2024-09-15 Debra Greene Testimony #4 -Oppose

Home

automatically exempt from any and all requirements. Telecom companies have found a way to exploit this provision in other jurisdictions to allow for unlimited deployments of their own wireless infrastructure. More oversight is necessary. Further, we notice there is no insurance provision in the Director’s proposed ordinance. Because radio frequency (RF) radiation is recognized as a pollutant by insurance companies, it’s imperative that liability insurance be required, and that the required liability insurance contain no pollution exclusion. Most General Liability Insurance policies have a ‘pollution exclusion’ under which EMF/RF are listed as pollutants. Adequate insurance must be obtained from a licensed third party insurance company, not a self-insured indemnity substituted by the Telecom or any company listed in the permit application or license agreement. Pollution Insurance for a municipality is part of any proper General Liability Insurance. It is a basic right of any municipality to protect itself from lawsuits from citizens who claim harm from RF towers. Such lawsuits could literally bankrupt the County. The future of telecommunications is in fiber optics, not wireless. Fiber is faster, safer, stronger, less hackable, more secure and more resilient than wireless. This is why companies are investing in fiber optics and why insurance giants, such as Lloyds of London and Swiss Re, refuse insure telecommunications companies' wireless infrastructure. The liability is just too great, even for them! Finally, a concern about this process. We submitted testimony on August 12 because the Director’s ordinance was listed as an agenda item (#6), yet no ordinance was provided at that time. Then we noticed that the Director’s agenda item for this September meeting had no description given in the online packet. How was the public to know what was being proposed? That description was then changed on September 15 and now reads: “PD BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT” (emphasis theirs) but fails to mention that it is in regard to a Telecommunications ordinance. Why was the description changed from the description listed in the Windward Commission packet which clearly stated that the subject was telecom? It’s the same agenda item. Why is the subject now being obfuscated? In addition, we find it challenging that the deadline for testimony for the Windward Commission was on Monday of a long holiday weekend. Members of the community feel strongly about this issue but we have lives. Government doesn’t work on holidays, yet we were expected to discover agendas and meet testimony deadlines on holidays. Is this fair? To further complicate matters, the online agenda said it was posted on August 8, but it was actually posted on Friday, August 30, of a long holiday weekend. These factors make it very challenging for the community to participate in a process on an issue that we care deeply about. Thank you for your consideration of these important points. We hope you can understand why we support Council Member Evans proposed ordinance that strikes a perfect balance between the health, safety and welfare of the people and their need for telecommunications services. Sincerely, Debra __________________________________ Debra Greene, PhD