Editorial: Wireless facility bill will circumvent local control | News | PleasantonWeekly.com |


Editorial: Wireless facility bill will circumvent local control

In order for all area residents to have important local information on the coronavirus health emergency, PleasantonWeekly.com has lifted its pay meter and is providing unlimited access to its website. We need your support to continue our important work. Please join your neighbors and become a subscribing member today.

Thank you, Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), for being the lone No vote on Senate Bill 649, which, in essence, usurps local government control of public right-of-ways and restricts their ability to collect rent for putting cell towers on public property.

Glazer, our local state senator, told us that he voted No on the "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" bill because, "Local communities, with the input of the public, are better positioned to approve or disapprove wireless permitting issues. This bill did not demonstrate a compelling need to circumvent local control."

The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), which represents the U.S. wireless industry and has powerful lobbyists, is listed as the bill's source. It was introduced by Sen. Ben Hueso (D-San Diego) who, according to FollowtheMoney.org, received $6,600 from AT&T and $6,500 from Verizon Communications in campaign contributions when he ran for his Senate District 40 seat in 2014.

During the May 31 discussions on the Senate floor, Hueso said this bill will make "California more connected and faster in our telecommunications industry" and it will "help to usher in a new era of technology in California and ... bring to California what the people desperately want which is to be more connected and (have) faster service."

Maybe, but it also smacks of eminent domain abuse by, basically, taking the authority away of cities, counties and other local government bodies by making them unable to decide the best use for public land.

This bill mandates cities and counties lease public property for the not-so-small cell antennas -- as large as 6 cubic feet antennas and 21 cubic feet for "associated equipment" such as meters, boxes, switches and other attractive furnishings. (Imagine a space about the size of a refrigerator.) Even better, to be effective, the cells need to be very close to one another -- likely within 1,000 feet.

When asking for Yes votes, Senate supporters including Hueso and Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) emphasized local governments won't be made to "subsidize the program" because all costs associated with placing the "poles" will be covered.

However, any revenues currently realized by rents paid for use of public land by wireless companies will be diminished, if not eliminated.

Currently local governments have the ability to charge rent or negotiate for other benefits in exchange for use of public property. Some local governments are charging wireless carriers up to $4,000 in annual rent to use the public's infrastructure, while others have negotiated "free" wi-fi in public places or coverage in outlying areas. This bill caps leasing fees to $250 for each tower -- total -- and negates any power to negotiate.

However, SB 649 does address local governments' ability to have input on design standards and require insurance and maintenance. Well, according to Sen. Scott Wiener (D- San Francisco), the issues were "largely addressed" in the most recent revision but still need "tweaking."

The bill, which could be argued an issue of eminent domain, also requires cities to adopt public resolution for each of their own street or traffic lights if they want to use them for something other than a cell pole -- like a police camera or solar panel.

More than 115 small- and medium-sized cities, a large number of chambers of commerce and the League of California Cities oppose the bill. Still, it passed the Senate 32-1 on May 31 with support on both sides of the aisle and is now in committee in the Assembly.

We urge local Assemblywoman Catharine Baker (R-San Ramon) to oppose this bill, and we encourage concerned residents to make their feelings known.

We need your support now more than ever. Can we count on you?


2 people like this
Posted by I just work here.
a resident of Stoneridge
on Jul 7, 2017 at 11:44 am

I could not agree more.

It's foolish to believe our community won't pay as the cell site rents negotiated and collected help tremendously to differ expenses in other areas of public government which will now be borne by the citizens.

How unfortunate this will be if it passes.

Like this comment
Posted by VS
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Jul 8, 2017 at 7:07 pm

I agree. Thank you Senator Glazer, because CTIA is very active and well funded. Please keep us locals informed.

Like this comment
Posted by Happy Camper
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Jul 10, 2017 at 11:04 am

Another Thank you to Senator Glazer....get educated and make your voice heard about this bill.

Like this comment
Posted by William Blake
a resident of Gatewood
on Sep 12, 2017 at 9:44 am

There are lot of misconceptions regarding wireless installation facilities yest Governments can manage these installations and can convert into revenue generation genies without giving any panics to the local population. A recent example of this have been witnessed in UK where government authorities through Web Link program ensured to bound all operators to use a single installation, utilizing minimum residential and commercial lands with big revenue generation.

13 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2017 at 10:29 am

BobB is a registered user.

If the cellular industry is so powerful, why do we still have such bad coverage in Pleasanton? Verizon isn't too bad, but AT&T is spotty as are most others.

There was a proposal to put an antenna in the McDonald's at Bernal and Stanley, but some vocal minority actually got this stopped! There was another cell tower proposed near Quarry Lane that was also cancelled.

Who on earth is responsible for this? It seems completely nuts to me.

Like this comment
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 12, 2017 at 7:16 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

The Little-Known Dangers of EMFs.

Electrical and magnetic fields (EMFs).

Some people are more sensitive to EMFs than others.
Symptoms sensitive people may experience:

Nervous system symptoms, like fatigue stress, and sleep disorders.
Skin symptoms, like facial prickling, burning sensation and rashes.
Body symptoms, like pains and aches in your muscles.
Foggy thinking and depression.
Leukemia in children.

Primary sources for EMFs:
Cell phone towers.
Cell phones.
Wireless routers.
The list goes on and on.

9 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2017 at 7:54 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Michael Austin,

There aren't any scientifically valid dangers associated with electromagnetic fields from cell towers, cell phones, or wireless.

That is pseudoscience, fiction, and fraud.

I hope you are only kidding.

Like this comment
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Earlier this year I hit a pot hole while driving on Dublin Canyon Road.
I made my way into a popular Pleasanton tire shop.

While I was there, I met a retired electro magnetic engineer.
We had a discussion for about an hour regarding EMFs.

He was creditable, and I later researched EMFs. It is not fiction, it is not fraud, it is not pseudoscience.

It is a real life issue!

4 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2017 at 9:27 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Michael Austin,

That guy may have been pulling your leg.

You can look up what the major scientific and health organizations have to say.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay up to date on local coronavirus coverage with our daily news digest email.

Next Step opens in Livermore and offers free diapers
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,797 views

Pet Safety Net?
By Tom Cushing | 0 comments | 933 views

Repairing a Disagreement with your Beloved & “Physical” vs. “Social” Distancing
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 922 views