How will you react when....

[Les]

When "Forces-For-Good-in-the-Community" decides that the RF from your
station's tower is polluting THEIR environment and gets a local
government to condemn the land under the tower as "blighted" (it
generates "pollution") and could produce far more tax revenue when
sold to a developer for ticky-tacky little boxes?

Would your station have the big bucks to fight this and lose (a
delaying action at best)?

Does your station already have a plan (real estate, technical,
legal) in place for WHEN this happens?<P ID="signature">______________
Appoint a special prosecutor NOW! For any imagined offense by anybody. The trial lawyers need the work; they multiply like rats!</P>

 

[gr8oldies]

One station in particular comes to mind..a little religious daytimer in Xenia, OH, with three towers accross the street from Wal-mart (which is about to build a new SuperCenter. I've got to think the city fathers are thinking "eminent domain decision.get rid of that eyesore and build a strip mall". I don't know that the church that owns the station has the bucks to fight it. It might become a national media story (big business trying to silence the WORD OF GOD), but I imagine if Xenia wanted to, they could get those towers removed.<P ID="signature">______________
Soon to set the world record for recieving Nigerian scam and phising e-mails!</P>

 

[jcolletta275]

> When "Forces-For-Good-in-the-Community" decides that the RF
> from your
> station's tower is polluting THEIR environment and gets a
> local
> government to condemn the land under the tower as "blighted"
> (it
> generates "pollution") and could produce far more tax
> revenue when
> sold to a developer for ticky-tacky little boxes?
>
> Would your station have the big bucks to fight this and lose
> (a
> delaying action at best)?
>
> Does your station already have a plan (real estate,
> technical,
> legal) in place for WHEN this happens?

Here's an easy solution: tell them to eff off. Point out to them the fact that birds land on the guy wires throughout the day, deer play around the tower site property 24/7 and tell them that if it weren't for those damn raccoons dragging their food in all the time, the property would probably be a lot cleaner. Then ask them, "Does it sound to you like the animals that live here see it as a 'polluted environment'? No? Then go away and find something better to do with your time than worrying about nonexistant problems."<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>

 

[SirRoxalot]

Eminent Pollution

> I imagine if Xenia wanted to, they could get those towers
> removed.

If they want the land, they have to pay you fair compensation, which should cover the cost of new land and towers elsewhere in your COL. More likely, they'll just jack up the taxes for commercial broadcasters to the point where you'll sell to Wally World and hope you get enough to buy the land and the new towers.

As far as the "pollution" aspect is concerned, I expect that the NAB, ACLU, and a whole bunch of alphabet soup would get involved there. You're talking about setting a precedent that could affect every broadcast facility in the country. Once the precedent is set, every court in the land has to deal with it.

 

[SaltyDog]

> Here's an easy solution: tell them to eff off.

Easy but totally ineffective. You know... judges.. eminent domain... coercive power of the Supreme-Court-enabled government.. it won't be much of a fight.

 

[SaltyDog]

Re: Eminent Pollution

> If they want the land, they have to pay you fair compensation, which should cover the cost of new land and towers elsewhere in your COL.

According to the rules of eminent domain, they are only required to pay you the fair market value for the land they take. There is no assurance, or any requirement, that it be enough to buy new land suitable for towers. As you know, they can't be built just anywhere. That will be your problem, not theirs.

> As far as the "pollution" aspect is concerned, I expect that the NAB, ACLU, and > a whole bunch of alphabet soup would get involved there. You're talking about
> setting a precedent that could affect every broadcast facility in the country.
> Once the precedent is set, every court in the land has to deal with it.

Me thinks Les set you up to see if you have been paying attention. The Supreme Court recently gave carte blanch to local governments to decide these matters.
No court in the land will have to deal with it, it's already been decided by The Supreme Court and there is no one left to appeal to.

 

[Les]

Re: Eminent Pollution

> Me thinks Les set you up to see if you have been paying
> attention. The Supreme Court recently gave carte blanch to
> local governments to decide these matters.

