Another proposed cell phone tower, another denial by Mike Beaudreau.
The May public hearing was a fairly ho-hum night, but these two cases really provided for a banner night for the District 3 Commissioner. Before I outline Mike’s missteps tonight, let me first start by publicly thanking the Board for having the courage to continue having an invocation before the hearing. In a society that finds so many ways to try to remove Christianity from the public square, having an invocation before a government meeting was refreshing. Despite my differences with many actions taken by our commissioners, I congratulate them for their strength on this point.
Tonight the board heard the case of the proposed T-Mobile cell phone tower near the Lenora Airport (2008-0435-TSP-2008-00010). There was significant opposition present, but their arguments were weak and did not offer a rational reason to deny the T-Mobile’s request. Unfortunately, as with other tower applications in District 3, logic and reason could not carry the day when pitted against a politician’s natural inclination to pander to voters. T-Mobile’s representative, Michael Sullivan, made several key points. Sullivan noted that cell phone towers are not exactly attractive but neither are other needed community infrastructure including power lines and wastewater treatment plants. He further outlined how restricting cell phone towers to commercial areas - a nation that Mr. Beaudreau seems to support based on a comment he made in a 2007 hearing asking why towers were proposed for residential areas - is impractical and not beneficial. He closed by noting that tower placements are driven by engineering practices.
The fun then started with the opposition taking their turn to address the board. Speaking for fellow pilots based out of Lenora Airport, a local resident presented the board with a series of photos and diagrams. The biggest impression I received from this presentation was to question whether a land use that has to negate the private property rights of so many nearby properties should, itself, be justified. I also found a certain amount of irony that the pilots are claiming that a tower which two studies have found did not pose a threat, was more dangerous than having airplanes take off and land in the extremely close proximity to nearby subdivisions. This fact brings into question the point made by the following speaker who raised the typical cell tower bogeyman - property values. First, what is more disruptive to a homeowner, a plane taking off or landing over your head or a cell phone tower a half-mile away that is built in a stand of trees? I find the property value argument particularly questionable when nearly $300,000 homes backing up to high tension power lines have little problem selling. If a home will sell with a large power pole in the backyard will sell, then where is the rational expectation that a distant cell phone tower will take away substantial value? Also, if such visual clutter was so damaging to value, why would builders willingly give up tens of thousands of dollars in home value by building new subdivisions near such eyesores? Given this, I find little credence in the property value argument. Finally, the last opposition speaker brought up the other common cell tower bogeyman, health effects. Never mind that the FCC has guidelines addressing what makes a tower installation acceptable from an electromagnetic exposure standpoint. Making this speaker’s comments even harder to take seriously was a tone that held a touch of radicalism by including phrases such “plume of radiation” and “human test subjects.” She even managed to get in a comment that seemed to imply that studies done in countries with socialized medicine were more reliable, further coloring he comments as more about pushing an agenda than addressing true concerns about public health. Fortunately, the T-Mobile representative effectively countered the opposition’s arguments.
Sullivan pointed out that T-Mobile had commissioned studies that were completed based on Federal Aviation regulations, not feelings, emotions or one-in-a-million or worst case scenarios. As has been reported, these studies have shown that the FAA would not have taken issue with this tower were it a public airport. Sullivan noted that planes are not supposed to be below 1000′ at the location of the tower. He further added that if a plane were at that flight level near the 126-foot tower, the tower itself would be just one of many potential obstructions including trees and power lines. Finally, in probably his strongest rebuttal, Sullivan pointed out that Gwinnett County had permitted seven tall structures without a half-mile of Briscoe Field including one owned by Gwinnett County.
After Sullivan’s presentation time expired, Beaudreau offered a glimmer of hope that, at long last, he might actually find a cell tower he could not reasonably deny. He asked Sullivan about lighting the tower and Sullivan indicated that, though the tower was not required to be lit, T-Mobile would be willing do so. Having made this offer of compromise, I had faith, hope, that Beaudreau would do the right thing and fairly serve the interests of all residents in his district including a business that provides a vital service to his constituents. However, this was not to be, as Beaudreau’s question served only as a misdirection to his subsequent statement and vote.
I should have realized that we were in for a typical Beaudreau denial when he noted the opposition had made valid points, a claim that while perhaps not quite laughable, was a stretch. Despite noting in another case later in the evening that he was not an engineer, Beaudreau effectively made an engineering judgment when he claimed that T-Mobile had not presented a case for needing a tower in that area. Despite evidence presented by T-Mobile and the lack of an opposition RF engineering analysis, Beaudreau, the man who is “not an engineer” decided that T-Mobile’s need for the site was not proven. Not only does this thrust Beaudreau into the role of an engineer, it further implies that he is able to make determinations as to the competitive needs of a private business. Furthermore, Beaudreau notes the existence of several non-residentially zoned parcels in the vicinity which would be better suited to a tower than the R-100 parcel on which the tower is proposed. Suitability of these sites is also subject to an engineering (as well as zoning and commercial) analysis. To make this suggestion again implies an engineering conclusion as to the claimed suitability, a skill that has that Beaudreau acknowledges he does not possess. Beaudreau closed with some hand-waving regarding the number of towers the board has approved in recent years. However, this does not justify his decision in light of the facts presented in the public hearing. Don’t take my word for it. I encourage you to view the May public hearing video which you can access via the link on the left and consider the points made yourself.
The reality is that Mike Beaudreau continues to vote to interfere with the provision of telecommunication services in District 3. While I am a subscriber of another carrier and am not personally impacted by this decision, as a resident of Gwinnett I am disappointed that my commissioner continues to put the interests of local residents would have not shown they would be materially impacted by a proposal ahead cherished private property rights. I am also concerned because Beaudreau represents areas of Gwinnett County that are still on the frontier of the telecommunications revolution. Many of the latest technologies and services which are available in densely populated areas of downtown Atlanta, Dekalb County, and even western Gwinnett County are still to come in the fringes of District 3. As telecom companies continue to roll these services to the edges of metro Atlanta, will Mike Beaudreau be there limiting the access of his constituents to these services all to pander to a subset of local homeowners? Even if you have no interest in next generation wireless services, what about the negative impact of Beaudreau’s decision on the right of property owners to economically benefit from their property?
Perhaps, you find yourself agreeing that you do not want to look at a cell phone tower and you have no problem with Beaudreau’s opposition. I ask you to consider that situation of you making a reasonable request to the Board of Commissioners for a use of your property that brings you financial gain and does not materially impact your neighbors. However, for whatever reason, your neighbors oppose your request for reasons that amount to little more than personal preference. How would you feel when Mike Beaudreau (or any other commissioner for that matter) says that he recommends denial for your request, thereby potentially costing you thousands of dollars per year? What happened this month could one day happen to you. Think about that as you follow the District 3 Commission race over the next two months. Consider whether you want a commissioner that opposes progress under the guise of “homeowner friendly” or “community friendly” growth, or whether you want a commissioner that has the backbone to stand up for private property rights and represent not just homeowners but all District 3 residents and businesses. The time is now for Gwinnett residents to say enough to the efforts of some homeowners to handcuff other homeowners and residents in our efforts to see Gwinnett continue to progress as a great place to live, work and play.
Loading ...
