|
_. Policy perspectives
<br /> re.~olved: beauty bin the beholder's eye, health risk, but only that theperCeption Taking the Initiative
<br /> and some might argue that towers in fact of danger led to a drop in property value. Residents concerned about PCS towers
<br /> enhance, rather than detract from, the The court held that Whether the danger is for reasons of aesthetics, health, or
<br /> municipal panorama's appearance. The scientifically genuine is irrelevant to the property values may oppose tower siting
<br /> health debate might be ~imost as diffi- central issue of market value impact, on public land under any circumstances,
<br /> ,zult; with cell towers still in their infan- viewing the receipt of money as inappro-
<br /> oy, it is far too soon to develop reliable The Rental Alternative priate collaboration with PCS providers.
<br /> ~ientific information on health effects. Because the PCS operator seeking access However, because the Telecommunica-
<br /> Moreover, issues of aestheti~ and to a site can poss~ly obtain it by pursu- tions Act of 1996 preludes the blanket
<br /> health intertwine when tower opponents lng federal, state, or judicial remedies, a denial of permission to build cell towers,
<br /> argue that ~wers reduce property values, seemingly sens~le approach for a muni- and because courts and state legislatures
<br /> Indeed, opponents might disguise con- cipality is simply to make the desired have also supported the industry, it would
<br /> cema about aesthetics as health concerns, rights available at an appropriate price, seem to be in residents' best interests to
<br /> because the latter appear less frivolous. As noted earlier, the municipal sale of participate actively in the process. In fact,
<br /> Yet whether the dangers are imagined or zoning rights for cellular tower const~..c- by offering to lease municipal land for
<br /> real, opponents' concerns have delayed · ti°n would enable a community, and thus tower siting, a locality would be able to
<br /> tower approval by many locel planning its residents, to be compensated for the gain some control over the process, along
<br /> boards, and several lawsuits have been negative externalities that may derive with some revenue. The prat would corn-
<br /> brought by reaidents against municipali- from cell towers' existence. Yet while pensute citizens, at least in part, for any
<br /> negative externalities created by the wire-
<br /> The municipal $~de of zoning rightS for tower construction less systems. Mo~over, if operators had
<br /> ~ to price their services to reflect the nega-
<br /> would enable a comrnuni~, arid thus its residents, to be tive externality cesta ear. nay borne by
<br /> compensated fOr the negative externalities that mai/derive otherS, the allocation of societal resour-
<br /> · cea to this burgeoning industry would be
<br /> from cell towers' existence, reduced to a more efficient level. ·
<br /> Dr. McDonough i~ a Professor of Econ-
<br />ties that have approved the construction selling zoning rights is the most efficient ornics at the University of Massachusetts-
<br />of towers. Concern over cell towers has economic solution, the outright sale of Lowell. She also serves as Clerk of the
<br />led to the formatio~ of organizations such regulatory approval raises legal questions. .4adorer, ~A Zoning Board of Hppealr.
<br />as the Cellular Tower Coalition (CTC), Still, a city or town might achieve a
<br />which advocates increased local control similar economic outcome, while avoid- Notes
<br /> I. The T¢lecomnmnications Act of 1996, Sec. 704.
<br />· over tower siting, monitors relevant lng legal confrontations, by leasing space Facilities Siting; Radio Frequency Emission $tds.
<br />legislation, and maintains a Web site owned by the municipality to PCS oper- 2. Colwell, Pe~' F., "Tender Men:les: Etfi~ient
<br />for the dissemination of information, ators for the construction otltowers. The ~nd Equitable Land Use Ch~nge," l~ealr-,tate
<br /> It'is certainly possible to infer that centralized locations of publicly owned Econo,nic~ 25(4), Win~ 1997, pp.
<br /> 3. lvlilis, D~vld E., "The Price
<br />transmission towers impose negative buildings could prove ideal for the siting ~ E~tate Letter $0), Summer 1991, pp. I-4.
<br />externalities on property values, if not of wireless transmitters. Municipally- 4. Colwell, Pe~ F,"Power Lines & land Value,~
<br />necessarily on human health. Available owned.access alrips adjacent to streets J. of Real ~.~ I~cl. 5(I),.~prin~ i~90, pp. !17-127.
<br />evidence relates to the siting of electric and highways would be other possible 5. Gregory, Robin and D~lof yon Wint~feldt,
<br /> "The Eff¢ct~ of Ele~ornasneti~ Fields from Tram-
<br />power lines, which admittedly involve sites for the placement of cell towers, mission Lines on Publk Fern & PropeW/Wines,~
<br />higher voltage electrical transmission Several localities have already con- J. of£nviroatnental Mgc 4~, 1996, pp. 201-214.
<br />than do cell towers. Colwell's 1990 sidered"renting" out municipal space for ~./btd.
<br />article in the Journal of Real Estate cellular towers. Prince Georges County, 7./bid.
<br />Re.~earch~ reports that proximity to MD plans to charge rent to telecommuni- ~luthor
<br />towers ;uppotiing Iransmissi°n lines cations firms for putting towers on public r*e .e~,~ e~r,~y..ao~
<br />reduces property values, a finding that land. In Illinois, the Warrenville village ~.~L esr,~r~ tzrr~ ~n~-~ t,r*y~,~m
<br />is corroborated by the 1993 work of council approved a permit to allow a cell- o,~er,.~t.rU~s,~t~a, iS~r~,.~/e~ byOt. r.~ ,to
<br />Gregory and v~ Winterfeldt.~ ular transmitter on the local water tower, #,.~, ~,,~u~ co..~., o/~. o~,
<br /> Moreover, a 1993 ruling bythe New in exchange for benefits to the village,
<br />York State Court of Appeals* (along with although nearby Nsperville rejected plans ~.~ r.s-r,~ r~ txrtrr rn..~ o~ra~
<br />a similar ruling in gornis v. City of Sante to install cellular antennae on a local post ,.~,~..e~w ~
<br />Fe)? supports the idea cfa stigmatization office and the Municipal Center, and t~
<br />associated with power lines. Ruling for North Barrington home owners actually ,~m,e ~o,, ~.~,./.~. ~
<br />the plaintiff, the New York court did not sued local planning officials for approv-
<br />require proof that the poower line posed a lng a cellular tower at the Village Hall.
<br />
<br /> Winter 1999 Iilinoi~ R~i l~state l~er page $
<br /> IV-ilo
<br />
<br />
<br />
|