Moi?

LMGDAO

Regrettably, though, I'm certain it's just a matter of time
before we read on one of these boards of exactly this happening!
<P ID="signature">______________
Appoint a special prosecutor NOW! For any imagined offense by anybody. The trial lawyers need the work; they multiply like rats!</P>

 

[SirRoxalot]

Hold on there, Babalooie

> > Me thinks Les set you up to see if you have been paying
> > attention. The Supreme Court recently gave carte blanch to

Wait a minute. The Supreme Court has not given anybody carte blanche to decide about what is pollution and what is not pollution. The Supreme Court also did not give carte blanche to seize land through eminent domain. The scope of the recent eminent domain decision is considerably narrower than that.

 

[Les]

Re: Hold on there, Babalooie

> Wait a minute. The Supreme Court has not given anybody carte
> blanche to decide about what is pollution and what is not
> pollution. The Supreme Court also did not give carte blanche
> to seize land through eminent domain. The scope of the
> recent eminent domain decision is considerably narrower than
> that.

Correct but this overlooks that The Supreme Court
has endorsed a government entity seizing private property
(with "proper" compensation, of course) for public purposes.
One such purpose, as now bears The U.S. Supreme Court Seal
of Approval, is, as in New London, is to seize property and
sell that same property to a developer who might make some
jobs available but who will DEFINITELY pay more in property
tax.

Some states have their own rules that allow this reverse
Robin Hood action ONLY when an area is "blighted". Those
rules do not define "blight". To Luddites, RF and EMR
constitute pollution; pollution constitutes "blight".
It doesn't have to be what any reasonable person considers
blight. The word means only what an activist city council
decides it means at that moment. But, of course, we who
live anywhere near San Francisco KNOW there's no such thing
as an activist city council, right?

Oh...in California, and in a few other states, visual
pollution constitutes blight. It's a little more subtle;
consider, for example, a piece of land on rocky high
ground, accessible only by helicopter, looking down on
a coastal village. Great place for an FM tower; lousy
place for almost anything else.

Want to build that tower? Nope; visual pollution. Fact?
Yup, Mendocino County in a recent cell-phone tower case.
Now, given that the land is worthless for anything else,
but taxes have not been abated, it has de-facto been
taken! Only a matter of time before it is actually taken
for perservation (read: to keep anyone else from trying
to put up a tower). BTW, in the Mendocino case the cell
phone company was finally able to locate an antenna
INSIDE THE CHIMNEY of a Bed & Breakfast. Wanna try
THAT with a 20-kW FM?

So, in those states having blight-specific requirements, a
station under assault could build a court case (at great
expense) that RF/EMR are NOT pollution. And, again in
those states, the station might win after years of litigation.
Meanwhile, the value of the station, were the owner to want
to sell, is essentially zero.

The check is in the mail.
Not tonight, I have a headache.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

What do those three phrases have in common?
<P ID="signature">______________
Appoint a special prosecutor NOW! For any imagined offense by anybody. The trial lawyers need the work; they multiply like rats!</P>

 

[allisonmarie]

