Thursday, May 04, 2017

How a Telecom Bill is About to Strip Local Authority

How a Telecom Bill is About to Strip Local Authority

March 24, 2017



Reinette Senum



On March 17th, the City of Nevada City received an alarming letter from the League of California Cities (LCC). The League, a consortium of California cities that influence policy decisions, sent an Action Alert putting all cities on notice about a bill that would ultimately usurp all local control in regard to wireless and small cell telecommunications. i.e. cell towers and antennas installations.



As stated in the letter, “This proposal would prohibit local discretionary review of “small cell” wireless antennas, including equipment, located on existing structures, located on new poles, structures, or non-poll structures. The proposal preempts adopted local land use plans by mandating that “small cells” be allowed in all zones as the use by right, including all residential zones.”



This bill also includes a de facto exemption of CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, precluding all public consideration “such as aesthetics, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities, all of which are particularly important.”



THE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY’S GAG ORDER



Don’t even THINK for a second that you will be able to bring up health concerns to our elected officials: whether they human or animal. Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that prohibits state and local governments from denying permit applications for cellular towers based upon the environmental effects of RFR (radiofrequency radiation including microwave radiation).



The FCC then issued a rule consistent with the Telecommunications Act: “No State or local government… may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the regulations contained in this chapter concerning the environmental effects of such emissions.”



That’s right. Since 1996, when this telecommunications bill was enacted, a gag order has been placed upon the American people regarding negative health impacts and safety concerns due to cell towers. This is why we have seen such an incredible proliferation of cell towers throughout the American landscape; not because they are safe and do no harm, but because we legally can’t discuss or make decisions based upon the negative health impacts even though The World Health Organization officially classifies electromagnetic radiation a possible 2B carcinogen: The same category as lead, DDT, and styrene.



Studies have shown that individuals living near these cell towers have measured reductions in serotonin and melatonin levels, threefold increase in cancer, fatigue, sleep disturbance, headaches, concentration problems, depression, memory problems, durability, cardiovascular problems, hearing disruption, skin problems, dizziness, etc.



THE DAY THE ALARM WENT OFF



It was after the City of Nevada City and City Councilman Duane Strawser (who is our city’s LCC representative) received the LLC’s Action Alert that Strawser called Senator Bill Dodd (co-author of the bill), Senator Ted Gaines, and other representatives. For some of these representatives, Strawser’s phone call was the moment they were first informed about SB 649. They had no idea that this bill had been quietly tucked within the other 135 bills the California legislature is considering.



If SB 649 goes through nearly every single lamppost and telephone pole along your street is going to be strapped with a 5G antenna and nobody will have any say about this. It is the actual intention of the telecom industry to install these “small cells” along all of our roads and on structures including commercial and even residential buildings. With the passing of SB 649 you and I will have no choice in having one of these cell antennas attached to the exterior of our very homes, possibly right next to our beds, and without our consent.



This bill is a Pandora's box for local authority. This sets a very dangerous precedent that opens the door for any other corporation to come into our California communities and squash local government control in order to deploy any kind of corporate undertaking without the public's or elected official’s consent.



FOLLOW THE MONEY



We can’t be a surprise that one of the largest (if not the) recipient of telecommunication industry is Senator Ben Hueso, San Diego (D), who is responsible for proposing SB 649 as well as slipping it quietly among the other proposed legislation. The bill is co-authored by Senator Bill Dodd (D), San Francisco Bay and Delta regions, and I would imagine he too is a large recipient of the telecommunication lobbyists.



Ultimately, Hueso and Dodd are throwing every man, woman, and child (and even our bees) under the bus for unabated control of our communities by the telecommunications industry.



This proposal is unconstitutional. It prohibits all local authority to deny the leasing or licensing of publicly owned property except for a few sites such as fire stations.



The LCC also noted “this bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life for residents to protect public property in the public right-of-way from relatively unconstrained access by small cells.”



The League concluded, “under this proposal, local governments would be required to give preferential treatment to one industry that has received the “most favored nation” status under the state law (Note: A “most favored nation” clause is a level of status given to one country (or corporation) by another and enforced by the World Trade Organization. ... Countries achieving most favored nation status are given specific trade advantages, such as reduced tariffs on imported goods.). No justification is provided for why this is necessary. This bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life of our residents, and to protect public property and the public right-of-way from relatively unconstrained access by small cells.



