CELL TOWER LAWSUITS - DID THE BUILDING AND ZONING BOARD FAIL TO TELL THE PUBIC ABOUT THE CELL TOWER?

WHAT ABOUT LAWSUITS REFLECTING LOWER PROPERTY VALUES DUE TO A CELL TOWER SITING IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AREAS?

GOACT - LOCAL RESIDENTS PREVAILED AGAINST T-MOBILE

By Jane Celltower

Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission, is in the news as local residents of the Gendale organized effort against cell tower siting within their residentail community, prevailed against T-Mobile. This was the sixth hearing on the proposed tower, the matter first came up in January 2008. GOACT urged the commission to action, noting that the View Park community had come in force for many hearings, while the matter continued to be postponed. Residents presented additional evidence that the tower wasn't needed, that the location presented legal problems for property owner, while T-Mobile provided "incomplete and inaccurate information" on its application. One resident complained that a tower was installed on the parkway in front of his house, with out his prior knowledge. GOACT members gave knowledge and insight into their own case that the permit application must have gone through public works entity of the county or city for installation on the right-of-way, which doesn't require public hearings or planning review.

"I also found "erroneous, incomplete and inaccurate information" concerning T-Mobile's Henry County, Georgia permit in my cell tower case study as well, noting a tower wasn't even needed to begin with. There was no gap in coverage at all! T-Mobile built a cell tower where AT&T dominated our coverage area," Jane Celltower said. As noted in this Sunroom Desk article, "The situation of cell tower proliferation requires changes in the laws at the state and federal level, and a change in attitude on the part of cell carriers. Carriers need to get the message, as they have in Glendale, that they must work with communities to find acceptable sites for towers."

Reference Source:

Sunroom Desk, A Glendale, California Outlook. www.sunroomdesk.com - goact-advocates-cell-tower-moratorium-for-los-angels-county/

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CIVIL LAWSUIT - RURAL RESIDENTS SOUTH OF HESSTON FIGHT 200-FOOT CELL TOWER

By Jane Celltower

Article first published within the News- Herald Argus as written by Alicia Ebaugh, January 23, 2010

Terri and Robert Steinborn bought a house and property in the country and now Verizon Wireless wants to place a cell tower and five outbuildings to hold five differenct cell-phone carriers equipment on their neighbor's property. The Steinborns filed the suit last month in La Porte Cuperior Court 1 against the La Porte County Board of Zoning Appeals, which decided to allow Horvath Communications, South Bend, to build the tower on Kenneth and Hilda Freyer's property, 9755 N. Country Road 200 East.

The law suit claims the board's decision is illegal because it was not published as required by Indiana Code, according to Steinborn's attorney, William Stevens, Lakeside, Mich. It's in the minutes of the meeting, but that's the only place they registered their decision," Stevens said. "You have to publish a separate decision for public information."

"They didn't want to hear any of our evidence that it would drive prices down. They only asked if we ever offered to buy the property. Its never been for sale," Steinborn said. Other rude details mentioned in the news report, included the fact the board was talking to each other when Terri Steiborn was talking. " Instead talking to each other", she charged. "It was embarrassing and humiliating." Horvath Communications attorney John Falvey said many lawsuits like this one are dismissed because of the extensive work done by cell phone companies and tower builders to make sure all local, state and federal laws are followed.

The BZA isn't required to consider property values when it issues a special exception, only when it issues a variance, Falvey stated. All cell phone towers require special exceptions in the county, not a variance, if they follow the county's ordinances pertaining to the towers. Falvey also stated, "It also doesn't have to consider a different tower placement. All the court can do is determine whether the BZA did anything illegal when it granted the exception." The comment section of this article included the fact, "When you live in the country, what do you expect? It's rural."

Which is exactly why I bought my home in the city, in a residential subdivision. And our "County" board approved the building of a T-Mobile cell tower abutting up to, and at my backyard property line. Before you hire an attorney, do your homework. Dig up the facts, and be prepared. Because we don't live in Kansas, and there is no yellow brick road. These cell tower companies know who live beside their proposed cell tower building sites. They can look up tax income reports, therefore, they know those who are poor, and those who are not! They know those who have the money and resource to fight their proposed cell tower plans, and those who do not.

SOURCE:

CItizen's file suit to block cell tower, by Alicia Ebaugh

www.heraldargus.com - La Prote, Indiana

WHAT ABOUT LAWSUITS REFLECTING LOWER PROPERTY VALUES DUE TO A CELL TOWER SITING IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AREAS?

Is your property worth less due to a cell tower siting in your residential area, or adjacent to your home property line? Kathleen Michon, an attorney claims in a Nolo article(www.nolo.com), that Plaintiffs in EMF and RF emissions lawsuits most often allege that the value of their property has been reduced because of its proximity to towers,transmission lines, or other equipment that emit RF or EMF emissions. Reasons noted, is that the public "believes" there are health issues, and fears such danger. These beliefs inturn, lower property values. Property near an RF or EMF emission site, tend to sell lower than simular property located away from such perceived danger.