http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Homeowners-Oppose-Cell-Tower-Proposal-in-Montgomery-County_Washington-DC-398806981.html
Thursday, October 27, 2016
NBC4 Homeowners Oppose Cell Tower Proposal in Montgomery County #WatersLandingElementary #MCPS
Multiple citizens mentioned that a cell tower is also going in at Waters Landing Elementary School and, along with the front yard cell towers that are being planned, will add to the cell tower exposure in that neighborhood. When is the Board of Education voting on the Waters Landing Elementary School cell tower?
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Homeowners-Oppose-Cell-Tower-Proposal-in-Montgomery-County_Washington-DC-398806981.html
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Homeowners-Oppose-Cell-Tower-Proposal-in-Montgomery-County_Washington-DC-398806981.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What was not said was that the FCC regulation that the County Council says ties their hands applies only to existing cell towers, not to new cell towers. https://nouglytowers.com/2016/08/11/crown-castles-untrue-legal-claims/
ReplyDeleteLast night, Mont Co Council stated many times that basically their hands are tied because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. BUT that's not true: there is precedence from other US state municipalities that have successfully managed and denied cell towers in residential areas. Local government hands are NOT tied. Please go read this article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/realestate/29Lizo.html?_r=2&ref=realestate
Main takeaways from the article:
- The Federal Communications Act of 1996 says health concerns are not a valid reason for a municipality to deny zoning for a cell tower or antenna. Property values and aesthetics, however, do qualify, according to the act. (MoCo council needs to contact the author for more info, or get smart on understanding of the law)
- The town hired a consultant to review antenna applications. Under that town's new ordinance, applications for wireless facilities/towers would require technical evidence that they had a “significant gap” in coverage necessitating a new tower. “If not, they will get denied,” Mr. Kovit said. The wireless companies would also have to prove that the selected location had “the least negative impact on area character and property values.” If another location farther away from homes can solve the gap problem, “they are going to have to move.” [Mont Co leadership should also set up this ordinance]
Our local gov HANDS ARE NOT TIED. THERE IS PRECEDENCE TO DENY CELL TOWERS in Residences. MO CO Council fight FOR YOUR RESIDENTS and CONSTITUENTS that are clearly AGAINST THESE TOWERS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS!
. . . Their hands are tied up with smartphones.
DeleteHere's another reference for Mont Co Council and our residences clearly showing that local governments DO have authority to regulate place and manner of towers! It's even supported by the Telecommunications Act of 1996!
ReplyDeleteThe Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves and acknowledges the authority of local governments to regulate the location, construction and modification of cell towers in their communities:
SECTION. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS.
(a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY-
(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY - Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
See reference: https://sites.google.com/site/nocelltowerinourneighborhood/home/reasonable-discrimination-allowed
Our local government hands are not tied! They can prevent cell towers in residences.
You just gotta luv Hans' head holding....
ReplyDeleteHope this outcry moves the needle with this group. Maybe the threat of term limits will bring caution to their action? But once reelected this group will feel that they have a mandated to do what ever they want and business will be as usual. Vote Yes on B! No on C!
Some more solid legitimate tactics that Mo Co county can take to deny residential towers:
ReplyDeletehttp://emfrefugee.blogspot.com/2015/11/important-significant-gap-capacity.html
So, what happened to "of the people by the people for the people?"
DeleteThis is "progressive" Montgomery County. Progressive = the more you contribute to my campaign, the more I love you.
DeleteIt's recursive and eventually will implode.
DeleteLeventhal and Floreen are full of $#!%. The only thing their hands are tied to is the campaign cash given to them by developers, and in this case, the telecommunications industry. Verizon, other billion dollar telecom providers and their contractors have given and will give these corrupt politicians hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. Now that Leventhal and Floreen will be running for county executive, they will need even more cash from developers and telecom donors. Whether it's bus depots in your neighborhood, overcrowded schools, high taxes, cell towers at your child's school or cell towers on your front lawn, when will voters learn that Leventhal and Floreen are NOT working for you, but for their special interest contributors. Voters can stop this madness by NOT voting for these corrupt and uncaring autocrats.
ReplyDeleteWhere do these 'special interest contributors' congregate?
DeleteInteresting question…
DeleteLet’s start with where the “'special interest contributor’s” money congregates.
What we can see of it congregates at “Maryland Campaign Reporting information System,” which can be found at:
https://campaignfinancemd.us/Public/ViewReceipts?theme=vista
Unfortunately, this website does not allow the user to provide a link to a specific campaign finance search… so I’ll let you and other readers explore for yourselves.
Copy and pass the above link into your browser. Enter “Floreen” or “Leventhal” (or any other MoCo candidate) into the “Receiving Committee” box (lower left). Click on the official name of the receiving committee (e.g. “Floreen, Nancy Friends Of”). Type 2000 – 10000 in to the “Amount Range” (extreme right). Click on the blue “Search” button.