Local governments typically encourage new technology into their boundaries because of its potential to dramatically improve the quality of life for the residents. However, this proposal goes too far by requiring local governments to approve “small cells” in all land-use zones, including residential zones, to a ministerial permit, thereby shutting the public out of decisions that could affect the aesthetics of the community and the quality of their environment.”



WHAT WE CAN DO



I know we don't need another fight on our plate, but this is one of those Pandora Boxes that we must do everything in our power to keep closed. I cannot stress how important it is that each and every single one of us pick up the phone and, at the very least, call the following numbers. Call them every day if you can.



On Tuesday, April 4th at 9am, the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Commerce will be holding a public hearing on SB 649.  Nevada City city staff, councilmembers and I intend to testify at this hearing to protect Nevada City’s historic district because it is completely under threat.






Before April 4th, we need a massive phone, text & email campaign to ward off this bill. We must bombard our elected officials’ efforts and let them know that this is a massive property rights violation, threatens our historic district, our right to privacy, as well as destroys local control over our cities and counties.



When communicating to our representatives do not talk about negative health impacts. There's a good chance they may hang up on you…. And I wish I were kidding.



Here are the LCC Talking Points:

This proposal shifts local land-use authority away from local governments and puts it squarely into the hands of private interests with complete disregard for any public input.

Governments have a responsibility to protect the quality of life for residents and to protect public property in the public right-of-way.

Local governments typically encourage new technology into the communities, but this proposal goes too far, shutting the public out of decisions that can affect their daily quality-of-life.



We weren’t supposed to see this bill, but miraculously, it was uncovered by the League of California Cities. It’s now our responsibility to stop it!

Tags:

SB 649

Duane Strawser

Senator Ted Gaines

Senator Bill Dodd

telecommunications industry

studies

health risks

small cells

historic distiric

city of nevada city

Nevada City

Reinette Senum

League of California Cities

Action Alert

CEQA

1996 Telecommuncations Act

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

CA Bill SB 649 Would Force Transmitters Outside Your Home

CA Bill SB 649 Would Force Transmitters Outside Your Home

Tell California State Senators: “NO” on SB 649- NO Small Cell Invasion

California pending legislation SB649 would streamline placement of ​5G ​small cell Distributed Antenna System​s​ (DAS) on electric and light poles in front of businesses and residences, even while physicians are raising the alarm about the health dangers of the technology  This bill eliminates local control and jurisdiction with regard to DAS ​placement ​throughout the state of California. Read more about the bill and take action at the Scientists for Wired Tech site.
Ellen Marks of the California Brain Tumor Association says:
PLEASE WRITE TO (YOUR LEGISLATORS) NOW(AND ASK THEM TO VOTE NO ON SB 649)- DO NOT WAIT FOR THESE MILLIMETER MICROWAVE ANTENNAS TO BE INSTALLED OUTSIDE YOUR HOMES.”
While cities and counties can presently refuse telecommunications equipment on their own property for any reason including health damage, SB 642 is a sneaky attempt by the wireless industry to change the rules of the game.  The bill would strip local governments of their property rights and force them to ignore safety, aesthetic, health and other issues and approve all wireless company applications along public streets and properties. The California State Assn. of Counties has written a letter strongly opposing SB 649 that raises these issues.
The wireless industry has made some specious claims in support of the bill, including that “a DAS box is only the size of a pizza box” (this claim was thoroughly debunked here).
UPDATE: SB 649 passed the Governance and Finance Committee on April 26th unanimously with no mention of health or environmental effects. Current status here.
Please write and/or call the senators and tell them to vote ’NO’ to CA Bill SB 649. You can also “tweet” them, or meet with them in person. Legislator contact info is here.
Points to help you draft letters, make calls and/or give testimony at the hearing, provided are some sound bites for you to give to the Governance & Finance Committee:
  • Taking away property rights will result in lowered property value
    Lowered property value will then lead to lowered property tax revenues.
  • US NTP $25 million dollar study proved RF emissions from ​2G causes DNA breaks, cancers of the brain and heart.
  • Over 220 international scientists have sent an appeal to the WHO that RF emissions are already out of control, and this statement was made two years ago.
  • Increase in health care costs due to growing health problems in the population.
  • Lowered productivity at work due to negative health impacts from the increased wireless radiation exposures
  • Lloyd’s of London and Swiss Re, two major insurance companies of the world, will not cover medical expenses incurred due to exposure to electromagnetic radio frequency radiation (EMR) (i.e. cellphones, wifi, cell tower, antennas, DAS, IoT devices, smart meters, etc.)
  • Environmental devastation from loss of oxygen producing foliage due to damage of trees and vegetation from EMR exposures
  • Environmental devastation from astronomical increases of approximately 124,416 lbs. of CO2 per city every day, or 1.6 trillion lbs. of carbon per year nationwide emissions from powering up the 5G DAS infrastructure 24/7 (and this does not include the carbon footprint created from all the other IoT network and clouds)
  • Fiber optics is the best and only solution.  They are energy efficient, less vulnerable to shut down due to EMP or hacking, and do not create hazardous RF emissions that cause damage to health and the environment
  • Russia has denied 5G rollout in their country.  Instead, they are utilizing fiber optic cables to deliver the internet to every private resident.
If you have any questions about the above please email Mark at mark.graham@scientists4wiredtech.com

