Cities and towns should have more input in cell tower locations
In an effort to provide cities and towns more permitting control over the siting of cellular communications towers, I have sponsored legislation that would overturn a ruling by the state Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE). This measure addresses a broad definition of the term "public service corporation" in a way that balances the needs of communities with the demand for increased telecommunication services.
In 1998, DTE ruled that cellular phone companies—also known as personal wireless service providers or commercial mobile radio service providers—would be considered as public service corporations in Massachusetts. This designation effectively meant that cell phone companies would not be subject to local zoning bylaws regarding the siting of their communications towers. I disagree with this ruling, and believe that local officials should make the decision whether to permit the construction of a cell tower in their own community.
The legislation I have proposed, "An Act Relative to the Siting of Telecommunications Facilities" (S 1032), would exclude cellular phone companies from the definition of public service corporation.
Home Rule Tradition
According to Massachusetts General Law, land use responsibility is delegated to local governments. However, public utilities, such as the electric or gas companies, are exempted from local zoning. Because they serve a public interest, they are granted franchises in specific areas and relevant government oversight occurs at the state level. Proponents of cellular phone service would like to qualify as public service corporations so that they may be exempted from some local controls.
Like many of my constituents, I am concerned that allowing cellular communications companies to erect towers without local input could damage the scenic beauty of the region, jeopardizing tourism and the quality of life of western Massachusetts residents.
Prior to the 1998 DTE ruling, local zoning bylaws could regulate such matters as the height and placement of cell towers, so long as the regulations were reasonable. Accordingly, the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act contains many protections for cellular providers. For example, local cities and towns cannot act in a way that would prohibit a cellular network build-out. Furthermore, cities and towns cannot discriminate between service providers who provide equivalent services. The Act does, however, preserve the authority of local governments to approve or deny permit requests, and to site cell towers within their borders. While the Telecommunications Act forbids cities or towns from banning cell towers outright, local governments can balance the demand for communications technology with the needs and wishes of local residents.
There are several resources available to assist towns in drafting bylaws to address cell tower issues, including model bylaws drafted by regional planning commissions, industry experts and other municipalities. Local bylaws must be flexible enough to allow local decision makers to negotiate acceptable solutions. Having solid, appropriate local ordinances can be the difference between being stuck with an unwanted cell tower, or negotiating conditions that minimize visual impact and maximize economic benefits. Service, But Not Public Service
Cellular phone companies provide a useful service, to be sure. But wireless communication, while convenient, is not the same as the basic human necessity for heat and light in one’s home. Because the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act resulted in competition between wired and wireless phone services, telecommunications providers are racing to erect towers and provide service to as large a territory and market as possible. These towers can be quite valuable because aside from serving their own customers, the provider who owns the facility in many cases will lease space on the tower to other telecommunications companies. I am all for competition and the efforts of the private sector, yet I believe these facilities should meet the reasonable conditions established by local land use laws.
In its 1998 ruling, DTE included cell phone companies in the definition of public service corporations, and as a result, cellular phonecompanies would be under the purview of DTE. By this action, one can surmise that DTE did not trust the judicial remedies that were available—under the 1996 Telecommunications Act—to applicants who were denied by a local government the necessary permits to build a tower.
The legislation that I am sponsoring would restore adequate control to local permitting authorities regarding the location and appearance of cellular towers in their communities. It is a measured, fair and thoughtful approach to resolving the issue of cellular towers, all the while minimizing the adverse impact on the landscape and environment. Cellular phone companies would still have the option of appealing decisions made by local governments in state or federal courts.
Even Playing Field
We must examine the needs of the community as well as the overall demand for new technologies if we are to have a sensible, balanced approach to land use in the Commonwealth. While local zoning control over cell towers may seem burdensome to telecommunications providers, it is no greater a hurdle than that faced by all other businesses who are applying to build in any given city or town. Permitting control of cellular communications is best left in the hands of local officials.
<< Back
|
Center for Ecological Technology receives Renewable Energy fundsThe Statewide Anti-Terrorism Unified Response NetworkEnvironmental Bond Bill could have long-term impactsEqual Choice bill could help seniors avert nursing homesKeeping an eye on St. Lawrence CementThe Circuit BreakerAll Not So Quiet on the Western TurnpikeOUR COMMON GROUNDNational Park Service considers Housatonic Valley for National Heritage AreaNuciforo proposes Auto Pilot Loan Program for low-income families
|
