CELL PHONE TOWER SITINGS "DECEPTIVE" NOTIFICATION LETTERS
"Most often you can appeal this notification before your city or county commissioners, and/or local government authority. There is a very small window of opportunity (usually 30 days) by which to do so."
This following is a notification letter some Georgia homeowners received concerning a T-Mobile South cell tower siting: Company Letterhead - PM&A
30 Mansell Court
Roswell, Ga. 30076
Tel: (407) 473-0638
Dear XXXXXX and XXXXXX HXXXXX
Due to the high demand and lack of appropriate wireless connectivity in your immediate area T-Mobile is expanding its network in your vicinity. This expansion will also provide other carriers the ability to piggyback off T-Mobiles facilities to increase their service level as well. To accomplish this goal T-Mobile is filing for zoning approval, with Xxxx County, to build a wireless compound with a monopole to be located at Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxxxx, Ga. XXXXX. This compound willhave a XX foot buffer around it and set back to avoid being obtrusive. We thank you for your time and understanding in this matter.
Zoning Specialist - M and M Wireless Services
M and M Wireless Services
Agent for T-Mobile/PM&A
12001 Cypress Landing Ave.
Clermont, Fl. 34711
THIS TYPE OF NOTICE TO AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IS DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT WITH INTENT OF MISREPRESENTATION. MANY PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW A MONOPOLE IS A CELL PHONE TOWER. WHAT ELSE DOES THIS TYPE OF NOTIFICATION LETTER NOT TELL YOU?
- No mention that their home would be next to, near, or adjacent to, a very cheap gravel or dirt access road, that is most often unlit, dark and dangerous, offering an open door to criminal activity. Yeilding safety issues and concerns.
- No mention that the property used for a cell tower site, would be listed on the Internet, with address. Yielding privacy, protection, and saftey issues and concerns.
- No mention of the cell towers height, or the large, industrial steal, voltage units,with exposed cement base. And an Industrial fence with bob wire surrounds, and generator noise.
- No mention of large "RADIATION DANGER" warning signs posted.
- No mention the generator used on site would run on gas and/or diesel fuel.
- No mention the land lease residential property site, would turn into a commercial/industrial cell tower and compound site.
- No mention of the loss of home resale values. Which you can document by a licensed appraisal "before and after the cell tower siting."
- No mention of the health risks due to RF emissions, which according to studies are numerous. Including, but not limited to cancer findings. Again causing a problem with home resale values. Note: The 1996 Telecommunications Act does not allow the address of health risks to be included in appeals of cell tower siting decisions. However, the "publics perception of health and welfare risks" can be noted. As the publics perception does cause a decrease in property resale values.
- No mention of the lack of protection against, and increased fear of, robbery, burglary, arson, theft, rape, and crime opportunity in general. There are many copper thefts involved with cell tower sitings.
- No mention the new cell tower can cause health problems for many children and individuals. As of 2012, the United State's does not confirm such health risks exsist.
- No mention that cell phone Interference problems can occur if one cell tower is sat too close to another cell tower. Problems can include dropped calls, echo effects, loss of sound reception, in and out reception, wave voice reception, voice sounds metallic and/or wobble in and out in tone and clairity. This can hinder E911 cell phone calls.
- No mention of conflict of property zoning rights, and negative visual impacts.
- No mention of a time period by which to appeal a cell tower siting, if you are an adjacent property owner with standing. Which means if your city or county required the cell phone provider notify you of the application to sit the tower. You can check to see if you were to be notified by reviewing your city/county wireless communications )cell tower siting zoning ordinance.
- Note: If you were to be notified and you did not receive notification you have grounds for a legal civil case. You have a right to hearing and due process in accordance to United State's Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments. Review your local and state zoning guidelines for due process. In Georgia, we have the Georgia Constitution and Georgia Zoning Procedure Laws that also protect due process claims. Many city/county areas offer a legal reference library you can search. You can also search via the Internet, and case law due process civil suits, claims, and court rulings.
- Your County/City has legal right to make sure their citizens are properly and legally informed of the cell tower siting and a citizen's right to appeal. If the notification letter sent to area citizens was not legally defined, with intent stated, you have only your city/county officials to blaim. Be proactive, and review your area wireless zoning ordinance today!
FRAUD, TO DEFRAUD:
"The term 'fraud' is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. (Fraud may also include an omission or intentional failure to state material facts, knowedge of which would be necessary to make other statements no misleading.)
To make a 'misrepresentation' simply means to state as a fact something which is false or untrue. (To make a material 'omission' is to omit or withhold the statement of a fact, knowledge which is necessary to make other statements no misleading).
Thus, to constitute fraud, a mistrepresentation must be false (or an omission must make other statements misleading), and it must be 'material' in the sense that it relates to a matter of some importance or significance rather than a minor or trivial detail.
To constitute fraud, a mistrepresentation (or omission) must also relate to an 'existing fact.' Ordinarily, a promise to do something in the future does not relate to an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim for fraud unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Similarly, a mere expression of opinion does not relate to an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion.
To constitute fraud the misrepresentation (or omission) must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident; that is, that the person either knew or should have known of the falsity of the misrepresentation (or the flase effect of the omission), or that he made the misrepresentation (or omission) in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity.
Finally to constitute fraud, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant intended for the Plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentation (and/or omission); that the Plaintiff did in fact rely upon the misrepresentation (and/or omission); and that the Plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the fraud."
Copyright - 2010=2012, Jane Celltower. All Rights Reserved.