have on the related legal issues. Two things I want to add, however, before I terminate my remarks. One is that property values have been raised in this case. We’ve submitted an appraisal. We believe it’s an adequate appraisal. And I believe we’re going to be submitting a letter responding to one of the appraisal issues raised by one of the planning commissioners at the last meeting. Property values would not even be an issue in this case if not for the concern expressed about radio frequency emissions. You’ve got a tough choice in this case today. You’ve got some voters on the one hand. You’ve got a corporation on the other hand. But it’s not just a corporation. We’ve got customers who have coverage needs. We’ve got to satisfy those. And we have identified the least intrusive means for doing so. Thank you for your attention.
In addition to pushing for change in the State and federal laws that unfairly favor the wireless industry in these types of situations, it’s also important to educate local government officials about the extent to which the law is on their side in this issue, namely that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does preserve local zoning authority to regulate wireless facilities (with the exceptions relating to health, significant gaps in coverage, and unreasonable discrimination, among others, that communities are all-too-familiar with).
The evidence, arguments and testimony presented by residents before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on June 23 are an excellent example of using the County’s existing planning and zoning codes to make a convincing case why this facility should not be approved at the location T-Mobile had chosen. Other communities can use this general approach as a model as well because – to paraphrase T-Mobile’s Mr. Flynn – it’s the law.