Reasonable is more often than not going to be based on what a similiar tower would lease similiar space in a similiar area.
And its always a good idea to involve an attorney any more. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem > Who defines reasonable? I would justify that our costs in the > construction of the tower, namely permitting and engineering studies > required are part of the "Rent". Just like a building, I wouldn't rent > it less than it costs to construct it. That doesn't make sense. At > $1000/mo, it would take nearly 68 months to pay for costs. A 5-year > lease is 60 months. > > I am not a lawyer, and I would definitely involve one if the situation > arose. > > Eric > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Blake Bowers > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:41 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem > > And you would be sued, and you would lose. > > Reasonable accommodations have to be made for > collocation. If your competitor is required by the > town to collocate, and you unreasonably keep him > from complying with the city statutes, he has firm > legal footing to pursue you. > > A few quotes for comparable space at other locations > and he has you. > > Of course, this is only where you are required to provide > reasonable accommodations - if you build a tower where > there are no such requirements tell the guy to pound sand. > > Don't take your organs to heaven, > heaven knows we need them down here! > Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:07 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem > > >>I would personally allow co-location, but my rates would be very >> inflated. If the town stated $10 was fair, I would counter >> with..."Because of your requirements, you have put me at an economic >> hardship. Therefore, any tenants would be required to pay the costs." >> I would then set the rental rate at $1000+/mo to keep competition off. >> If the town wants on there, they are the ones that put the requirement >> and elevated constructions costs. At $68,000, that is a lot of > monthly >> rents and would be justified. >> >> Eric >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On >> Behalf Of Joe Fiero >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:02 AM >> To: 'WISPA General List' >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem >> >> Clear as day in the ordinance. >> >> I agree, but there goes another $10 grand to challenge that provision > of >> the >> ordinance. >> >> Joe >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On >> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:58 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem >> >> They cannot require colocation, that is considered a "taking". >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Joe Fiero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem >> >> >>> My first question is, where is this taking place? >>> >>> I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first > time >> we >>> had been classified as a "telecommunications facility", and been >> require >>> to >>> go through the extensive permitting process. >>> >>> The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had >> experienced >>> in 35 years in the wireless industry. There was always a distinction >> made >>> between a single use site and a leased telecom facility. That seems >> to be >>> coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower >> giants >>> act >>> as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they > perceive >> as >>> their piece of the pie. >>> >>> In this new world order everyone gets to "eat". And we are the ones >> they >>> expect to provide the meals. >>> >>> First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the >> municipality >>> could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the >>> permitting process. That includes paying for their engineers, >> lawyers, or >>> any other costs they incur for "experts" to testify at our hearings. >>> >>> As they depleted this fund we would be notified when the balance fell >>> below >>> $2500 and then required to replenish the funds within 5 business > days. >> >>> That >>> was in addition to the $5000 non-refundable permit fee for a new >> facility, >>> or a $2500 fee for an existing facility. It also had nothing to do >> with >>> building or construction permits. >>> >>> After the permit was granted, we were still required to maintain at >> least >>> $2500 in this escrow account so the municipality would have available >>> funds >>> to, at their discretion, order future inspections and studies to >> assure >>> our >>> continued compliance. This was arbitrary, and completely at their >>> discretion. Effectively, they could spend our money any time they >> wish >>> and >>> there was no means to appeal the action. >>> >>> All this hooplah over a 70 foot free standing tower that was being >> placed >>> on >>> a hill 3/4 miles outside of town on more than an acre of property > that >> we >>> were buying for the purpose of placing this tower on it. >>> >>> Additional requirements included mandatory core sampling to ascertain >> the >>> quality of the soil and assure it is sound enough to support a >> structure, >>> A >>> visual impact study that includes floating a balloon and taking > photos >> of >>> it, coordinated with a map by GPS points, that required no less than >> 58 >>> photos be taken. >>> >>> In addition to the municipal engineer, we had to provide our own >>> engineering >>> report. The fact that the tower was available stamped was not good >>> enough. >>> It had to be a local engineer who told us he would do his best to > keep >> his >>> fees as close to $10,000 as possible. >>> >>> They wanted the engineering to cover the foundation, structure, each >>> antenna >>> both current use and planned, road design, secondary egress, RF >> emissions, >>> and even an environmental impact study on the area we would disturb > to >> >>> place >>> the tower. This was to include a foliage replacement and erosion >> control >>> plan. >>> >>> Mostly, this tower was being sited to use unlicensed spectrum and up >> until >>> now I never came across a telecom ordinance that specifically > included >> >>> that >>> spectrum. In most cases they specify by stating something like >> "cellular, >>> SMR, paging, broadcast", or some