Web facilitator's
note: This is a letter to (submitted, but not printed in or aired
on) KMUD News, the Times-Standard
and the Eye regarding
cell phone towers and the citizens' right to health.
Jessica Doremus, Arcata Bottom, in Letter to Editor, Arcata
Eye, 9-17-2, quoted: "Section 704 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 specifically preempts local governments from regulating
cell phone tower placement on the basis of health concerns."
Could it be that low-level, non-ionizing impositions have been
scientifically documented to cause harm? Yes. Some of us have
"experience" which includes studying that which we are
not credited for. Fair?
These un-Constitutional "laws" are the fruits of a severely
corrupted process. Get a clue.
It is a duty of local governments to protect their peoples from
assault. The damage to "health" requires that we perform
this duty. As long as we are afraid to confront this criminality
then we will never discover the power we have to make them back
down as their pandora's box of absurdities gets opened for a wider
and more active public Light. Is that why we are so programmed
to believe we "can't do anything"?
Time for Council to push the envelope and discover our power to
embarass these outrageous entities who invoke health rules onto
us at the same time they tell us point blank that we may not do
anything about "health concerns". Doubletalk that would
make George Orwell proud. And Constitutional Law?What's that,
sirs and madams?
Does anyone else get the feeling that we are bothering Council
and the Bureaucrats when we speak to Council? Why do they not
welcome opportunities to improve their positions and abilities
to handle dissent and enhance their statesmanship? This
is why we need to allow citizens to speak several times. I'd
really like to see some real debates with "members".
That would be interesting. Meets should be carried over several
evenings. Open Topic from citizens should be EARLY.
By the way, my APEG 15 minute video shot
was postponed, and one of the producers, who was involved in the
old ACAT debacle,
claimed that it was a scheduling mix up, and that he will have
to put them on the same tape with no editing because of lack of
working equipment. Was Council aware of this? Mr.
Stowell also claimed that there is $90,000 a year that APEG has not received (though it is required
in the Cox Cable 10% of city
residents' Cox revenues law). {Web facilitator's note: This
is the franchise agreement that is currently under negociations
involving a County Administrative Office/City Manager's Office
group who has just hired the
Buske Group.} This I suppose, is why I will happen to
be last on a tape intended to be aired on Sunday nights, starting
at 8:45pm. Thus my "intro" piece will be at 10pm, just
after Ms. Connors,
whom Mr. Stowell
said, paraphrasing, is boring. I wish Mr.
Meserve the best in his earlier showing, because I do like
a lot of what he's about. But can I come to the
party too?
Meanwhile, we COULD be having deep debates,
and really brainstorming for our common good, not to mention for
more of that unaccredited education and thinking capability. Oh
well, Orwell.
I know I am one of adversaries who objected to the fraud that
went down with the
old ACAT, and I was the only one to question the "interim
agreement" with the Ink
People that lasts through 2003. Our cable
access t.v. resource is not being maximally exploited, and
it benefits the establishment who is afraid of challenges, especially
from those "with to experience" who can make that experience,
if we are not censored. Catch-22, gotcha? Meanwhile I'll keep
studying and thinking and looking for my media venues. It would
be interesting what I could do with a little practice.
Council's City Attorney informed us that the
Brown Act causes secret meetings because of "proprietary
information" and "sensitive" stuff. This was in
regards to a culinary contract! And, of course, as I also already
knew, the Brown
Act is the "reason" we do not do government in the
Public Light if there is threat of a lawsuit. A good lawyer would
demand to discuss exactly how this Act is worded. A REALLY
GOOD lawyer would demand to test its Constitutionality, and a
good Councilhuman would teach his/her people how utterly unLawful
it is. A good Citizen would demand to know how we are being fooled
and perhaps ripped off? A good Child would demand to know how
anyone is honestly hurt by open negotiations.
I submit that we should push the envelope because "they"
may threaten us. But the absurdity of our passive-aggressive Council,
who lets the Chief of Police violate their
own laws, etc., being shown again and again to an awakening
and aroused public, will cause their kind (who are afraid of Light)
to back down.
And I will have a good p.r. day when they tell us we can't discuss
our resistance to these nefarious Acts because the City might
be sued by somebody for telling the powers that be where to stick
it. Like where the Sun Will Shine. What have you got to hide?
P.S.: SOME areas will be legal camping. And cleanliness WILL be
enforced. That will take some brainstorming time also. How
about it, APEG?
http://rense.com/politics5/songbirds.htm
http://rense.com/general29/sun.htm
http://rense.com/general29/hhvy.htm
Go back to Dex Anderson, INDEPENDENT candidate for Arcata City Council in 2002 main page.