http://stopsmartmeters.org/2017/04/19/ca-bill-sb-649-would-force-transmitters-outside-your-home/

HOW TO OPPOSE SB-649 “WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES” – CALIFORNIA.

HOW TO OPPOSE SB-649 “WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES” – CALIFORNIA.
The League of California Cities opposes SB-649. They describe it stating, “This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of “small cells.” 

It is best to comment on, or before March 28, but comments will be accepted till April 3rd, the hearing is on April 4th. 

1. Go to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649 

2. Scroll down and click on “Comments to Author” 

3. If you have not registered you will need to do so. 

4. After you register click the circle “oppose” and send your comments (2000 characters) to the author by March 28. If you are representing a group please sign as such. Before you click submit, copy your comments into a separate email. 

5. Send the same comments to your State Senator which you can find here: Type in your address and city.  http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/ 

Suggested comments: You can use any of this letter adapted from the California League of Cities, and add your own comments too. 

Dear Senator Hueso,

The [name of your group or I] respectfully opposes your SB 649 and proposed amendments in RN 17 08941 (proposal) related to the permitting of wireless and small cell telecommunications facilities. This proposal unnecessarily and unconstitutionally strips local authority over public property and shuts out public input and local discretion by eliminating consideration of the aesthetic and environmental impacts of “small cells.”

This proposal would prohibit local discretionary review of “small cell” wireless antennas , including equipment collocated on existing structures or located on new “poles, structures, or non-pole structures,” including those within the public right-of-way and buildings. The proposal preempts adopted local land use plans by mandating that “small cells” be allowed in all zones as a use by-right, including all residential zones.

As such, the proposal provides a de facto exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the installation of such facilities and precludes consideration by the public of the aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities, all of which are of particular importance when the proposed location of facilities is within a residential zone. 

SB 649’s  use of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) definition of a “small cell” include other “small cell” equipment such as electric meters, concealment, telecom demarcation boxes, ground-based enclosures, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cutoff switches, cables, or conduits.  The proposal allows for an unlimited number of antennas of less than three cubic feet each or six cubic feet for all antennas, while placing no height restrictions on the pole. While proponents argue that an individual “small cell” has very little impact, the cumulative size specifications of all the small cells and associated equipment far exceed the perceived impacts from a single cell.

The proposal also unconstitutionally preempts local authority by requiring local governments to make available sites they own for the installation of a “small cell.” While the city may place “fair and reasonable terms and conditions” on the use of city property, the proposal does not provide the city with any discretion to deny a “small cell” to be located on city property except for fire department sites. In effect, this measure unconstitutionally gives control of public property to private telecommunications companies, while also precluding local governments from leasing or licensing publicly owned property. 

This bill strips local government of the authority to protect the quality of life of our residents, and to protect public property and the public right-of-way from relatively unconstrained access by small cells.   

PLEASE CITE SPECIFIC CONCERNS (i.e. ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY, ISSUES WITH TELECOMMS) YOUR CITY HAS WITH THIS BILL HERE.

Local governments typically encourage new technology into their boundaries because of its potential to dramatically improve the quality of life for their residents. However, SB 649 goes too far by requiring local governments to approve “small cells” in all land use zones, including residential zones, through a ministerial permit, thereby shutting the public out of decisions that could affect the aesthetics of their community and the quality of their environment.

For these reasons, [name of your group or I] opposes your SB 649.