Re: Hold on there, Babalooie

> > Wait a minute. The Supreme Court has not given anybody
> carte
> > blanche to decide about what is pollution and what is not
> > pollution. The Supreme Court also did not give carte
> blanche
> > to seize land through eminent domain. The scope of the
> > recent eminent domain decision is considerably narrower
> than
> > that.
>
> Correct but this overlooks that The Supreme Court
> has endorsed a government entity seizing private property
> (with "proper" compensation, of course) for public purposes.
>
> One such purpose, as now bears The U.S. Supreme Court Seal
> of Approval, is, as in New London, is to seize property and
> sell that same property to a developer who might make some
> jobs available but who will DEFINITELY pay more in property
>
> tax.
>
> Some states have their own rules that allow this reverse
> Robin Hood action ONLY when an area is "blighted". Those
> rules do not define "blight". To Luddites, RF and EMR
> constitute pollution; pollution constitutes "blight".
> It doesn't have to be what any reasonable person considers
> blight. The word means only what an activist city council
> decides it means at that moment. But, of course, we who
> live anywhere near San Francisco KNOW there's no such thing
> as an activist city council, right?
>
> Oh...in California, and in a few other states, visual
> pollution constitutes blight. It's a little more subtle;
> consider, for example, a piece of land on rocky high
> ground, accessible only by helicopter, looking down on
> a coastal village. Great place for an FM tower; lousy
> place for almost anything else.
>
> Want to build that tower? Nope; visual pollution. Fact?
> Yup, Mendocino County in a recent cell-phone tower case.
> Now, given that the land is worthless for anything else,
> but taxes have not been abated, it has de-facto been
> taken! Only a matter of time before it is actually taken
> for perservation (read: to keep anyone else from trying
> to put up a tower). BTW, in the Mendocino case the cell
> phone company was finally able to locate an antenna
> INSIDE THE CHIMNEY of a Bed & Breakfast. Wanna try
> THAT with a 20-kW FM?
>
> So, in those states having blight-specific requirements, a
> station under assault could build a court case (at great
> expense) that RF/EMR are NOT pollution. And, again in
> those states, the station might win after years of
> litigation.
> Meanwhile, the value of the station, were the owner to want
> to sell, is essentially zero.
>
> The check is in the mail.
> Not tonight, I have a headache.
> I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
>
> What do those three phrases have in common?
>
They are all lies! Want one more? "Vote for me and I'll set you free."

 

[SaltyDog]

Re: Hold on there, Babalooie

>Wait a minute. The Supreme Court has not given anybody carte blanche to decide >about what is pollution and what is not pollution.

No, the Supreme Court said nothing about pollution.

>The Supreme Court also did not give carte blanche to seize land through eminent >domain. The scope of the recent eminent domain decision is considerably >narrower than that.

The Washington Post thinks otherwise: "The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed."
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html">
Full text here</a>

I know, they said nothing about pollution and radio towers. But I see nothing in the ruling that prevents Les' scenario from coming true. We all thought we knew the meaning of "public use" but now it's been expanded to mean pretty much whatever local officials want it to mean. And that is: If it means more money for the "public", we'll "use" it. It's called "The Law of Unintended Consequences". It was a terrible decision.

Please elaborate on your position that the decision "is considerably narrower than that." Common snse tells us it should be but we all know that legal interpretations and common sense are far apart.

 

[jcolletta275]

> > Here's an easy solution: tell them to eff off.
>
> Easy but totally ineffective. You know... judges.. eminent
> domain... coercive power of the Supreme-Court-enabled
> government.. it won't be much of a fight.

Oh, trust me... I'd get some pretty good lawyers on my side. They'd be running home with their collective tails tucked between their legs.<P ID="signature">______________
"Get educated. Read stuff on the web and believe all of it."
-- Phil Hendrie
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>

 

[954]

> When "Forces-For-Good-in-the-Community" decides that the RF
> from your
> station's tower is polluting THEIR environment and gets a
> local
> government to condemn the land under the tower as "blighted"
> (it
> generates "pollution") and could produce far more tax
> revenue when
> sold to a developer for ticky-tacky little boxes?

Which goes to show that members of congress, rather than worrying about how a Supreme Court nominee feels about Roe v. Wade, should ask him how he feels about the recent eminent domain decision.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
The New News/Talk WKAT ... Unforgettable WJNA</P>

 

[SaltyDog]

> > > Here's an easy solution: tell them to eff off.
> >
> > Easy but totally ineffective. You know... judges.. eminent
>
> > domain... coercive power of the Supreme-Court-enabled
> > government.. it won't be much of a fight.
>
> Oh, trust me... I'd get some pretty good lawyers on my side.
> They'd be running home with their collective tails tucked
> between their legs.
>

Oh, great... Now I know where those guys come from.. you know.. the ones who are armed when the sheriff comes to escort them off their property when all legal appeals are exhausted!

