Last month, an important piece of legislation was killed in Montgomery County. Zoning Text Amendment 18-11 would have regulated where so-called small-cell towers could reside in relation to our homes. The language was so controversial that most of the nine council members confessed to not fully understanding it.
This has been more than a “not in my front yard” throw-down between the council and residents. It has been an opportunity to see our elected leaders for what they really are.
Council President Hans Riemer (D-At Large) canceled the vote because, he said, the amendments proposed by his colleagues “undermined the central purpose of the zoning measure.” He added, “In my view, our county needs to embrace wireless infrastructure, just as we embrace water, power and transportation infrastructure.” Might his view be informed by his position on an Federal Communications Commission advisory board? Are fast download speeds really on par with having electricity and clean drinking water?
Studies warn about potential adverse health effects of WiFi. Small-cell poles negatively impact property values by up to 20 percent.
Council member Tom Hucker (D-District 5) wanted a cautious approach and proposed amendments to address community concerns. The first amendment (of several) would require 60-foot setbacks from homes and remove discrimination against neighborhoods with above-ground utilities. The amendment sought to rectify Riemer’s push for 30-foot setbacks (and, in some cases, 10-foot) from homes, which would unnecessarily give prime real estate on public rights of way to low-paying wireless tenants. Did Riemer’s quest to diminish setbacks consider how far signal strength would travel?
Riemer’s acoustics, meanwhile, persisted. Loud and clear. He wants a cell tower in your front yard. His playbook pitted residents against one another. Either you want wireless connectivity or you don’t. How simple. It’s the facts that are on trial.
Even the county’s own experts noted that small cells being deployed over the past 10 years are largely in areas with adequate cellular coverage. This large-scale deployment is intended for faster downloads, not calling 911.
Finally, the county would not test to ensure that cell towers operate under the radio frequency radiation safety limitations set by the Federal Communications Commission, nor would it require the owner of the pole to do so.
In contrast, we saw Council member Sidney Katz (D-District 3) lobby for a process to bring all interested parties to the table; Council Member and county executive-elect Marc Elrich (D-At Large) question the promises pouring out of the telecom industry; and Council member Roger Berliner (D-District 1) make a constitutional argument for giving residents a voice. Hucker, however, won big for bringing the most FCC orders, court cases, precedents and Public Service Commission data to the table. He used his years as a state legislator to deftly quell those who fuss about state preemption and defended residents’ rights to a public hearing prior to a pole popping up where that street light used to be. Reimer had claimed federal and state law preemption looms as a clear and present danger.
Advocates testified, contacted council members and became armchair experts on radio frequency radiation, parallel national case studies and the county’s flawed permitting process. Our emails and phone calls were played back to us in stereo at recent council work sessions: facts, figures and deep-cut YouTube clips debunking telecom daydreams.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.