 |
More to Margate T-Mobile Cell Tower Lawsuit than Meets the Eye
• Should City Commissioners Fight or Settle?
Friday,
February 13, 2009
Many of you have read in the local Forum that Margate is being sued by cell provider, T-Mobile, for denying the company cell towers in Margate on two occasions: first in Centennial Park and again on Oriole Golf Course. Both times, Margate City Attorney, Eugene Steinfeld, warned elected officials that denial could result in a federal lawsuit, as FCC regulations block cities from saying no to site approval.
_______________
Currently, no lawsuit appears in PACER, the government database that stores federal lawsuits once filed, so chances are the lawsuit is in the lis pendens stage, which means the lawsuit has yet to be officially filed with the courts.
On behalf of T-Mobile, this could amount to little more than an intimidation tactic to get Margate to Yield.
T-mobile’s argument is that they need another cell tower in Margate to provide adequate coverage for subscribers. But as indicated by a T-Mobile coverage map presented to the city on December 9, the coverage in Margate is superb. It’s the coverage in Coral Springs that isn’t the best, as pointed out by Commissioner, Pam Donovan and the attached T-Mobile coverage map to the right under “Files.”
Clearly, there is no T-Mobile coverage problem in Margate.
What’s not so clear in this case is the role of Margate’s Cell Tower Site Management Consultant, Cityscape Siting and Management Inc., a company hired by the city in 2002 to attract cell tower providers and encourage them to erect cell towers in Margate. This made evident by the Cityscape contract also attached under “Files” to the right.
It’s not unusual for cities like Margate to cash in on cell tower placement, as cities collect rent from providers when towers are placed on public land.
The agents who facilitate cell tower placement are the ones who really make out. Agents such as Cityscape, originally hired by Mayor Arthur Bross and who have been paid more than $350,000 by Margate taxpayers to attract cell providers to the city. According to Cityscape's contract with Margate, this amounts to 25 percent of all rents and fees collected from cell providers by the City.
Every time the city rejects a cell tower, the consultant loses out. The same consultant the city hired to attract the cell provider in the first place. In this case, it would be T-Mobile towers rejected twice by city officials, leaving the consultant out substantial earnings long-term.
Margate Commissioners Pam Donovan, Arlene Schwartz, Arthur Bross and Joe Varsallone all voted “Yes” to the signing of the Cityscape contract in November 2002. Commissioner, Frank Talerico, was absent when commissioners approved the contract and Dave McLean was not an elected official at the time.
The Cityscape contract automatically renews every five years unless either party gives the other 18 months notice.
Commissioners support residents right to say no
At the December 9, 2009 City Commission meeting, when residents turned out to speak against the cell tower’s placement on the Oriole Golf Course, the majority of commissioners supported residents and voted the tower down, but not after hearing the Cityscape consultant time and time again at the behest of Mayor Arthur Bross, the man who originally engaged the consultant in 2002.
Ultimately, the commission did what residents asked: No Cell Tower.
Now T-Mobile is suing Margate taxpayers.
Why? Especially when Margate has three T-Mobile cell towers to Coral Springs’ two cell towers and Coconut Creek’s one (see table under “Files”). And our coverage is rated “Best” according to the T-Mobile coverage map. Why not sue those cities?
_______________
Just as it states in Federal Law that a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, so should be that providers not unreasonably discriminate against cities of functionally equivalent land use for cell tower erection.
_______________
Either sue all three cities or sue none.
T-Mobile isn't new to suing its customers, which is precisely what the company is doing in Margate: suing taxpayers who subscribe to T-Mobile service. T-Mobile has sued taxpayers in Huntington Beach, CA (City is fighting. Trial starts Aug. 3) and Manville, NJ, both for saying no to cell tower placement.
Margate Commissioners will have to decide for taxpayers whether to fight or settle. They will do this behind closed doors, as once litigation begins, negotiations fall under privilege.
Federal FCC Laws work against cities like Margate who block cell towers, as these laws have been crafted by clever lobbyists, attorneys and federal officials courted by cell providers who think we should spend the rest of our natural lives texting, surfing the web and talking to our favorite five, sometimes while driving.
Notwithstanding, cell phones are indispensable in times of emergency, as we have found during hurricanes, mudslides and the most recent earthquake in Haiti where cell phones have saved lives.
Whether commissioners fight or back off is forward looking. From where this taxpayer stands; it would look like we have a fighting chance, especially when using T-Mobile’s maps against them in their own fight, combined with the simple fact that we’ve got more cell towers than surrounding cities and coverage rated “The Best” by T-Mobile themselves.
Spend the money to fight or settle? What would you do if you were a city commissioner in Margate? Take a minute to answer the poll at the top left.
__________________________________________
Get MargateNews.net on your desktop, laptop or mobile Internet with customizable RSS (Real Simple Syndication) Feeds. Receive all the news, or just some of it, as soon as it’s published! Sign up now.
Access the wireless version of this website by visiting http://www.margatenews.net/margatenews/wireless with your WAP (Wireless Access Protocol) Internet-enabled wireless device.
Copyright © MargateNews.net 2009
| |