<center>

</center>

 

[Les]

> Oh, great... Now I know where those guys come from.. you
> know.. the ones who are armed when the sheriff comes to
> escort them off their property when all legal appeals are
> exhausted!

Precedent:

Those guys who were hiding in the bushes near that old
bridge in Concord, Massachusetts when the British troops
(read "sheriff") came to collect the taxes on all that
tea. OK, not a perfect description of cause/effect, but
you get the idea.

Can't remember whether to blame it on Jefferson or Franklin
but one of that crowd of criminals (from the British
perspective) who said, in effect, that every democracy
needs a revolution every now and again.....
<P ID="signature">______________
Appoint a special prosecutor NOW! For any imagined offense by anybody. The trial lawyers need the work; they multiply like rats!</P>

 

[markwooldridge]

From an outsider's point of view...

I don't work in broadcast, law nor in government. I'm just a fan of the broadcast industry.

However, the vast majority of stations need not fear; these being:
<ul>
[*]Stations owned by large media conglomerates; what government would like to cross Clear Channel with a threat to blight the land their transmitter is on?
[*]Stations where there is a sister station operating using separate facilities. This other station would be able to broadcast all kinds of anti-local government stuff, and help persuade the electorate to kick the incumbents out of office.
[*]Stations that are hugely popular (i.e. you're #1 in the area on sheer audience), or popular with a large number of influential people (not necessarily #1). The station would be able to explain to its audience why it's going off air, organize protests, etc. Influential people would be able to pull in their favors and the station would survive.
[*]Stations that are owned by the local government, including state schools and universities. It would be doing battle unto itself, and thus would be self-defeating. Students could protest, and the board of education would be advised on how much it would cost them to fulfil their FCC requirements if they were to move.
[/list]
Even if you're a small single independent station (commerical or non profit), all hope is not lost. Each station has a duty to perform a public service, and that duty has to be fulfilled. This can be placed in front of the local government who is threatening to shut down your station and advise them with the media conglomeration that's going on that by shutting down your station you won't be able to warn the local population of a disaster. (e.g. a chemical truck or train having a crash and causing a toxic plume of smoke to cover the town). You can cite the example of the town in a local area where all the stations serving it were automated and that the emergency services couldn't get a message out about the toxic fumes leaking from a crashed train. You can say you're providing a valuable local safety service because you're providing a live and local voice you can get the message out whereas the big conglomerates can't. This can be a message that can be used against the local government wishing to shut down your station ("city of XYZ willing to endanger local lives by shutting down source of local emergency information").

As a last resort, if the transmitter is about to be demolished, mobile transmitters may be thought of and used as an option. The FCC would allow this as temporary means to get on the air. The problem with this though is that there would be more RF pollution, not less. Mobile transmitters are usually used to temporarily replace masts that collapse (for one reason or another), and can be on site within hours. With AM this may be a problem but is an ideal solution for TV and VHF/FM radio.

However I don't think any of this will come to pass, because the government doesn't generally want to "p--- off" (for want of a better phrase) the local media, because at the end of the day if a single station is forced off the air because of politics, the other stations will rise above the occasion and speak out loudly against it. Look at the current media and "Rovegate". There are a significant number of mainstream journalists that aren't happy about the jailing of one of their own, so if a _station_ gets forced off the air because of politics then I can only imagine at what would happen.

If all else fails, I always have shortwave :>

Mark.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Elaboration

> Please elaborate on your position that the decision "is
> considerably narrower than that." Common snse tells us it
> should be but we all know that legal interpretations and
> common sense are far apart.

The decision basically gives the ball to the local government when it comes to decisions on development. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, who decided that local governmental officials are better suited to determine what serves the public interest than the courts are.

Stevens and the majority decided that the project in question "unquestionably serves a public purpose". According to the decision, "The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," he wrote.

In dissent, Clarence Thomas - who is normally villified by the Left - wrote "The consequence of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful... So-called 'urban renewal' programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes."

