 |
Margate to Fight T-Mobile Cell Tower Lawsuit
• Elected officials back taxpayer sentiments
Wednesday,
March 10, 2010
Cell phone carrier T-Mobile filed a lawsuit against the City of Margate in January, alleging the City is in violation of federal law for denying a cell tower on the Oriole Golf Course in December.
In their February response to the 62-page federal lawsuit (under files to the right), the city denies the majority of allegations made by T-Mobile, including facts common to all counts made by T-Mobile in the case, claims that T-Mobile needs the tower to provide adequate coverage in the area, and that Margate’s Oriole Golf Course is T-Mobile’s only possible location in Broward County to bridge their coverage gap.
_______________
T-Mobile claims that overlapping coverage from cell tower to cell tower in the county is needed to provide subscribers in the area with adequate coverage.
Margate residents turned out in numbers at a December Margate City Commission meeting, urging elected officials to say no to the T-Mobile tower on the golf course, and they did.
At the meeting, Margate City Attorney, Eugene Seinfeld warned commissioners that a federal lawsuit could result, especially since this wouldn’t be the first time Margate Commissioners rejected a T-Mobile tower in the city. The City Commission did so once before in Centennial Park.
More cities across America are fighting what many consider to be a broadly-interpreted FCC law, which although preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for cell towers, it sets forth specific limitations on that authority.
Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record.
The federal statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules.
For the first time since the federal law (Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act) was enacted, the Federal Appeals Court in a 2-1 decision upheld denial of a permit of a 153-foot cell tower in Sprint PCS v. Platte County, MO for aesthetic reasons in 2009.
T-Mobile South LLC, the Delaware company suing Margate taxpayers and represented by well-known Florida attorney firm Becker & Poliakoff, also has sued taxpayers in Coweta, GA and Jacksonville, FL.
Residents in Eureka Springs, AR are currently fighting an “unwanted cell tower” in their city and told MargateNews.net that they are looking for a competent attorney to represent them in their case.
__________________________________________
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
| |
