AT&T Proposes 125' Cell Phone Tower in SOSA

[bluedogok]

The commission was particularly upset that AT&T was looking for "postage stamp" parcels of "commercial" zones that were "accidentally" in housing areas. For example, a former elementary school that was closed and later became a mosque. Now the mosque has carried the "commercial" zone forward and wants the cell phone tower rent and AT&T successfully sought the site out in order to build a tower in the middle of an established neighborhood.

Was that the Mayfair West site? Sounds like it was right by my old house.

[OKC@heart]

Actually, I have to agree with Mitt on that one, as he is litteraly correct. A corporation is classed and given legal rights as an "artificial person". But even from a more broad perspective, they represent many in the comunity who work for them. In the case of the poor fellow who was tasked with presenting and defending AT&T's position, he probably was from the local area or city or state at least. They usually hire Site Acquisition reps from the areas they are looking to locate the towers in, so that they are more familiar with the locals and the issues. It is easy to laugh and point at the guy getting his hat handed to himm but far more difficult to provide constructive solutions that are reasonable as possibilities. If AT&T simply did not do their homework and there were other viable alternatives that they simply did not seek out then shame on them, and more shame on the Site Acquisition guy. That is just being lazy and they got what they deserved. Sometimes however, the best other alternatives get rejected by the land owners and the you fall into the NIMBY situation. At that point you have to have someone and if a postage stamp residential location at a mosque that was already carrying the Commercial Zoning opens up, that is a decent alternative. Was not there did not watch so can't cite specifics. Although the concerened citizens may have won round one. Hoisting aloft the threat of a moratorium, can get the local municipality sued, and the Wireless companies have the resources and internal counsel that is willing and able to do so. this is not their first rodeo and they have run this play many times in the past and the loser ends up being the municipality who can scaresly afford it and get the thing overturned and then are forces to work with the provider to locate acceptable sites for the system...As I stated previously this could result in several smaller towers throughout the area in order to mitigate the larger towers visual impact....so is three lower towers better than one tall one? It will be interesting to follow this one. Thanks for the update.

[Urban Pioneer]

I doubt that a moratorium will occur although it was strongly discussed. However, the two site-reps that were there did a questionable job notifying the neighbors (Rob Elliot directly next to the 6th street tower spoke to this- not getting a letter or any notification while owning property next to it).

Then Brian Fitzsimmons spoke about how New View already has Sprint antennas on their building within the zone that AT& wants to place. They say they were not contacted even though they are willing to lease space. Also, the dog food plant was not contacted per people there.

AT&T seems to have picked only a handful of sites to contact and just made application to see how it would go it seems.

Our company has built several bell towers and steeples to hide antennas in cities with more stringent codes. I think that the Planning Commission clearly realized that they are behind the curve on exactly what the technology demands today, what standardized/universal solutions might be, and how to find common ground with the applicant companies.

[urbanity]

Application denied

The OKC Planning Commission told AT&T that cellphone towers and neighborhoods do not mix.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...on-denied.html

[BDP]

...as he is litteraly correct.

If he was literally correct, a corporation would actually be a person. Corporations are businesses with a specific tax designation which, I guess, as you say, are classified as an artificial person (whatever that is). Either way, the statement's real intent is to build sentiment for the transfer of the rights of individuals to businesses under a certain kind of tax designation. This way it can be legally justified for certain organizations to influence government disproportionately. This is why we do not have government of the people for the people, but government of and for "artificial people" called corporations.

At the end of the day AT&T can do this in a way that mitigates impact on the community without affecting their service. They just don't want to because it's harder.

[Urban Pioneer]

They just don't want to because it's harder.

and it might cost more... Have to take the uncertainty away! They know for sure what a monopole costs. lol

[Just the facts]

Application denied

The OKC Planning Commission told AT&T that cellphone towers and neighborhoods do not mix.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...on-denied.html

The solution is easy. Propose a retail center along the canal and build the cell tower on the roof of the retail center. Then say you need to build the cell tower first to generate cash-flow to make the retail center possible.

[rcjunkie]

The solution is easy. Propose a retail center along the canal and build the cell tower on the roof of the retail center. Then say you need to build the cell tower first to generate cash-flow to make the retail center possible.

I own several properties in and around OKC, they can build a tower on one they choose, great way to supplement my income.

[urbanity]

Commentary: Time-out for towers

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...l#sCommentN854