Entries Tagged '5G' ↓

City of Sioux Falls says citizens have to hire their own legal counsel to fight 5G

5G Antenna by Eastside Sioux Falls Target

In correspondence with the city’s legal department, an advocate opposed to 5G, John Miller, received this letter from the city; (DOC: 5G-Letter)

I found this part interesting;

The taxpayers of Sioux Falls OWN the utilities and all of the equipment associated with the utilities.  The city has said that the poles are not strong enough to hold the 5G equipment and that Verizon is going to have to put cement under the poles.  That is a change that SHOULD to be approved by the taxpayers, thus it should to go to a referendum.  Legally, the changes proposed by the city council must be approved of first by the taxpayers in an election. But since no one asked, city hall didn’t let the taxpayers know their rights. A little trick City Hall has played for many years – don’t tell citizens what is going on, have only back room meetings with the major players, then tell the public once it is too late to do anything, or at least have time to organize. Could this be illegal? Not sure. Every city has a constitution (charter), a document of formation.  You will find that Sioux Falls probably needs public approval before doing something as fundamental as allowing a private corporation to change the way the utilities operate.

Can we stop 5G in Sioux Falls? Or is it too late because we ‘missed the boat’?

UPDATE: My 5G presentation to Sioux Falls City Council

5G Rollout Fiasco in Sioux Falls

My testimony last night was based on FACTS I gathered over researching 5G over past weekend.

• No testimony from the FCC or Telecom industry on Health Affects of 5G. FCC currently shutdown. The contract should have been deferred until a representative from the FCC could testify.

• No public hearings. It is illegal for a private corporation to use public utility poles without a period of public comment. While the FCC rules were changed so health affects couldn’t be used as a reason to deny a permit, there are many other arguments (property values, visual affects, etc.). Isn’t it interesting the FCC took out ‘Health Affects’ for grounds of denial. Other communities have had success with 200 FT setbacks from buildings, banning them in residential areas and charging a YEARLY application and inspection fee.

• Extreme intimidation used on City Councilors about potential ‘lawsuits’ if they don’t vote for contract. Intimidation used by Mayor TenHaken, City Attorneys Kooistra and Bengford, and Deputy COS T.J. TypoOver on citizens claiming it is a ‘Done Deal’. It is not, contract still hasn’t been ratified, there is a waiting period. Houston, TX rollout was conducted in the EXACT same manner. It seems the Telecoms are using the same playbook across the country.

• What are citizens rights when it comes to how user data will be used by the Telecoms? The ACLU of California is currently looking into it. We had NO testimony from Verizon on how the data will be used.

• Senator John Thune who chairs the committee on telecoms received almost $1 million in donations from the telecom industry. Follow the money. (Thune’s personal net worth is $5 Million). How does someone get that wealthy working in public service most of their life? Must have went to the Bill Janklow school of investment or Kimberly has one heckuva part-time job.

• What are the health affects of radiation from 5G? Countries like Israel and China have strict regulations on cell phone radiation. The World Health Organization has issued extreme warnings about cell/wi-fi radiation. World famous Oncologist (Cancer Doctor) Devra Davis is leading a grassroots effort to warn the public about 5G. Davis is well known for leading the effort to ban smoking in commercial airplanes. Not some kooky conspiracy theorist trying to find Obama’s birth certificate. In the UK the telecom industry tried to put a GAG order on a citizen advocate after he called them ‘Baby Killers’, a judge threw it out of court saying he had a right to make the accusation due to empirical evidence and the industry had to prove otherwise. It seems now the telecoms are trying to stifle free speech in democratic nations.

This must be stopped, the contract must be voided! This is a BAD example of how to run government in a transparent manner. We have home rule rights. While we can’t fight this on health effects, we do have other means to stop it.

BOONDOGGLE!

 

UPDATE: More on the 5G fiasco in Sioux Falls, follow the money

UPDATE: Here is a fantastic interview with an ACLU attorney in California fighting the legal issues with 5G. (FF: 17:00). The attorney brings up that there should be community wide meetings on how the technology is being used, it’s safety and how data will be collected. As the radio host says, in his town of Houston, NONE of that took place. In fact when he describes how 5G got rolled out in Houston it was Deja Vu in Sioux Falls. No public meetings. No hearings with the FCC and with the private telecomm.

