CURRENT MESSAGE!
Progress in San Francisco

Back



Posted:
13 January 2001
 
----- Original Message -----
Message-ID: <3A5A5FE5.609E0D89@emfguru.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 18:48:37 -0600
From: Roy Beavers <guru@emfguru.com>
Subject: Activists Meet With San Francisco Mayor (Beaver)...
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
 
 

.......From EMF-L.......

Chris and his hearty, gallant 'Robin Hood' band are not afraid of a fight with "City Hall" ... or ... THE American mayor who "enjoys" the biggest reputation of all for "NEVER saying NO to a corporate blandishment."  Watch him, Chris!!  He is just playing to the cameras now.........guru......

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: San Francisco Meeting with Mayor
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:36:06 -0800
From: Christopher Beaver <idgfilms@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: idgfilms@earthlink.net
To: roy@emfguru.com
References: <3A5A38DB.7C34CBF3@emfguru.com>

Dear Roy:

Here's a brief press release-type report on the January 5, 2001 San Francisco Antenna Free Union's meeting with San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. We received a front page story in the Sunday San Francisco Examiner. Its headline read: "Supes Get Cell Tower Complaint." The article opened, "By deferring a Friday night request for a moratorium on new cellular phone antennas, Mayor Willie Brown may have given the new Board of Supervisors their first test in the arena of neighborhood
allegiance.

In contrast, our main paper, the San Francisco Chronicle maintained its near-perfect record of not following this issue. (They did announce that Berkeley was considering a mortorium; they didn't announce that Berkeley in fact instituted a forty-five day moratorium.)

A Chronicle reporter named Rachel Gordon began doing research last week. After an initial call to Libby Kelley, the reporter again contacted Libby to announce that there would be no story. Libby was told the editors had decided the Chronicle could not do a story unless there was something to cover. Libby asked the reporter, "What do you suppose it would take for there to be something to cover?" Rachel laughed. I suddenly had an idea for the location of our next demonstration.

Here's the release:

Citizensí Groups Demand Cellular Antenna Moratorium Mayor agrees to inventory existing antennas in San Francisco

January 7, 2001:

The San Francisco Neighborhood Alliance for Political Awareness and the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) urged Mayor Willie Brown to call an immediate moratorium on further cellular antenna construction in the city of San Francisco.

The citizen-based initiative came as a result of recently released scientific research documenting the hazards of wireless telecommunications as well as what Pat Gerber of SNAFU termed a breakdown in the process of city planning.

In response, Brown directed Planning Department Director Gerald Green to begin an immediate audit of every radiofrequency and microwave antenna in San Francisco. The Mayor acknowledged the inventory as an important first-step toward proper regulation of wireless telecommunications in the city, but refused to call for a moratorium.

Wade Crowfoot, administrative assistant to Supervisor-elect Aaron Peskin, announced that Peskin was willing to initiate immediate meetings with citizensí groups and industry representatives.

According to SNAFU, neither the City Planning Department nor the public knows where all antennas have been placed, let alone whether they comply with current, even if out-dated, radiation standards. SNAFU claimed that the 200-plus sites that they have located represent only the tip of the iceberg. Mayor Brown made it clear that any cellular antenna that was constructed without a permit would be subject to immediate abatement.

In a written statement, Doug Loranger, founder of the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) summarized the groupís position as calling for:

"An immediate moratorium on the placement of microwave antenna facilities in the City and County of San Francisco until such time as: (1) a complete inventory of existing antenna facilities in San Francisco is conducted;  (2) an independent scientific determination is made whether each antenna facility and site is in compliance with existing Federal Communications Commission radiation emission standards; and (3) our January 5, 2001 Policy Positions have been fully considered in public hearings before the appropriate regulatory agencies and adopted to the fullest appropriate extent."

Garrett Jenkins, who chaired the Neighborhood Alliance for Political Awareness meeting, summarized the often passionate exchange as, "productive in light of the fact that industry representatives accepted SNAFUís policy statement as a framework to begin constructive dialogue that would hopefully lead to revised placement guidelines."

Both groups intend to pursue a legislative course of action with the Board of Supervisors in a series of one-on-one meetings beginning this week.

Contact:

San Francisco Neighborhood Alliance for Political Awareness
Garrett Jenkins, tel: 415-820-7525
Eileen Gold, tel: 415-285-6114

San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union
Doug Loranger, tel: 415-885-1981
Christopher Beaver, tel: 415-824-5822

Roy, we are really in the trenches now with our continuing study of politics in San Francisco. We hold no illusions about the Mayor's directive to identify antennas in San Francisco. It is not to be mistaken for a moratorium. On the other hand...

The following companies are not in compliance with Planning Commission regulations to identify current and future antenna sites: AT&T, PacBell, Verizon (GTE), and others unknown to us. The following jurisdictions lie outside Planning Commission supervision: CalTrans (highways and freeways), Department of Public Works (streets and utility poles), the Redevelopment Agency, Port Authority, Presidio Trust, and U.S. Military.

To inventory these antennas including the hundreds if not into the thousands of microcell antennas will take quite a long time. If we merely pegged our moratorium to the corporations coming into compliance with current San Francisco requirements, as weak as they are, we could sit back and casually watch the proceedings for months to come.

Best to everyone, more news after this next week of meetings,

Christopher Beaver



Back to Top

Back