Lodi News-Sentinel

Lodi joins fight against state wireless equipment bill

Critics say bill would remove local control over cell infrastruc­ture

- By Danielle Vaughn

The City of Lodi joined more than 300 California cities in sending letters of opposition to Governor Jerry Brown requesting that he veto a bill that would give telecommun­ications companies domain over wireless equipment.

According to the League of California Cities, Senate Bill 649, authored by Senator Ben Hueso (D-San Diego), will require local government­s to lease out the public’s property, cap how much cities can lease this space out for, eliminate the ability for cities to negotiate public benefits and the public’s input and full discretion­ary review for the installati­on of “small cell” wireless equipment.

“It’s just a bad bill that takes away local control and as you know, the League of California Cities’ number one goal is local control,” Lodi Councilwom­an and League of California Cities Immediate Past President JoAnne Mounce said.

According to Mounce, on Sept. 15 the league held a rally at the steps of the California State Capitol in an effort to send the message to the governor that SB 649 was a bad bill and to veto it.

“SB 649 is a handout to the wireless industry,” said League of California Cities Executive Director Carolyn Coleman in a league press release expressing its opposition to the bill. “The bill shifts power and resources from local government­s and our residents to the telecommun­ications industry. We urge Governor Brown to swiftly veto SB 649.”

City Manager Steve Schwabauer was also in opposition of this bill.

“In theory small cell is a good thing for a community and in general the City of Lodi wants to see small cell infrastruc­ture proliferat­e, but what’s so offensive about 649 is that it says that we as the state at the request of the small cell industry and the phone industry are going to set the rules and require cities to allow their infrastruc­ture to be used as the small cell businesses see fit for the price that the small cell businesses see fit,” he said.

With this bill, Schwabauer said cities would lose their say in what standards and conditions they can apply as well as who’s responsibl­e for maintainin­g the share of the infrastruc­ture the cell tower is going to go on, whether the site is going be intrusive and whether to allow a cell in a location where they want to protect the aesthetics.

“We just basically lose control of infrastruc­ture that our taxpayers paid for and control over how much the small cell industry is contributi­ng towards the maintenanc­e of that infrastruc­ture for the right to use it,” Schwabauer said.

According to Schwabauer It’s very common for businesses to get the state to pass laws like this and its a frustratin­g phenomenon.

“It’s a continued erosion of communitie­s’ ability to set their own rules and have local control over what happens,” he said.

Schwabauer described SB 649 as the antithesis of a market-based decision in which the telecommun­ications companies can set the rules upon which they get to do business with cities.

“It’s not right that they get to basically condemn infrastruc­ture that our taxpayers built and set the rules under which our taxpayers get reimbursed for what they paid for,” Schwabauer said.

Mayor Doug Kuehne agreed.

“If we have no say in where they go, we can just place them anywhere and that’s not a good plan for any municipali­ty,” Kuehne said. “We’re trying to run a city and we to make sure that things are appropriat­ely placed. That’s why we have signed ordinances and all kinds of other ordinances and they just want to bypass the system and that’s not the way we’re set up as a municipali­ty. If they want to participat­e and have input that’s one thing, but to go around municipali­ties and be able to put them anywhere they want without us giving approval — what’s next?”

He said the bill would set a precedent for that type of behavior from other outside industries and that’s not good.

“Once an industry can dictate to a city what can be done and can’t be done, you lose control of the municipali­ty and you lose control of a lot of other things and have unintended consequenc­es as a result of that,” Kuehne said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States