Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Please help

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:40:38 -0500

------- Original Message --------
From: "radiopro1 <[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Please help

> 1.Considering the fact this tower has been approved outside of 
existing requirements, is there anything that can be done to reverse 
this approval that anyone on this list is aware of?

Federal law often preempts local ordinances with respect to 
communications towers.  Perhaps Nextel has demonstrated to your 
elected officials that the current law cannot be supported with 
documentation as to the separation requirements. I work as the 
regulatory official in a local government and have had to deal with 
this situation.  No ordinance is "bulletproof" when it comes to 
federal pre-emption.  Ours has been reworked many times to assure us 
that towers can only be placed where they will provide minimal impact 
to citizens.  In general you cannot regulate "aesthetics".
> 
> 2. The last I recall, numerous cities were still experiencing 
multiple problems with cell tower interference and public safety 
equipment. Our city has had problems too, but no one seems to relate 
this to possible tower interference. Is there an improvement in this 
problem or does it still exist? 

Interference problems do exist -- that's the purpose of this group.  
It's not caused by the "tower" but rather the technology.  If the 
transmitters were in a building they would still create the 
interference.  If you want to be able to regulate it you better have 
a staff of RF experts and telecom lawyers on the payroll to justify 
any laws based on interference

> 3. Did I not read that New York City was considering not approving 
any additional towers until money was set aside to cover some of the 
problems?

I'm not aware of that.  NYC has very few towers so its doesn't seem 
logical.  Most sites in the Big Apple are building mounted.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/