By: California NAAS-NEWS division.
cc: NAAS Subscribers
Bcc: Edward Klein, Editor
cc: NAAS Subscribers and Users
Bcc: Domestic and International Affiliates
Subject: Warning signs of fraudulent cell-tower companies
Review NAAS Contract Criteria, and Warning Signs
Background Checks & Due Diligence
Investigate before you sign away your property.
NEWS, Commentary & Analysis
¶ This brief Media Report contains a subject matter of general and public interest,
and should be read only by persons interested in the subject and contents therein.
Monday, May 22nd 2017, 9:35:28:AM MDT|
Cell-towers may be disguised as flagpoles, lampposts and palm trees. They may be hidden behind billboards and inside church steeples. They may be camouflaged with leaves, or other material. No matter where they are, at least one thing is certain. Cell-towers are becoming a nuisance and distraction.
If you are a landowner and you have been approached by an alleged cell-tower developer, please understand that a cell-tower developer is not affiliated with a government agency. You should be economically compensated for allowing a cell-tower developer to use your land, if you choose this route.
With the skyrocketing growth of satellite TV, digitial cameras, image-to-image transfers, V-cast Mobile TV, cellular phones, cell-tower companies will need more and more space to place those towers.
Nationally, cell sites increased from 913 in 1985 to 195,613 by the end of last year.
As towers encroach on residential space nationwide because of the demand for cell service, there are limited places to put them. Thus, more and more landowners are fielding letters and calls from persons purporting to represent cell-tower companies. Eagar landowners sometimes sign away the right to use their own land without understanding the objective of the cell-tower company, or the health hazrds associated with Radio Frequency emissions, or the fact that cell-towers lower land value, and restrict uses of your land. Many landowners do not understand the fine details of cell-tower contract.
This report attempts to impress upon landowner the need to perform due diligence, and check the background of all employees involved in your discussions with a cell-tower developer. Never simply believe the word of a cell-tower developer and their fast-talking employees. Never sign your name to any Standard Lease Agrement without first having significantly modifed and revised the terms to reflect your best interests. A contract is mutual interest of at least two parties. It should never be one-sided.
If any cell-tower developer insists you agree to THEIR contract language, or THEIR terms, then use YOUR common sense and tell the cell-tower developer to go find another victim. The landowner is the real boss.
To illustrate this example, we searched the Internet, received input from readers, solicited input from landowners, and selected a public Civil Case from Missouri. We proceeded to investigate additional details. If you have any input to offer, please complete NAAS EAS/N2 Form GEC 002.
City of Chesterfield, MO Denies Tower to St. Charles Tower, Inc
Importance of Background Checks and Due Diligence.
Consider Civil Case Number# 2007cv00414, filed March 5th, 2007. St. Charles Tower, Inc. submitted an Administrative application to have a cell-tower constructed on land apparently owned by David and Linda Wilson, located at 1401 Wilson Road, in the city of Chesterfield, Missouri. Why the Wilsons sought to have an ugly cell-tower placed on their land is not known by this Publisher. The tower, according to St. Charles Tower, Inc., would be a disguised telecommunications antenna support structure.
Apparently, David and Linda Wilson entered into some sort of lease with St. Charles Tower, Inc. for the rights to place the proposed tower on a portion of the land owned by the Wilsons. St. Charles Tower, Inc. then sought to file an Application for Administrative Approval of the Placement of Communications Antennnae and Support Structures with the city planning department of Chesterfield, MO.
Although the application before the Planning Department was initially approved, additional facts came to light afterwards. Certain neighboring property owners sought to have the application reversed. Specifically, statements compiled by neighboring residents Lauren Strutman, Yakov Svirnovskity, Irina Svirnovskity, Douglas Miley, and Joann Miley in a Petition before the Board of Adjustsment resulted in a decision to officially over-turn a previous decision to approve a permit for St. Charles Tower, Inc.
