Editor,
Resident taxpayers place a great deal of faith in the city’s competency to manage infrastructure-related matters. When it comes to processing sewage and maintaining roads, we trust that the city is “getting it right.”
Editor,
Resident taxpayers place a great deal of faith in the city’s competency to manage infrastructure-related matters. When it comes to processing sewage and maintaining roads, we trust that the city is “getting it right.”
This expected competency has not been achieved in San Mateo’s handling of Crown Castle’s “small cell facilities” — antennas placed on city-owned lights and utility poles — for redundant, subscription-based wireless home internet. The facilities emit radiation 24/7, at levels which leading science has shown causes harm.
The situation has been poorly handled from the beginning. Public Works staff held regular meetings with Crown Castle behind closed doors, granting their demands. They did not utilize an independent expert to process the facility applications, as is allowed. City staff then approved faulty, incomplete permits without adhering to current application and code requirements.
Public Works staff and city engineers are not equipped with the legal and technical qualifications to process and grant such permits, as was unfortunately the case in San Mateo. A separate team of self-admittedly uninformed commissioners were left to decide on numerous resident appeals. As a result, permits were rubber-stamped.
Other California cities (especially wealthier communities) maximize restrictions, requiring wireless applicants to demonstrate a “gap in coverage” and prove that a denial will result in an “effective prohibition” — a formidable sounding legal term that industry uses to threaten ill-informed cities to support their predatory business goals.
San Mateo must raise its protective standards and support residents.
Kelly Ryerson
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(5) comments
This is upsetting. How can I contact the city to convey my discontent?
AKacher - Here you go.........
ldiaznash@cityofsanmateo.org
citycouncil@cityofsanmateo.org
sandicommission@cityofsanmateo.org
akhojikian@cityofsanmateo.org,
mfabry@cityofsanmateo.org
I'm someone who's seen a lot of changes over the years, and I remember when Silicon Valley was a beacon of progress. Back then, we welcomed new technologies eagerly. The small cell facilities in San Mateo significantly improve our connectivity, which is crucial today.
We've faced similar apprehension in the past, like when we electrified the nation and built railroads. Yet, we moved forward and benefited immensely. As for 5G, there's no solid evidence of health risks, and safety standards have been thoroughly vetted by regulatory agencies here and globally.
GasCart 1956 - The FCC law used by city was passed in 1996. FCC has been ordered in court to update to meet today's issues and standards, but refuses. There are thousands of documented health safety studies proving the ill effects of radiation, etc. For these reasons, many people do not want them near their homes, bedrooms, etc.
I'm not buying it, Lou. Why aren't these groups taking their concerns to Capitol Hill instead of tackling federal law at the city level? It's the wrong approach if they want real change. I've compared the 1996 FCC guidelines with the ICNIRP ones used by other countries. The FCC is actually more conservative in terms of signal exposure than what the WHO, ITU, and others recommend. Are you really saying the telecom companies have somehow influenced every regulatory body worldwide? Global studies are clear: there's no evidence that 5G signals pose a significant health risk.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.