T-Mobile US drags New Jersey borough to court over school cell tower permit denial
- Reference: 1718726710
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/06/18/tmobile_lawsuit_rf/
- Source link:
In a [1]complaint [PDF] filed last week, T-Mob accused the Wanaque borough of rejecting its application to build a cell tower on invalid grounds. The cell tower in question is to be built on part of the borough's local high school, per the terms of a 25-year lease T-Mobile successfully bid for back in 2009.
T-Mobile's original plan for a cell tower was approved in 2010, but construction never started due to "funding priorities" likely to do with the ongoing recession at the time, and also to accommodate improvements to the high school's athletic fields.
[2]
Ever since, it's been paying the lease, T-Mobile says, and in March 2023 finally decided to get the ball rolling again. It filed a new application, paid $2,600 in fees, and presented documents pertaining to the local area's radio frequencies to show a lack of service that could be remedied by another tower, which T-Mobile says is the "least intrusive" solution.
[3]
[4]
The complaint says problems started soon after. T-Mobile was asked the following May by the borough's financial consultant to consider other locations for the cell tower. T-Mobile rejected this, arguing that the municipality couldn't make this kind of request when it involved a telecommunications building.
About a week later, according to the filing, T-Mobile reps attended a meeting with the Wanaque Planning Board. They were told that the official public meeting wouldn't be taking place that day because the borough council had passed a resolution earlier in the month saying T-Mobile had to get the borough mayor and council to approve the lease, which the phone company had been paying for over a decade at this point.
[5]
T-Mobile said it again asserted that because it was trying to build a cell tower, a telecommunications building, these demands were illegal. It also complained about the wasted time and money that resulted from not being informed about the council resolution.
Over the next few months, T-Mobile went back and forth with the local government until October, when the borough council finally approved the lease.
Wanaque planning board says cell towers not 'safe'
According to the telecoms giant, this wasn't the end of it. The planning board finally held a public meeting in December, where T-Mobile presented its case that adding another cell tower would fill in a deadzone in Wanaque. However, that meeting came to an end without any action being taken because the borough mayor apparently recommended that the planning board do something very different.
T-Mobile's filing says the mayor's plan was to hold a new public meeting to "answer the concerns of all residents" on whether the lease should be approved, something T-Mobile claims was already the case. The company said it was also asked to provide data on the health and safety effects of the cell tower, which T-Mobile says it had already given to Wanaque.
T-Mobile took particular issue over the board's talk of health concerns, because, so its argument goes in the filing, it's not a legal reason to reject an application to build a cell tower according to federal law.
[6]
In January, the board and T-Mobile held another meeting, which was contentious since the board's lawyer wanted to call an expert witness that would testify about public safety. To T-Mobile, that sounded awfully like the expert would be discussing health concerns, so it once again argued that such reasoning wasn't legally relevant to the approval. The lawyer assured the phone company that his witness would only discuss "alternative technologies."
[7]29 years of data shows no mobile phone brain cancer link
[8]FDA approves AI-powered skin cancer-screening device that's just a teensy bit tricorder-ish
[9]Hellfire and damnation: Two French monks charged over 5G mast arson attack
[10]Vodafone chief speaks out after 5G conspiracy nuts torch phone mast serving Nightingale Hospital in Brum
However, the filing continued, as the next meeting in February approached, T-Mobile said it learned that the expert witness happened to be a professor who had authored articles about radio waves and their effects on health. It had also obtained a copy of the witness's PowerPoint presentation, which T-Mobile claims "was almost entirely related to RF health issues."
Naturally, T-Mobile objected to the expert witness's planned presentation for discussing the very thing it argued wasn't on the table. In the end, the presentation was changed and the board voted four to three to approve T-Mobile's application, albeit with many of the locals in attendance jeering at the decision, or so T-Mobile's filing claimed.
The three who had voted against the application made the classic argument of saying the cell tower would be dangerous for children, the complaint stated. "My answer is no, I don't think it's a good idea," one board member said. "I worry about the kids."
"They don't want to talk about health issues, and I can understand why," he continued, "because the FCC set these standards, which is … it's horrible."
Despite the application finally receiving approval, the board's lawyer quickly lobbied to have it overturned, and last May the board voted four to three again, but this time to deny T-Mobile's application. At this point, it had been over a year since T-Mobile submitted its 2023 application.
Once again, the board members that voted against the application cited child safety. One board member said he "cannot believe that this is safe and … healthy for the children of our town." Another said "it's [not] safe for the children."
"We're fighting a federal government that's made major screw-ups in everything right on down the line," a third board member argued. "And they're … all of a sudden 40 or 50 years later, they go back and say, you know I think we blew it. Well, I think they blew it on the regulations for this."
