On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:49:14 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4557cf1a$0$88686$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> decaturtxcowboy wrote:
>>>> SMS wrote:
>>>>> Contrary to what the carriers try to tell planning commissions,
>>>>> there is no requirement to approve a tower, but you can't not
>>>>> approve it for the wrong reasons, it has to be the right reasons.
>>>>
>>>> The current landscape (pardon the pun) is that is cannot be denied
>>>> for alleged heath issues or cosmetic reasons. It can be denied under
>>>> historic preservation reasons, so they go with excluded pubic
>>>> easments.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, what section of the TCA lists cosmetic reasons?
>>
>> As in communities can't block a tower for the sole reason that it
>> doesn't look good or fit in with the neighborhood. That's why there
>> is a growing business in camouflaging the towers.
>
>That makes no sense. If you can't block a tower because it doesn't look
>good, why are carriers bothering to camouflage the towers. I could not
>find any section in the TCA that talks about anything other than
>forbidding banning towers due to EMI issues.

You're obviously not paying attention.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>