[BC] dealing with the zoning folks

[Dave Hultsman]

In a message dated 2/6/2010 10:44:47 AM Central Standard Time, towers at mre.com writes:
>Be careful.  The Koor case is only applicable to New Hampshire and the
>scope VERY narrowly encompassing.  While other state SC's might view the
>case as a friend of the court type brief, each SC is not bound to honor
>those rulings UNLESS their home state's statute is identically worded.
 
Also, I have met and visited with Bob Vinakoor.  He had some strong local attorneys and his Washington council I believe has written a book about this case.
 
The fight has passed the ability of handling person to person.  Prior to the days of cellular most towers were local radio and TV stations and two-way radio suppliers, who usually serviced local governments until the governments got so large that they formed their own shops.
 
The big problem came up with the cellular industries, both the regulated and non-regulated,  and the consortium of tower leasing companies were formed.
 
The big boys AT&T, Verizon, McCaw, Cellular One and others were granted expensive granted in many markets all about the same time. All of them were trying to meet the demand for new cellular services.  These projects over whelmed their engineering departments and their properity acquisition departments.
 
Outside consultants were hired to acquire real estate from individuals with the agreements that the individual would apply thru the existing planning and zoning for the site approvals. These consultant provided a down payment and all necessary paper work and a contract for purchase contigent on approval for the site.  Upon approval of the site and a building permit usually obtained by a local owner the contract for purchase was consumated and construction begun.  Many of these, since they were done so quickly and using locals, bypassed the normal local real estate establishment and eliminated the inflated pricing as well as speed up the entire process. Needless to say this upset many of the local real estate companies. 
 
Cities and counties got wise as the local realty speculators complained about the happenings and started to write tighter zoning and tower restrictions. Their staffs became very versed in the tower businesses.  Also since so many towers were being installed in residential areas, many home owners, and users of the cell phones,  were complaining about towers appearance in their areas  NIMBY..
 
Suddenly broadcasters, faced with 8090 improvements and DTV upgrades, found that in their filings they were not longer welcomed as public service citizens of the communities, but seen as environmental wackos trying to kill birds and cause brain tumors and cancer with their RF signals.
 
One of the hearings I attended, in a community had a local real estate attorney reading from material that was supplied by a Washington based environment group against all type of towers and transmission lines.  He had riled up citizens within 5 miles of the tower and probably collected  fees to fight the tower size increase.  I was amazed at the facts that he brought up.  Fiurtunately the antenna manufacturer had already been thru a couple of these meetings and challenged his scare tactics of what might happen with the facts.
 
Any way, we as broadcasters have a much stronger government concern about towers since all this was stirred up.  We now have to live with the red-tape, so budget for hiring a consultant for tower zoning locally, like many of us have had to do with the FAA,  and a local attorney to assist in the local matters.
 
I understand that the NAB had a published book on towers and zoning now.
 
Dave