AT&T 2017 Revenues: AT&T Mobility Wireless revenues in Q4/2017 were $19.2 billion, up 2.5% year over year with operating income margin of 22.1% with EBITDA margin of 32.7% and Wireless service margin of 43.8% For full-year 2017, AT&T's consolidated revenues totaled $160.5 billion. We are falling victim to the classic camel's nose in the tent strategy: a metaphor for a situation where the permitting of a small, seemingly innocuous act will open the door for larger, clearly undesirable actions. These Wireless carriers want to install hundreds of CPMRA cell towers in front of our homes — defend your homes now, before it is too late.
Does anyone think that AT&T cannot afford to install its Cell Phone Towers further from our homes? Of course, they can afford it, which makes this misguided AT&T plan all the more disingenuous. In their pitch materials to the City of Oakland, AT&T targets only light poles in the Claremont Canyon neighborhood because it is the cheapest alternative for them, not the best alternative for us!
Why are we being forced to subsidize AT&T's operating revenues by accepting lowered real estate values and visual blight in our neighborhoods? We don't have to go along this terrible plan. Just encourage the City of Oakland to widen their field of view . . . and from AT&T insist on proof of a SIGNIFICANT GAP in AT&T Coverage and the least intrusive means to close the alleged significant gap in AT&T coverage.
Note all the green areas surrounding the Claremont Canyon neighborhood. Placing cell phone towers there would clearly be the least intrusive means for AT&T to close any significant gaps in coverage in our neighborhood. There is no need to accept Cell Phone Towers 15–50 feet from homes, which could drop one's home value between $250,000 and $500,000!
The solution is both simple and easy — instead of more Wireless, install Wireline fiber optic cables to each home and business in Oakland, which will provide much faster, more secure, more reliable and much more energy-efficient transmission of Internet and video data. Doing so would preserve the unique character of Oakland and prevent the private Telecom companies from shoving these cheap, ugly, intrusive, microwave-radiation-emitting CPMRA installations into our town.
Despite the promises of additional convenience and the unbridled hype for 5G and the "Internet of Things” (IoT), the primary duty of our elected officials is neither convenience, nor promised future economic growth, but to promote and preserve the health and welfare of Oakland's residents, voters and taxpayers.
To voice your opposition to Cell Towers being installed 10 to 50 feet from homes, please come to the Oakland Planning Commission and City Council Meetings and speak or support others who will speak against these hazardous, visual blights that could blemish our beautiful city for the rest of our lives. To find out more about this project, please contact the Oakland Planning staff, Planning Commissioners and City Council Members.
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor, Oakland, CA 94612; 510-238-3911
Kent Calfee Letter: 2018-0502-Letter-re-DAS-Node-OAKS-038C-PLN17374.pdf
Date: April 28, 2018
To: Chair, Adhi Nagraj
Vice Chair, Jahmese Myres
Commissioner, Jonathan Fearn
Commissioner, Tom Limon
Commissioner, Clark Manus
Commissioner, Amanda Monchamp
Commissioner, Emily Weinstein
Interim Zoning Manager, Robert Merkamp
Re: Respectful Protest Against Proposed Microwave Radiation Antenna: Oakland Case No. PLN17374
Dear Commissioners Nagraj, Meyers, Fearn, Limon, Manus, Monchamp and Weinstein and Interim Zoning Manager Merkamp,
Will you please place this email/letter into the Oakland public record and into the paper file for the proposed Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRA) installation at Besito and Drury Rd. in Oakland, CA, also known as DAS Node OAKS-038C (Oakland Case No. PLN17374)?
I live in the immediate proximity of the proposed cell tower. I ask you to stop its deployment for at least the following reasons.
The tower will damage property values by hundreds of thousands of dollars: Cell towers are widely perceived as posing a health hazard. While the various professional organizations may be still debating the issue, the public’s negative perception is very real. Various real estate publications estimate that a cell tower in a property’s vicinity, can reduce the property’s value by 10-20%. Given that homes in this neighborhood have a value around two million dollars, this is a probable loss of $200,000-$400,000 for each of us. This would be a major, direct damage to my family’s economic situation, and would vaporize a large amount of money we worked very hard for.
The high marginal tax rate about doubles this damage: This argument can be further amplified by noting that our marginal federal plus state tax rate sums to around 50%, meaning that if the tower is built, then twice the above money, $400,000-$800,000 of my past salaries gets wiped out. This means that deploying the tower would zero out my salary over several years.
The tower would reduce the property tax revenue of the City: Besides damaging the finances of the people who the City is supposed to represent, these towers hurt the finances of the city itself, because our damaged property values will damage and reduce the property taxes we pay to the City, upon the sale of homes. If for nothing else, please do not authorize these towers in order to avoid reducing your own property tax revenues.
These cell towers are used as Trojan horses by the telecoms: I read extensively about this subject, including court filings and lawsuits. The first company pushes a small cell tower through the process. Then, via subsequent expansions without local review, allowed by Federal law, the tower is repeatedly expanded into a large, industrial-looking Monster Tower. I have seen photos of reasonable towers repeatedly expanded into large, industrial-looking Monster Towers by telecoms.
