Misleading Piece in the Washington Post by Councilman Reimer on Cell Tower Bill

Subject: A Very Misleading Piece in the Washington Post - Op Ed by President Reimer

Note: This was sent to all the Council  in response to Montgomery County Council President Hans Reimers Defense of a Zoning Bill he is pushing though the Council that would allow cell towers in the front yards of homes in residential areas in rights of ways. 

President Riemer – with all due respect, your Washington Post Op Ed of today was very misleading to someone new to the area of 5G and “small cells.”  Give your highly educated Montgomery County residents the opportunity to have all facts before them before you vote on this issue tomorrow and before they vote November 6^th.   This is what I’m referring to:

Your Op Ed notes today’s signals travel long distances but next generation will not.   You fail to answer the question many of us have been asking. Why are you putting 3G and 4G on new poles that are close to homes and day cares when they travel LONG distances?

Your Op Ed notes Montgomery County’s zoning won’t allow for these antennas [that carry different technology] – Sure it does. It just doesn’t put them in front of our homes now.

Your Op Ed notes On the positive side how will we use this new technology in 10 years. – that’s great but what about the “negative side.”  For example, the Tower Committee that has been placing antennas and cell poles since 1997 approves over 95% of all applications received with countless errors and non-compliant towers.  That’s the negative that your communities are slowing beginning to learn about.

Your Op Ed notes  residents demand antennas stay out of neighborhoods which would prevent wireless companies from servicing us since they demand a “cumbersome” hearing process.   By cumbersome – do you mean A HEARING PROCESS?   I think the residents and community near Brickyard Road in Potomac Maryland would not describe getting a hearing “cumbersome.”  DO YOU?  You also fail to mention that you are denying rights by making it sound burdensome to have the Tower Committee actually hear from a concerned citizen. 

Your Op Ed notes or seems to imply residents will be denied of “essential” services.  What do you mean by essential?  The ability to use a cell phone at all?  People have testified before you that their communities have no connectivity at all for basic calls and those concerns have not been address.  The expert you engaged in the 2018 FCC filing states that 5G small cells will not provide connectivity where there is none so please explain accurately what is mean by “essential.”  Your new cell poles won’t allow someone to call 911 from his or her cell phone where they previously could not.  Please refer to the FCC filing made by Montgomery County in 2018.  Here’s the link: 
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/Resources/Files/Towers/cellTowerInfo/Ex%20Parte-Smart%20Communities%20and%20Special%20Districst%2009-19-18-c2%20(1).pdf

Your Op Ed notes that the concept of the ZTA is to allow cell antennas on utility poles right away while allowing for “greater scrutiny” on areas without utility poles.  What this fails to mention is that the ZTA is discriminatory against older neighborhoods with above ground utilities vs. those with underground utilities who will get some sort of notice.  I think I’m not alone when I would ask for a definition of “greater scrutiny”.  This would imply there is some sort of scrutiny now.  Look again at your Tower Committee’s record of approximately 3,451 approvals and 19 denials of poles/antennas since 1996.   What level of scrutiny would you classify this as?

Your Op Ed notes that the County has argued against the FCC twice.  This gives the impression you are fighting for residents.  You do not mention though that some of the County’s expert opinions contained in the 2017 and 2018 filings  - specifically how the experts indicate decreased property values for homes in close proximity to cell poles as well as expert opinion on voice vs. other services that can be provided by 5G small cells and what they are capable of even doing.  Residents may not be happy there are professional opinions that state their property values could decrease between 10-20% should they be next to a cell pole especially one with larger boxes which the expert states to the FCC that boxes can and should be significantly smaller.  The ZTA does not seem to require the least obtrusive components and thus far has not deployed these “smaller sized” pieces of equipment.

PLEASE GIVE THE ENTIRE PICTURE TO RESIDENTS AND YOUR OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.  I REALIZE THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE AND WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO OUR OPINIONS BUT GIVEN YOUR POSITION AND YOUR CLOSE ROLE IN FIGHTING THE FCC AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE FILINGS THE OPINION SHOULD NOT BE TILTED TOWARD DEPLOYMENT WHEN THERE ARE NEGATIVES AS WELL.

COUNCIL MEMBERS – PLEASE VOTE NO ON 18-11.  IT DOES NOT PROTECT RESIDENTS.

Thank you again for your consideration,

A Resident of Montgomery County 

 This blog posts letters and opinions by residents countywide. Send us your letter and we will post it