[BC] RFR Rule Question

[Jeff Carter]

This is one of the few places remaining in the law or in practice
where if you buy something, it's actually yours, or at least mostly.

I live in a place where we didn't even have zoning until about five
years ago, and I still believe that if you buy a piece of land, you
should be able to do whatever you want with it.  If you buy it, and
somebody else can still tell you what to do with it, then whose is it
really?  The concept of private property of any kind has been under
steady attack for as long as I can remember.

I understand NIMBYism to a degree, but I'd also be the first to invite
folks to GTFO if they didn't like living next door to me and any legal
use to which I put my own real property.   In fact, I've done so, and
they did, after they finally understood they had no other viable
recourse.

I think you should have to go on a National Registry if you ever
complain about cell towers, and service providers should have to check
that registry and deny you service until you repent.  There's nothing
more retarded looking to me in a country of thoroughly retarded people
than folks showing up for a protest against a new tower while talking
on cell phones.

Jeff/KD4RBG

---- Original message ----
>From: 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