WASHINGTON-Tower-siting bills in the Virginia and Massachusetts legislatures have triggered angry backlashes from local residents and officials who do not want to lose their voice in zoning matters and who suspect political influence peddling may be at the core of legislation in both states.
Despite the hue and cry from activists, both antenna siting bills appear to have enough momentum and political support to become laws in the two states. Still, it will be an uphill fight. The battle lines have been drawn.
The Virginia Senate last week narrowly approved a bill that would overturn a 1999 state supreme court ruling. The ruling said county officials cannot be bypassed by mobile phone carriers seeking approval to erect towers on land owned by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Bell Atlantic Mobile has a deal with VDOT to site antennas on state-owned property.
“Bell Atlantic and the state had a plan which benefited us, the state and the community. The courts unfortunately decided otherwise. And now it’s back in the hands of the state legislature,” said Nancy Stark, a BAM spokeswoman.
Stark said she did not know whether BAM lobbied for the bill.
Fairfax County (Va.) officials, who have battled BAM and VDOT, are angry over the Senate’s 19-18 vote to gut the Virginia Supreme Court siting ruling.
“I just think it’s an assault on local government,” Fairfax County Supervisor Stuart Mendelsohn (R-Drainsville) told The Washington Post. “It’s an attack on the citizens having a say in what goes on in their communities.”
The Post reported that some Fairfax County officials suspect telecom campaign contributions accepted by two Virginia lawmakers, totalling $13,650 and $8,500, may explain their support for the siting bill.
In Massachusetts, a bill is in play that would streamline antenna siting by eliminating zoning requirements for additions to existing towers. Instead, antennas attached to existing towers and other modifications-large and small-would require only building inspector approval.
“They [Virginia and Massachusetts bills] both look like the same old game,” said Paul Rosa, principal of Digital Landscapes, a consulting firm that specializes in siting aesthetics.”If you can’t win game the fair and square, change the rules.”
Last Thursday, local citizens protested outside the State House in Boston to air their opposition to the Massachusetts bill. But lawmakers overseeing the bill appear to have plenty of political cover.
The bill was drafted by a group of wireless carriers (BAM, AT&T Wireless Services Inc., Cellular One, Nextel Communications Inc., Omnipoint Corp. and Sprint PCS), the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Conservation Law Foundation.
Some opponents of the Massachusetts bill suspect a possible conflict of interest on the part of Rep. Daniel Bosley (D), whose governmental regulations panel has primary jurisdiction over the siting legislation. They point out that a new high-speed broadband Internet network (a partnership between Global Crossing Ltd. and a local startup) that will serve Bosley’s constituents in western Massachusetts requires, among other things, the installation of fixed-wireless antennas on existing towers.
The bill before Bosley’s panel speaks precisely to that issue because it would reclassify additions to existing towers as minor facilities, which would not require zoning approval. Bosley could not be reached for comment.