This week I was contacted by an advocate in Florida who is trying to bring awareness to the dangers of 5G, to mostly children and the unborn. I also have been contacted by citizens and even city councilors that a lot of intimidation is being used by City Hall when people have contacted them about concerns. The Mayor, Deputy COS and city attorneys are trying to put out the fire. While their actions are questionable, we all know this is coming down from DC and John Thune’s pressure. While the health concerns are troubling, as an open government advocate, I am very alarmed how this was ramrodded through our local elected officials. We should be concerned about;

• Health

• Transparency in Government

• Overreach of the Federal Government

• Money in politics and influence

• Conflicts of Interest

• Manipulation of local government officials through veiled threats of lawsuits

• Partisan politics (GOP) in a non-partisan government.

There are many more reasons why we should be concerned about how this contract was approved.

The Florida advocate sent this email to assistant city attorney, Paul Bengford this week and CC’d me on it. I have not heard an answer back;

Mr. Bengford:

It was rough talking to you just now on the phone.  You have an unfriendly demeanor and I highly doubt that you are going to provide me with the information I need.  That being said, I hope you take your position in Sioux Falls as an attorney seriously enough to respond to the following questions:

1) When a public utility is asked by a private corporation for access to light poles, can the citizens of Sioux Falls legally ask for a delay until they approve the request?

2) What is the physical address of the company that entered into the 5G contract with the city?  (No, Verizon is not the local entity mentioned in the contract.)

3) Who at city hall negotiated the contract with the 5G wireless internet company?  What is their contact information?

4) Is the mayor personal friends with the owner of the 5G wireless internet company?

Thank you,

Let’s talk about Bengford’s demeanor, wait, we don’t have time.

He also sent me this information, that I found interesting;

This is how you win this easily:

1) The public utility overseeing the light poles has already declared that the city’s light poles are not strong enough to hold up the 5G equipment and that Verizon will have to replace them and put in cement.

https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/city/2018/11/21/city-hall-unveils-licensing-rules-5-g-towers-sioux-falls/2074255002/

2) If the people of Sioux Falls have the legal right to say how the public utilities are going to be used, then the contract was formed without adequate notification of the change.  I am assuming that the citizens of Sioux Falls are the legal owners of the light poles.

3) The city council might claim that it represents the citizens, but no public hearing happened regarding the safety of 5G and the reconstruction of city property.

As far as I can tell, the citizens must themselves be included in the contract.  If city council excludes the public from the contract (since the poles belong to the public), the contract cannot move forward and is already voided.

While I’m still on the fence about health affects (since I really haven’t done enough research), here are some interesting links and videos.

www.telecompowergrab.org

www.americansforresponsibletech.org/about

mdsafetech.org/problems/5g/

www.bioinitiative.org

emfscientist.org

www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g

UPDATE II: How can the Sioux Falls City Council approve 5G contract when the FCC is closed?

So I get an interesting call today from a guy in Florida who informed me that the new city contract for 5G cannot move forward (or at least it shouldn’t).

DOC: Verizon–Sioux Falls SD — Small Cell Master License (Execution Version).PDF

Besides his concerns about health to children, he brought up a bigger point. The FCC has been asked by two prominent congressional members to do a intensive study of the health affects of 5G. Why? Because nothing really currently exists. As I have pointed out in the past, I’m NOT sure if 5G is harmful, because the FCC hasn’t done research on long term affects;

Connecticut Senator Blumenthal and California Assemblywoman Eshoo have formally asked the FCC to provide scientific documentation about the safety of 5th Generation Internet connectivity, as the roll out of this new technology begins.  Their December 3, 2018 letter  refers to a Senate Commerce Committee field hearing, held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, titled “Race to 5G, A View from the Field” on October 12, 2018.

It gets more interesting because this is a ‘Standing Request’ since the FCC is currently closed due to the shutdown;

Congress Members Ask for Proof of 5G Safety

Congress members Blumenthal and Eshoo then wrote a pointed letter to FCC Commissioner Carr asking for proof of safety, noting that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices” and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.” 5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.” A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018.

Besides the health concerns, what I find even more interesting is that there was NO testimony from the FCC before the contract was approved, well, because they are closed. The contract should have been deferred until the Feds reopen government and the FCC could have testified on the health concerns of 5G. There was NO testimony. Not from the FCC or Verizon.

A rate study is NOT allowed until after the first contract is expired, which is backwards. A rate study should have been done before we just implemented a $175 a year blind lease agreement. It would be similar to walking up to a rummage sale and asking the person running it, “What do you want for the microwave?” After a pause, he asks, “5 Bucks?”

The city council was told ‘they have NO choice’ but to approve the contract. Hogwash. There are many constitutional arguments that could be made that a city councilor DID NOT have to approve this contract AND the Federal Government CANNOT tell a municipality elected official HOW TO VOTE. The city attorney’s advice on this was ‘shady’ at best.