For the Floreen example, you will then see a list of Floreen’s $2,000 (and higher) campaign contributors since the inception of her committee. On that list are (development and other) special interests such as:
Stewart W. Bainum Jr. c/o Realty Investment Company, Inc. $4,000
BA Clarksburg LLC (Bozzuto Land Company) $4,000
Ursa Major Investments, LLLP (Developer, Aris Mardirossian Interest) $4,000
TTT Investments (Developer, Aris Mardirossian Interest, again) $4,000
Lauren Lang (Wife of Brian R. Lang, Principal, Guardian Realty Investors, LLC) $3,000
Silver Spring Metro Center III (c/o Foulger Pratt Management) $4,000
Paul Chod (Minkoff Development) $3,000
Greenhill Capital Corporation $4,000
Lebling Investment Oakmont, LLC $2,000
Foulger Pratt Management, Inc. $4,000
Oxbridge Development @ Bowie Mill $2,000
Southlawn Lane Properties LLC (F. O. Day Asphalt/Paving) $3,000
Amalthea Properties Investment, LLC (Developer, Aris Mardirossian Interest, again) $4,000
GOTWO, LLC (Lebling Investment, again) $4,000
4504 Walsh Street, LLC (Lebling Investment, again) $4,000
Green Door Investments, LLC $4,000
Jon M. Peterson (Peterson Companies) $2,500
William E. Peterson (Peterson Companies, again) $2,500
Ezra G. Starr (Real Estate Developer) $4,000
Perry Parkway Associates (Guardian Realty Investors, again) $2,000
Largo 95, LLC (Guardian Realty Investors, again) $2,000
Marc Solomon (Finmarc [Real Estate] Management Inc.) $2,000
2000 Tower Oaks Blvd LLC (Tower Companies) $2,500
Waugh Chapel II Apts, LLC (Bozzuto Land Company, again) $2,000
and the list goes on in addition to a host of development related Political Action Committees (PACs).
Try other searches for $1,000 and up, $500 and up, different time frames, etc. Google the contributors names and addresses. The money tells quite a story.
As far as the next County election cycle is concerned, the bulk of Floreen’s developer dollars won’t start showing up until 2018.
Regarding the subject of this post, searching the campaign finance database also shows that Floreen has taken money from Verizon and other telecommunications special interests… Perhaps Floreen should recuse herself on the issue of cell towers in residents’ front yards.
Altogether, candidates like Floreen take more than 70% of their contributions from the development industry and their votes, which help their development friends, reflect this. Another 20% comes from PACs and other special interests, such as utilities, transportation, etc. Only a tiny fraction comes from every day citizens.
Never forget that Floreen and other special interest funded candidates work for their deep-pocket contributors, NOT for citizens.
Interesting question…
DeleteLet’s start with where the “'special interest contributor’s” money congregates.
What we can see of it congregates at “Maryland Campaign Reporting information System,” which can be found at: https://campaignfinancemd.us/Public/ViewReceipts?theme=vista
Unfortunately, this website does not allow the user to provide a link to a specific campaign finance search… so I’ll let you and other readers explore for yourselves.
Copy and pass the above link into your browser. Enter “Floreen” or “Leventhal” into the “Receiving Committee” box (lower left). Click on the official name of the receiving committee (e.g. “Floreen, Nancy Friends Of”). Type 2000 – 10000 in to the “Amount Range” (extreme right). Click on the blue “Search” button.
You will then see a list of Floreen’s $2,000 (and higher) campaign contributors since the inception of her committee. On that list are (development) special interests such as:
Stewart W. Bainum Jr. c/o Realty Investment Company, Inc. $4,000
BA Clarksburg LLC (Bozzuto Land Company) $4,000
Ursa Major Investments, LLLP (Developer, Aris Mardirossian Interest) $4,000
TTT Investments (Developer, Aris Mardirossian Interest, again) $4,000
Lauren Lang (Wife of Brian R. Lang, Principal, Guardian Realty Investors, LLC) $3,000
Silver Spring Metro Center III (c/o Foulger Pratt Management) $4,000
Paul Chod (Minkoff Development) $3,000
Greenhill Capital Corporation $4,000
Lebling Investment Oakmont, LLC $2,000
Foulger Pratt Management, Inc. $4,000
Oxbridge Development @ Bowie Mill $2,000
Southlawn Lane Properties LLC (F. O. Day Asphalt/Paving) $3,000
Amalthea Properties Investment, LLC (Developer, Aris Mardirossian Interest, again) $4,000
GOTWO, LLC (Lebling Investment, again) $4,000
4504 Walsh Street, LLC (Lebling Investment, again) $4,000
Green Door Investments, LLC $4,000
Jon M. Peterson (Peterson Companies) $2,500
William E. Peterson (Peterson Companies, again) $2,500
Ezra G. Starr (Real Estate Developer) $4,000
Perry Parkway Associates (Guardian Realty Investors, again) $2,000
Largo 95, LLC (Guardian Realty Investors, again) $2,000
Marc Solomon (Finmarc [Real Estate] Management Inc.) $2,000
2000 Tower Oaks Blvd LLC (Tower Companies) $2,500
Waugh Chapel II Apts, LLC (Bozzuto Land Company, again) $2,000
and the list goes on in addition to a host of development related Political Action Committees (PACs).
Try other searches for $1,000 and up, different time frames, etc. Google the contributors names and addresses. The money tells quite a story.
As far as the next County election cycle is concerned, the bulk of Floreen’s developer dollars won’t start showing up until 2018.
Regarding the subject of this post, searching the campaign finance database also shows that Floreen has taken money from Verizon and other telecommunications special interests… Perhaps Floreen should recuse herself on the issue of cell towers in residents’ front yards.
Altogether, candidates like Floreen take more than 70% of their contributions from the development industry and their votes, which help their development friends, reflect this. Another 20% comes from PACs and other special interests, such as utilities, transportation, etc. Only a tiny fraction comes from every day citizens.
Never forget that Floreen and other special interest funded candidates work for their deep-pocket contributors, NOT for citizens.
FYI - There is no staff at the Parents' Coalition. We are all volunteers. What does it say when you comment? If you comment does not appear, send us an e-mail asking us to post a comment that does not appear. This blog, thankfully, has a very strong spam filter.
Deletehttp://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Floreen-No-Timetable-for-Deciding-on-Small-Cell-Antennas-Rules/
ReplyDeleteYes on B! No on C!
ReplyDelete