The tower is a visual blight: These Monster Towers will blight our beautiful neighborhood. They will be a daily visual reminder of the City giving preference to corporate interests at the expense of the interests and finances of the people it is supposed to represent.
The compounded radiation of co-located antennas can pose exponential health hazards: Even if the RF Microwave Radiation from an individual antenna may seem benign, the 24/7/365 RF Microwave Radiation exposure from multiple co-located antennas can result in substantial health effects.
There are good alternative solutions: While in densely populated city neighborhoods moving a tower is a zero-sum game, and, unavoidably, ends up hurting somebody. This is not the case here. We live in a sparsely populated neighborhood. There are many points on these slopes where the road is along steep terrains or covered by a grove, and thus there are no houses around. The planning commission can avoid hurting the population and damaging its finances, while satisfying the needs of the telecoms.
Please apply the Golden Rule: Would you wish to open your own bedroom window every single morning to stare at a close to 40 feet microwave radiation tower about 30 feet from your fence, and wonder, every single morning, about the long-term health effects of the radiation exposure that is going through your own body at that very moment? Well, if you did not like this feeling, then please do not impose this on us, either.
In summary, there are many compelling reasons not to place the tower at the planned location, while alternative solutions are available with no worse technical specs. I am asking the Planning Commission: please do not hurt our health, our finances, and our neighborhood.
Gergely Zimanyi, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics, University of California
Director of Intellectual Property for two medical device companies
Date: April 30, 2018
To: Robert Merkamp email@example.com
Aubrey Rose firstname.lastname@example.org
Amanda Monchamp email@example.com
Emily Weinstein firstname.lastname@example.org
Tom Limon email@example.com
Jonathan Fearn firstname.lastname@example.org
Clark Manus email@example.com
Libby Schaaf, firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: DAS Node OAKS-038C (Oakland Case No. PLN17374)
Dear Oakland Planning Commission, Dear Planning Manager, Dear Mayor,
I write you this letter to voice my opposition to the Cell Tower proposed by AT&T and it’s subcontractors at Drury Rd. and Besito Rd. in the the Claremont Canyon neighborhood. Please place this letter in the public record and the paper file for the above mentioned application.
Starting last October, we became aware of the effort by AT&T and it’s subcontractors to place a DAS monopole antenna system to replace the existing light pole at said location. The communication by the applicants and the paperwork received by the city has been very confusing and, in my opinion, intentionally misleading by using different case numbers, wrong locations, misleading visuals and false claims that the existing pole would be used.
The antennas would directly impact our view of San Francisco and the Bay. We bought this house mainly for it’s great vistas and cherish them and enjoy them from most rooms. The proposed antenna would be an eye sore from multiple rooms as well as our terrace. The proposed height has not been fully clarified, but the antenna appears to protrude out of a set of two trees. The current light pole is very close to the the trunks of those trees and any foundation for the cell tower would very likely kill them and leave us with an even worse eye sore. In addition, those trees in the public right-of-way would not be maintained by AT&T nor the City of Oakland. Finding arborists willing to work in close proximity to the cell antennas would be very difficult.
I am aware that the proposed RF microwave radiation exposures are projected to be below federal guidelines. But the close proximity to our house and multiple reputable studies showing increased brain tumors from RF microwave radiation exposures far below these FCC guidelines, make me very aware of the hazards linked to the level of radiation to which we would be exposed. The height of the antenna and the orientation of the antennas could change at any time — without public review — and could direct the main beam of the radiation directly into our living quarters and into the home offices where we work daily as telecommuters.
Also, it is important to note that in 2015 California law (Assembly Bill 57) established an exemption for placing cell towers are on Fire stations — studies showed brain abnormalities in firefighters exposed to cell tower radiation (e.g. http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/cell-phone-safety-campaign/federal-cell-tower-roll-out-you-can-take-action/). Please help to protect us and the other residents by making any finding necessary to get AT&T to employ less intrusive means (cell towers at least 1,500 feet from any homes) to close any alleged AT&T significant gap in coverage. Please see the following:
Both the visual blight of the cell tower and the hazard of RF microwave radiation exposures will greatly affect our home value. We paid dearly for this house for it’s great vistas and the natural setting. It would be in the interest of the city and county to minimize impacts on the real estate values and associated tax revenue. Please see https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-towers-lower-property-values-documentation-research/
Most of all, I dispute the applicants’ premise that there is a significant gap in coverage for AT&T in the proposed area. I and others have tested coverage in the area extensively and could not find any location without coverage. The map showing no coverage is not accurate and must be based on faulty parameters.
Also the area that is covered by the proposed cell tower (according to the documents provided by AT&T subcontractors is a very small area, covering only approximately 19 houses. I can’t imagine a business case that would make it worthwhile for AT&T to only cover 19 houses that already have sufficient coverage. This leads me to expect that this proposed facility is merely a trojan horse to eventually expand this site and to install others in the neighborhood, creating a much larger and more powerful grid of CPMRA installations, as is happening in other communities in California.
Please join in with other municipalities o protect citizens from unncessary, 24/7/365 RF microwave radiation exposures and to protect both the residential character of our neighborhood and our treasured vistas! (http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/public-health-alert/cell-towers-health-alerts/actions-taken-re-cell-towers/).