In all, T-Mobile has filed five counts against the Wanaque planning board and wants it to walk back its rejection of the application and to approve it immediately, as well as paying damages and legal fees. It also wants permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the town from "taking any further action" getting in the way of the company providing services in the area.
We've asked both T-Mobile and Wanaque to comment. As of the time of publication, neither have responded. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/06/18/2_24_cv_07001.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZnIDjIy6-U8o14XHm6xFdQAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZnIDjIy6-U8o14XHm6xFdQAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZnIDjIy6-U8o14XHm6xFdQAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZnIDjIy6-U8o14XHm6xFdQAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZnIDjIy6-U8o14XHm6xFdQAAAQA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2016/05/06/29_years_of_data_shows_no_mobile_phone_brain_cancer_link/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/19/fda_skin_cancer/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/22/french_monks_5g_arson/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/15/vodafone_chief_speaks_out_birmingham_phone_mast_torched/
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
I remember when the only things radiating in schools were huge blocks of cast iron, insanely hot and had pipes lagged with asbestos. If only we could return to those simpler times.
Don't forget about the walls covered with lead paint that were probably peeling for a few years before they decided to spend the money on a fresh coat!
For some reason, my memory is not as wibble as it walrus.
It would be amusing if the operators got together
... decided to accept the towns concerns and pulled all coverage. As a test case.
You think mobiles/masts are a danger? No worries, we've decomissioned our towers, mobiles don't work in your town anymore and your children are safe.
You do all have landlines and/or nearby payphones don't you?
TMobile is correct, but...
There's 101 reasons why TMobile is right but it won't make any difference, you just can't fight ignorance with reason. The same people who go on about the cancer creating properties of cell towers (and particularly '5G') also tend to be the first to complain when their cell coverage is sub-par. They also tend to be the people who find the highest power WiFi access point they can to ensure streaming coverage.
You just can't fix stupid. Leave a nice big coverage hole for them. It would also be a good idea for America in general to fix its educational system -- there's a chronic shortage of specialist science and math teachers, a situation that's been festering for years leaving generations as prey to pseudo-science. (So its ironic in a way that a school should be at the center of this problem...)
"You just can't fight ignorance with reason"
Exactly.
How many of these objectors allow their kids to have a phone?
And how many then understand that the RF field strength to which the child is exposed from the handset is much, much greater than from that great big ol' mast on top of the building?
Re: TMobile is correct, but...
Seriously. It's a good thing that I'm not one of T-Mobile's people there because I would be extremely tempted at the meeting to put a fake tower in the room and then point out that it's not even plugged in once the morons started faking symptoms. I'd definitely be a PR liability.
So!
A bunch of board members, who probably ALL have cell phones (As I point my finger at each in turn and say "According to YOU, YOU are killing children!"), are stealing money? Yeah, I'd sue for back rent, loss of use, loose of revenue, legal costs and breach of contract. Bidding would start at $100 million and EACH of these so-called "Public Servants" and the Mayor would be directly sued.
Knuckle dragging morons the lot of them!
Hold on
Surely this issue can be fixed by issuing free tinfoil helmets to the objectors (or those of them who already have one).
Burn it to the ground
I assume the lease was entered into with the town knowing it was for a cell tower. If that is the case, T-Mobile should sue for all prior lease payments, breach of contract on the lease, damages related to loss of revenue, attorney fees, and an injunction to halt all mobile providers providing service to the community since the towers present a danger to the population.
Maybe if they don't put those scary signs on the tall fences...
Maybe they are afraid of those scary signs on the 8 foot high fences topped with barbed wire surrounding the site stating "Danger Radio Frequency Radiation Hazard signs".
Just replace the signs with happy faces and all will be well.
Safest place for the tower is on top of the school. Your average cell tower antenna is designed to radiate very little energy downwards, so the children would be in the zone of least field strength, unlike putting the tower down the road a bit. Also, good signal strength received by the tower (easily achieved by optimal receive antenna placement - doesn't have to be the same as the TX antenna) causes mobile phones to adjust their transmit power downwards, further reducing exposure by children using phones.
But as said elsewhere, you can't fight wilful ignorance with facts.
Simple fix
The city should approve the cell tower and put the rent towards turning the school into a Faraday cage, and turn off the wifi. Tell parents their precious children will be protected from harmful RF radiation, but in order to contact them the parents will have to call the school's landline office number since the kids cell phones will be inoperable. Which might be for the best anyway!
I suspect the problem really is...
... that TM declined to distribute the requisite fat brown envelopes to the local "lawmakers".
Sorry...Investments in "local businesses" and donations to local "charities".
Pseudoscience is a hell of a drug. And the quote from the board member rambling about “40, 50 years the government blew it”.. like what the actual f are you saying bro??
If cell towers are considered unsafe for Wanaque then all the mobile operators should agree to remove all coverage from there. It's the only responsible thing to do.