« Service Stations | Main | Merry Community »
December 13, 2007
The Moose Is Loose!
 |
| Image: Moose gets a win. "Unfortunately, like most settlements it involves a compromise," Harriman said. That's a quote in today's Jenn Klein story on the cell tower lawsuit (see story here). The "Quotee" is Richard L. Harriman, an environmental lawyer for hire out of Fresno. Like many reasonable people Harriman expresses a strong dislike for compromise. The cell tower suit that was settled paves the way for emergency cell phone service in Upper Bidwell Park, provides CARD with a little more operating cash, and most importantly allows Richard L. Harriman to get paid. The settlement includes Harriman's legal bill being paid by the cell phone company and not the concerned citizens who brought the law suit. Who are the concerned citizens? Well, Harriman named Chico Citizens For Community Justice and Valley Advocates as plaintiffs in the legal action. In a legal action against Harriman the following claim was made describing Valley Advocates, on who's behalf Harriman has filed numerous environmental lawsuits... "... a mere shell and sham conceived by Harriman and used by Harriman as his alter ego and a device Harriman uses to create the false impression that a public interest group or an environmental group supports and sponsors the numerous lawsuits filed by Harriman in which entities like Valley Advocates appear as a plaintiff being represented by Harriman, when in fact said lawsuits are filed for Harriman's own personal and individual business purposes and used by Harriman as a form of false advertising in order to enable him to recruit unsuspecting clients who are asked to join in the purported public interest cause being pursued by Harriman." That's an interesting charge. I can't find any web references to Valley Advocates that stand alone and aren't associated with Harriman. While I have no way of knowing exactly what interests Valley Advocates has in Chico's cell service, it is instructive that this lawsuit ended with the lawyer getting paid but otherwise no changes to the project. Whose legal fees weren't paid? The taxpayers of Chico hired outside council Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, LLP for this adventure. We won't get our money back. By the way, hiring a law firm with a guy named "Moose" is just a great idea. I hope that's the barrister's first name. When Moose has your back there's not a whole lot you have to worry about. I can imagine getting a letter along the lines of... Dear Client, Johnson Remy Esquire The III will be representing you in court, but in the mean time were going to send Moose around to distribute some good-ole-fashioned ass kicking's. We've found that ass-kicking's can significantly reduce court time, and are helpful in persuading people not to be such dillwads. I have also previously looked into Chico Citizens for Community Justice. This group has been around for a while but doesn't seem to have consistent "members" or a web presence. There's no obvious indication that they are an actual group. Here is the list of appellants on a document found on the Friends of Bidwell Park web site (see document here). The document does not reference Chico Citizen's specifically, but is the only information I've ever seen regarding who actually appealed the Park Commissions decision to allow the cell tower. Harold Carlson Linnea Hanson Karen Kite John Merz Phil Johnson Randy Abbott Doug Perske Valley Advocates c/o Richard Harriman, Esq. I have no way of knowing who on this list might have lost interest some time ago. But isn't it newsworthy if a Planning Commissioner and one of the people whose group applied a 27 page legal challenge to the Bidwell Park Master Management Plan is involved in the Harriman legal escapades? I'm speaking of John Merz, a Friend O' The Park. I've never seen this mentioned in a story about this lawsuit. However, it was picked up in an editorial that the E-R printed after Merz was appointed to the Planning Commission. From the document referenced above comes this hard hitting narrative on how truly damaging a cell tower would be to Bidwell Park. Bidwell Park’s historic habitats are very susceptible to invasion by non-native invasive weeds that often start as ornamental plantings both in and around the park. Common methods these plants spread are by wind or by bird and native plants are often entirely replaced by these non-native plants that often do not play the important roles that native plants do in the ecosystem. A condition placed upon the resolution approved by the Park Commission (subject of this appeal) is that the masonry wall surrounding the air conditioned trailers be covered by ‘vines’. There is no indication that these would be native species, no requirement to avoid dispersal by seed, etc. For the love of god. What was the Park Commission thinking? You can't put plants in Bidwell Park, especially near softball fields whose native sod might be threatened!