By John J. Hogg, Matt Baird Santa Monica
(This was originally sent as an e-mail to the Santa Monica City Council as a response to a decision made on March 24 to approve an AT&T wireless cell tower on a commercial building at 3010 Wilshire Blvd.) If you do not already know, today, Wednesday, March 23, the Los Angeles Times carried in its first section on page 19, an article titled “Cities Get Break on Permitting of Cell Towers.
I quote the first two paragraphs: “WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it easier Tuesday for cities to say no to new cell phone towers in their neighborhoods. In a 9-0 ruling, the justices said the federal law that was designed to encourage the growth of the telecommunications industry did not allow cities to be sued for damages for refusing to permit a cell phone tower.”
We all understand the delicacy of having either voted “no,” or abstaining in the vote on the Cingular/AT&T issue last night. However, this Supreme Court decision effectively removes a lot of the potential financial liability of cities saying “no” to the FCC in order to protect its taxpayers. Once that load is removed, the only other burden on local officials is that of grinding through the democratic machinery to fight to assist its citizenry in order to change laws that are fundamentally biased in favor of large corporations, and dare I say it, a little fascist?
For all of you who voted in favor of Cingular/AT&T, it really boils down to being just about the money, one way or another, correct. Whether it is the threat of a lawsuit over performing your jobs by taking a risk in favor of us, the citizens; or protecting the planning department from losing a permit fee, or some other city revenue mechanism not making a profit, at this point it boils down to a question of money, pure and simple, yes? At least to us, this is what it seems to have become.
We have elected you to represent our needs. We live in Santa Monica because we like it here, and because our lives are theoretically better if we do so. Property owners here pay high taxes to live here. We do not want this thing in our backyards, or the backyard of anyone else who might feel negatively affected by it. Have we, therefore, arrived at some kind of new crossroads of “taxation without representation?” In view of this latest Supreme Court ruling, and a complete and total lack of gaps in the coverage area for Cingular/AT&T, how is the City Council going to best serve the public now?
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 29, 2005. Read the original PDF.