The federal government did not make the contract and cannot enforce it.  It is illegal for a private corporation to use public utility poles without a period of public comment.

I was very disappointed in the SF City Council last night for NOT challenging the rate study, NOT challenging the health concerns (should have had testimony from FCC) and NOT challenging the ratification of this contract since the FCC is currently closed.

The good news is there has to be a 50 (20 from city, 30 from FCC) day waiting period. Hopefully within that time the government shutdown will end, and we will get an explanation from the FCC.

It was a sad day in city government watching our local officials roll over like dogs, for an agency that is on an extended vacation. Unbelievable.

Dr. Davis runs this website about the health affects of 5G, ehtrust.org

Open Letter to City Council & Mayor about 5G

I sent this email to Mayor Paul TenHaken and the Sioux Falls City Council tonight. Hopefully I will get an answer to my question about planning and transparency;

Dear Councilors & Mayor,

I have some concerns with how fast we are pushing the new 5G rules and regulations for Sioux Falls.

First, to the health concerns. I have done some of my own research on this and it seems the ‘jury is out’. While there doesn’t seem to be any short term harmful effects to humans because of the powerful microwaves emitted from 5G antennas, there simply hasn’t been enough long term studies done on it. Now, I’m not saying they are unsafe, but would like to see our local government be very cautious on how close they are placed to dense office, schools, parks and residential areas.

Besides the health impact to the community, there is also a visual impact of these devices. Will they be hidden enough to just blend into their environment or will they stick out like a sore thumb?

I guess my biggest concern is that it seems all these sudden rules, regulations and permitting fees and licensing have been decided behind closed doors with the help of some very powerful people in Washington. I hope this is NOT the case.

I’m wondering if any public meetings were held to get feedback from the community? I am wondering if the public will have a chance to weigh in? I’m also wondering how much my city council and even school board and county commissions got to weigh in on these new rules?

We were promised transparency by the new council, the current sitting council and mayor during the election, I’m hoping moving forward with 5G we will have full openness and transparency, I don’t want to see Sioux Falls residents turned into lab rats for powerful Washington lobbyists and industry. I think 5G is an amazing opportunity for Sioux Falls, if done right.

Please assure me that I’m not being treated like a rat.

Scott L. Ehrisman

southdacola.com

Sioux Falls, SD

Is 5G dangerous?

So there has been this guy showing up to Sioux Falls city council meeting protesting the 5G network proposed in Sioux Falls because as he claims the microwaves coming from the units would be like sticking your head in a microwave.

So I decided to go down that rabbit hole and research 5G online Tuesday night. Once I sorted through all the conspiracy sites I did find several ‘legitimate’ stories about the equipment. The LA Times had an article from 2016 which pretty much determined that high levels of exposure to adult male rats caused tumors, but it seems the jury is still out because no one knows the long term affects on humans.

One thing that none of the stories deny is that the equipment is powerful and a lot lower to the ground than normal cell phone tower antennas. Could this affect one’s health? The possibility is certainly there.

The city is moving fast and furious on new regulations for the new 5G antennas (I guess public meetings on this were not considered or noticed very well);

More than 20 locations on public land across Sioux Falls are being targeted by wireless providers as future 5G cell tower sites, according to City Hall.

That has city officials working to establish a licensing process that would allow Verizon Wireless and other telecommunication companies to begin installing fifth generation micro-towers on city light poles, water towers and buildings as early as next year.

“Once the master license agreement is approved by the City Council via ordinance, this would allow staff to administratively approve those applications,” Parks Director Don Kearney said while addressing the Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation Board, which got a peak at the proposal Tuesday due to the expectation that light poles in parks will be candidates to house 5G towers.

Under the proposed licensing system, unveiled this week by the Sioux Falls Power and Light Division, companies seeking to equip cell towers onto light poles or other publicly owned facilities would be required to pay a $500 application fee. At that time, staff would have 60 days to determine whether the targeted site is a suitable location. If approved, the applicant would pay an additional $25 for a permit, and then a yearly renewal fee of $175.

“We can either approve the application, deny the application or approve the application with conditions,” Kearney said.

After doing my own research, I am certainly NOT opposed to putting ‘some’ antennas up in the city, but I would be extremely cautious about putting them very close to residential or dense office building areas. I also think that licensing fees should be a lot higher, especially to start with, to see how they work and if there is any long term health affects.

But it seems like most everything in Sioux Falls and South Dakota, big business gets what they want while the peasants have to scrape and scratch to stop it.