In short, it takes more than one official to decide on an eminent domain decision. The court decided that a comprehensive plan for a large-scale renovation of an area fits the requirements for public domain. That type of planning has to be approved by several levels of government. The Supreme Court did not decide that a developer can throw a wad of cash at a couple of people and make off with the rights to a desirable street corner.

The whole idea of eminent domain is problematic from the standpoint that determining "just compensation" is difficult when emotional attachment to a piece of property is involved.

In the case of an existing broadcast tower, it would be difficult to prove that a new threat has been created because the tower already exists, and probably has been in existence for a significant period of time. If development has grown around it, it's up to the developers to make sure that their property isn't endangered by the existing structure.

If a comprehensive new development plan was created for the area that called for dismantling the tower, a good lawyer would argue that the value of the property would include the purchase price of a new location that is properly sited for similar or superior broadcast coverage of the City of License.

 

[SaltyDog]

Re: Elaboration

> In the case of an existing broadcast tower, it would be
> difficult to prove that a new threat has been created
> because the tower already exists, and probably has been in
> existence for a significant period of time. If development
> has grown around it, it's up to the developers to make sure
> that their property isn't endangered by the existing
> structure.
>
> If a comprehensive new development plan was created for the
> area that called for dismantling the tower, a good lawyer
> would argue that the value of the property would include the
> purchase price of a new location that is properly sited for
> similar or superior broadcast coverage of the City of
> License.

I will concede that the local officials could not openly state that they want the tower because of emissions. They could make that determination and then plan a development in the area necessitating the removal of the towers.

>If a comprehensive new development plan was created for the
>area that called for dismantling the tower, a good lawyer
>would argue that the value of the property would include the
>purchase price of a new location that is properly sited for
>similar or superior broadcast coverage of the City of
>License.

The argument for compensation at replacement cost is made all the time but I've never seen it succeed. If they started awarding at replacement cost, you'd never be able to acquire rights of way for roads or anything else.

 

[Les]

Re: Elaboration

> In the case of an existing broadcast tower, it would be
> difficult to prove that a new threat has been created
> because the tower already exists, and probably has been in
> existence for a significant period of time. If development
> has grown around it, it's up to the developers to make sure
> that their property isn't endangered by the existing
> structure.

It's not a question of "threat".

In one simple scenario a big-box store might want the
transmitter site to put up a parking lot and building. The
municipality sees higher property and sales tax income, so
move over radio station...eminent domain is coming through.
Yup, we'll pay for the land but it's up to you to find a
new site and find the money to make up the difference between
"fair market value" (for an old, depreciated building and
tower) and the cost of building a new one....IF you can find
a site.

In a more complex scenario some neighborhood group (Does this
happen? Ask any airport manager) decides the "harmful
radiation" from the tower is killing their children. Yeah,
they moved there knowing there was a radio station next
door but that's their RIGHT and that station "never had
any right" to kill children. Sure they're wrong. But all
they need to do is band together in a pressure group. No,
they wouldn't win on the "pollution" issue...at least not
as things stand today. Don't think for a minute they won't
at least try. BUT though they lose, they pre-dispose a city
council to invoke eminent domain when a developer comes
along wanting to build more houses on that transmitter site;
houses that would produce more property tax revenue. And
guess who would put the idea in a developer's head?

It's a double win for the council: More money from the
taxes and appease a very noisy pressure group.

I'd anticipate the first affected station will be off
the air within two years.

It doesn't matter what grounds are invoked. The station is
still in a world of hurt.<P ID="signature">______________
Appoint a special prosecutor NOW! For any imagined offense by anybody. The trial lawyers need the work; they multiply like rats!</P>

 

[954]

Top 3 Phrases

> > The check is in the mail.
> > Not tonight, I have a headache.
> > I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
> > What do those three phrases have in common?
> >
> They are all lies! Want one more? "Vote for me and I'll set
> you free."

Actually, I've heard another one cited as one of
the top three, instead of the one with "headache".

But it might not be appropriate for this board.

Hint: It includes the word "won't"!

;-)

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
MEDIA BIAS WEB SITE</P>