The issue of so-called "small cell sites" has simmered in B'game for years. I've lost track of the old lawsuit from a small provider, but that isn't the issue here as the SacBee tries to tie the progress of the bill to political donations from "Big Telecom". The SacBee has a piece that ties it to better rural fire response stemming from better cell coverage. Well, we don't have that problem here in B'game--coverage is great, but we do have neighbors who do not want big "small cell sites" dotting their median strips and street corners.
But as the bill (SB 649) breezes through the Legislature with few dissenting votes, hundreds of city and county governments are pushing back. They say it removes their discretion over where unsightly “small cell” wireless antennas – some as big as a refrigerator with their associated equipment – will go, and reduces by millions the leasing fees they collect from the companies to place cells on public lands.
The state would dictate how much jurisdictions can charge providers for leasing public space on telephone poles, street lights, traffic signals, parts of sidewalks and spaces in public parks. Private landowners would still be able to negotiate with companies about design and location of cells on their land as they do now.
“It’s a Pandora’s box for California cities,” said Reinette Senum, a city councilwoman in Nevada City. “It’s one that blatantly strips local government of the authority to protect quality of life for residents, the environment and the public right-of-way.”
If you read through the rest of the SacBee article, they confuse donations by "Big Telecom" companies with those advocating easier placement of "small cell sites". We know from local experience that it isn't always the name brands that want the sites. Jolene Voorhis, executive director of Urban Counties of California says “I don’t want to be too crass, but they give a lot of money, and we can’t.” Rather than worrying about being crass, it would be good if Ms. Voorhis worried about being accurate and accounting for the concerns of the people who live near the not-so-small sites.
Courtesy of Jennifer who put this comment on another post, here is her take on the latest vote and what to do about it:
One more thing to watch out for...protruding cell "junk" emitting potentially hazardous radiation on the sidewalks, and other public property (school grounds?) --With 110 cities opposing, the California State Senate passed SB.649 Wednesday, a highly contentious Bill.
The Bill will enable placement of powerful microwave radiation antennas called ‘small cells’ on utility poles, street lamps, traffic lights and street signs throughout California neighborhoods as well as refrigerator-sized “associated power equipment” on sidewalks. Please call (or contact) the governor today to voice opposition. Governor Jerry Brown - Phone Number: (916) 445-2841, Governor Jerry Brown - Fax Number: (916) 558-3160, E-mail [email protected] and [email protected]
Posted by: Joe | September 18, 2017 at 08:58 AM
There are plenty of things to criticize Gov. Brown about, but this is not one them:
Gov. Jerry Brown late Sunday vetoed a bill backed by the cell phone industry that would have made it easier to install microwave radiation antennas.
Senate Bill 649, authored by Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego and co-authored by Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D-Hayward, proposed to scale back the permitting process for antennas and other equipment in an effort to meet demand for wireless services.
In a signing statement, Brown wrote that while he saw the value in “extending this innovative technology rapidly and efficiently,” the bill took too much control away from cities and counties.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/16/california-gov-jerry-brown-vetoes-bill-easing-permits-on-cell-phone-towers/
Posted by: Joe | October 17, 2017 at 05:26 PM
Whoohoo! Thank you for posting, Joe. I was just trying to figure out what happened with this horrible bill.
Posted by: Jennifer | October 17, 2017 at 06:14 PM