Stop-work order issued against St. Charles Tower, Inc.Ultimately, the Director of Public Works and acting Director of Planning issued a stop-work order for the current project on the Wilson's land. St. Charles Tower was ordered to stop the construction it had commenced, and further cease all construction of the tower.
In an evidentiary hearing which sought the stop-work order, neighboring residents claimed that the permit application submitted by St. Charles Tower, Inc., contained ..."material inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions..." Neighboring residents claimed that the tower by St. Charles Tower had resulted in dramatic noise concerns, lowering of property values, access issues for the local fire department, was constructed at least 45.6 feet further south than the location approved by the Planning Director, 115 feet further west than originally approved, and that the base of the tower had been constructed at least 30 feet higher than than the height originally submitted by St. Charles Tower on its application for approval.
In other words, the petitioners claimed or insinuated that the company lied through its teeth to get the cell-tower approved.
Based upon the statements made by the Petitioners, evidence of facts and laws, and statements from other neighboring residents, the City of Chesterfield then voted to overturn the initial approval, and DENY the application by St. Charles Tower, Inc.
Officials at St. Charles Tower, cried foul, and the Wilsons have an eye-sore white elephant on their land that they do not know what to do with. Seething mad, St. Charles Tower sought to appeal the decision but opted to file a risky lawsuit. If anything, the lawsuit appeared to fit the classic sour-grapes story. The lawsuit was contested by the city, and the city produced a string of serious accusations, and what it termed "substantial evidence" for denying the application by St. Charles Tower, Inc.
For one, the city claimed that St. Charles Tower, Inc. submitted "an incomplete application, submitted a false application", and was "attempting to build the Tower in a location significantly different than the location indicated on the application." Facts and testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing weighted in favor of the city.
According to the Civil Docket for the case, the last document filed in the case was on August 23, 2007.
In or about October 9th, 2007. St. Charles Tower, Inc. .....
|Purchase St. Charles Tower, Inc. vs. Chesterfield, Missouri, City of.
- This purchase includes Docket History, Answer and Complaint to Civil Case Number# 2007cv00414, and detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
- Have you been approached by ANY cell tower company? Be a fool, or buy these documents as part of your due diligence reasearch.
|NAAS Subscribers receive Free Copies upon request.|
Publishers note:The information contained herein has been obtained and compiled from sources deemed to be reliable. However, as in the case of all legitimate journalistic reporting, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information presented herein nor the credibility of the sources used. Consequently, The Companies, and Publishers, etc., et al., jointly and severally, makes no warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the information herein nor assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of the information contained in this report pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 230, subdivision (e), part 3, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of California, as well as other affirmative defenses and doctrines not explicitly mentioned herein. However, to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information cited hereinabove is believed to be factual and accurate, and is offered without recourse to The Companies, etc., et al., the staff, officers, directors, et al. and any affiliates of the same subsequently mentioned in this web presentation. Furthermore, this report is not intended to recommend or deprecate any of the subjects cited or referenced herein and said report is furnished solely to assist the reader in exercising his/her own authoritative discernment. By accessing this report from a general hypertext link, it is the reasonable belief of the Publisher that the statements which form the subject matter of the report are to persons also interested therein and that such persons hereby agree and expressly consent to all applicable NAAS EAS/N2 Rules. Absolutely no part of this report, either partially or in its entirety, may be used in advertising, selling or for commercial purpose or downloaded into any computer system for subsequent storage, personal re-prints, videotaped, or manipulation of any type. Any re-prints or re-broadcasts not authorized by The Companies, or an authorized agent, assignee, or representative of the same, are deemed as non-official representations, and effective forthwith, are immediately disclaimed as being non-representative of Publisher. The captions or subtitles of this report are employed solely for convenience and are not to be used as an aid in interpretation or speculation. Neither this report, nor any reports related thereto, nor any tangential reports, claims to offer legal advice or legal opinions. This report is not a legal opinion. For legal opinions, a person should consult competent legal counsel. Plagerizers and copyright violators are subject to appropriate adjudicative proceedings. All NAAS EAS/N2 Rules apply.