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is much worse than the illegal dumping of squirrels in Bidwell Park. And then there is this, which apparently comes from the existing master plan for Bidwell Park. “Each user should consider it a special privilege to use the Park, not a civic right.” That's it (more exclamations to make my point)!!!!!!!!!! Now I'm really upset. We've been allowing free public access to Bidwell Park, as if it is some kind of civic right. We need a fence around that property today. We need to issue licenses to use the park (like driving, which is also a privilege). No park licenses for illegal aliens though, not until they get insurance for their spaceships. I think there should be a little test every few years to see if you can enter the park. Possible questions... 1. Do you play disc golf or throw things for pleasure? (correct answer no) 2. Do you enjoy the park more when you think about it as opposed to actually using it? (correct answer yes) 3. Do you have misplaced mothering instincts? (correct answer yes) 4. Do ornamental plants make you cry out in anger (correct answer yes) 5. Are you opposed to hiring lawyers to drive up the cost of projects in an attempt obstruct improvements? (correct answer is no) 6. Is the park your cathedral and you have no other god? (correct answer yes) 7. Do you read Commission Impossible (correct answer, hell no, that guy is an idiot). I'm glad the lawsuit is gone. I wish the people who filed it had to pay for it. Back in late December of 2006 I posted a blog entry asking the E-R to dig deeper on these issues (here it is). I wish they would. When a group hires legal council to stop a project in town I think we should know who they are. |
 |
CI Challenge: Can you guess what it is? Winner: 
Anthony Watts, see comments below for the answer. |
Posted by Lon at December 13, 2007 07:02 AM
Comments
CIC is Moose McGillycuddy's
And we finally have a cell tower to server upper park!
Posted by: Anthony at December 13, 2007 08:19 AM
CIC is Moose McGillycuddy's bar/grill which I've been to in Hawaii
Here is the logo: http://search.gohawaii.com/hvcboutline/docs/memberimages/30128500_lg.jpg
And we finally have a cell tower to server upper park!
Posted by: Anthony at December 13, 2007 08:24 AM
Interesting gig....
It looks like for a few months effort of writing, phone calls, filing papers, etc, the attorney was reimbursed his $6 grand in actual costs, plus $12 grand for his time & trouble.
The bad news is that all of us who pay for cell phone usage will pay this extortion money.
Because of the difficultly in siting these kinds of facilities, you'd croak if you saw the prices to rent space on 'em. I'd bet that each individual cellular company who places an array at the site will be paying between $36,000 and $50,000 per year in rent/lease fees, plus each will pay for their own electricity usage, and must still pay to supply & install their equipment at the site.
Posted by: Mark Sorensen at December 13, 2007 09:05 AM
Mark S.,
Isn't it true that cell phone antennae are lcoated all around Chico, and it's only the "towers" that have standoff distances from residential areas.
An example would be the downtown water towers, nestled snugly amongst many homes and the News and Review. Well within a 500' perimeter. If they are okay there why not at the top of a 110' light pole in a softball field?
Lon
Posted by: Lon at December 13, 2007 09:10 AM
Yea, among many other sites significantly closer to humans....
There are clearly some aesthetic considerations to be made regarding where to put these things. There is no question about that. They should not go "anywhere".
However, there is a federal preemption which prevents a jurisdiction from discriminating against their placement on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv)
http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/fact1.html
Yet, that seems to be what this is all about.
This leaves aesthetic and structural safety concerns intact. In short, if your zoning and regulations allow the construction of ‘X’, you can not the discriminate against the construction of something virtually identical to ‘X’ simply because it emits RF (and conforms to FCC regulations).
I’d bet that this site will emit RF levels at some fraction of 1% of the federal health limit at any point where you could reasonably place a human. We hit that subject fairly well last year:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2006/09/post_1.html#comments
There are so many other larger, more significant sources of RF around us that it just makes this fake “concern” over cellular facilities laughable.
It’s just another cause du jour for some folks to rally against.
But, since when do we allow factual information and reason to spoil their fun?
My house is among those closest to the H.O. Site, and I’d bet that other than the mobile home park on Manzanita, my house was the closest home to the proposed site at the Elk’s Lodge. Yet, I wasn’t the slightest bit concerned about or opposed to either. …
Strangely enough, the folks who claim to be concerned about health effects also fought for lower antenna heights, when in reality higher antenna heights exponentially lower nearby ground level RF.
Posted by: Mark Sorensen at December 13, 2007 09:51 AM