[BC] RFR Rule Question

[towers at mre.com]

FCC won't touch it.  This is a land use/zoning matter. The carrier's
license allows them to build anything they want within their licensed
area.  FCC has repeately said they WON'T get into land use pre-emption
beyond PRB-1 (which applies exclusively to amateurs.)

This is clearly a business deal between the cell carrier and the land
owner. The residents (tenants) may not have standing except as voting
residents.  They certainly don't as land owners.

Also keep in mind many states have enacted new laws which REQUIRE local
zoning bodies to permit the construction of cell towers.  They can NOT
deny the tower for merely asthetic or other reasons which can not be
supported by hard science (RFR).  There would need to be a patently
defective element of the application for it to be denied.  Otherwise,
except in select and specific zoning classes, the jurisdiction having
authority can not deny the cell carrier's application and must grant it in
a timely manner.

This is what happens when NIMBYism turns into BANANAism and runs amuck. 
The state feels the heat when their state rep's receive the ire of a broad
class of citizens who can't use their cell phones in areas which NEED cell
service.

The resdients will need to get acclimated with that tower as it's not
going anywhere....

MM

> The landlord of a Senior-disabled housing building erected Cellular or
> other
> similar antennas.   There was no visible construction permit, no known
> hearings. The city doesn't want to take any action. Who at FCC, if
> applicable do the tenants contact?