other specific descriptors. >>> >>> One of the most disturbing aspects of this was that we had no control >> over >>> who used the tower when we were done. The ordinance specifically >> calls >>> for >>> us to build the facility for collocation and gives the municipality >> the >>> right to determine who collocates and what their "fair value" is for >>> collocation. There was nothing preventing the mayor's son from >> setting up >> >>> a >>> LPTV station, or a competitive WISP, and requiring us to house his >>> operation >>> at our site for $10 per month. >>> >>> You are 100% correct. This new generation of ordinances for telecom >>> facilities make no distinction between the mom and pop garage or feed >>> store >>> that wants to put up a 50 foot tower for his 2-way to his trucks, a >> WISP, >>> or >>> a large telecom facility being sited by a nationwide service or >> operator. >>> >>> In fact, this particular ordinance did not apply to just towers. It >>> included any placement of any radiating device in any spectrum. That >>> means >>> if you deploy a mesh network in this town you are required to obtain >>> permits >>> for each and every node you place. >>> >>> With respect to OTARD, I have had quite a bit of experience with it >> over >>> the >>> years. I have challenged CC&R's from condos and townhomes as well as >>> township ordinances for anything from yagi antennas for 2-way clients >> to >>> reach a repeater, to 10 foot satellite dishes, to DBS and even >> satellite >>> Internet services. Each was successfully resolved because of the >> strength >>> of OTARD. >>> >>> However, OTARD does nothing for you and I as the operator of a >> commercial >>> antenna, no matter it's size or intent. OTARD applies only to the > end >> >>> user. >>> >>> Now that this has reared its ugly head for the second time to me I > see >> a >>> trend. We solved the issue by not building in that location. We >> moved >>> outside of town and received a county level permit with no questions >>> asked. >>> >>> For the record, this was not NY, Chicago or LA. It was a small town >> of >>> less >>> than 4000 on the Ohio River that covers less than 1.2 square miles of >>> land. >>> >>> I think we, as a group, need to be proactive in this area before we >> are >>> shut >>> out of locations. Even existing sites could become untouchable with >>> exorbitant fees and unduly restrictive requirements. It may be time >> to >>> approach the FCC, in conjunction with other industries such as 2-way >> radio >>> retailers, to assure that low impact telecommunications facilities > are >> not >>> painted with the same brush as the monoliths built by the cellular >>> companies. >>> >>> >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> Joe Fiero >>> CEO >>> >>> NuTel Broadband Corporation >>> 769 Basque Way Suite 650 >>> Carson City, Nevada 89706 >>> >>> Direct-732-364-4161 >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >>> Behalf Of Isp Operator >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:38 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [WISPA] Tower site liscensing problem >>> >>> Hi Gang, >>> >>> We recently received notice that one of our locations has received > the >>> interest of our county planning department, who has determined that >> the >>> location requires a 'use permit' for a major impact utility location >>> (eg: Cellular telephone). Naturally, we strongly disagree with this >>> determination. >>> >>> The site is in a remote location, on private property completely out >> of >>> view of anybody(*), solar powered, on a 25' mast, with only the most >>> basic of equipment installed including two access points with an omni >>> and a sector. Aside from being 'outdoors', really, there's no >>> resemblance to a 'cellphone tower' as the gear is equivalent to what >>> most people use for their home wireless networks, albeit with > slightly >>> larger externally mounted antennas. The planning department DID NOT >> cite >>> any building codes or height restrictions, just that we seem to be >>> 'transmitting' as well as 'receiving', and we're certain that the >>> determination has to do ONLY with the fact that it's a wireless >> repeater >>> and otherwise wouldn't receive any attention at all if it was a wind >>> generator, weather station or other application. >>> >>> The substantial weight of the use permit process they wish us to go >> thru >>> is exactly that for a major cellphone site, complete with hefty >>> application fees, public hearings, zoning approvals, and the whole >> nine >>> yards. Assuming we made it all the way thru the process, we would > then >>> also be required to build it up with severe site upgrades including >> fire >>> access and other features, which is simply too much overkill and we >>> would not be able to comply. >>> >>> Isn't there some kind of exemption or otard-similar ruling or legal >>> guidelines from the fcc regarding this type of situation? I can only >>> imagine that the criteria cited would also apply to many, many other >>> uses of part-15 devices and that the regulations just predate (2001 > in >>> our case) the real onslaught of linksys in every home. I also imagine >>> that there would be substantial damage if every wisp was required to >> get >>> cellphone tower permits for every single repeater in use according to >>> these strict interpretations. We're going to need more than common >> sense >>> here, we're going to need legal precedence or references to directly >>> refute this determination, and we would appreciate your help. >>> >>> Thanks all. >>> >>> >>> (* We were turned in by a certain tin hat, who has been dogging us > for >>> some time now and attempting to create sympathy for their extreme >> views >>> which we are sure you all are aware of. Just one more reason to not >>> share detailed system information with anybody....) >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---- >>> ---- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---- >>> ---- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---- >> ---- >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---- >> ---- >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---- >> ---- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---- >> ---- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- >> >> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
