Laserfiche WebLink
i}roperty from one private owner to another pri- <br />vate owner "oui~side the confines of an inte- <br />l;rated dnveloprnent plan," it would certainly <br />raise a suspicion that the condemnation was <br />for a private purpose and not for a public use. <br />Kelo is a ~om:l decision for planners and the <br />communities they serve. <br /> <br />CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE5 <br />What remedies are available to a property <br />,)Whet if a municipality violates the Telecom- <br />munications Act of [996 (TCA)? The Supreme <br />Conrt ,mswered this question in City of <br />/?~rl~ho Palos Verdes v. Abroms [~z5 S.Ct. ~453 <br />(March :,..', 2005)]. <br /> Ptantm. r5 know that the 'FCA prohibits <br />focal ~ovemments from: <br />- ~mreasonai)ly discriminatin§ among <br /> ;]rovid~r,; ()f lunctionally equivalent services <br /> <br />, ~akm~] ,~:fi,.ms ~ha[ "prohibit or have <br /> the e~fec~ of protfibiting the provisions <br /> <br /> of personal wireless services," § 33;z(c)(7) <br /> (B) (i)(ll); or <br />,, limiting the placement of wireless facilities <br /> "on the basis of the environmental effects <br /> of radio frequency emissions," § 33;~(c)(7) <br /> [B)(iv). <br /> Furthermore, local governments must: <br /> <br />· act on requests for authorization to locate <br /> wireless facilities "within a reasonable <br /> period of time," § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii); and <br />· explain each decision denying such a <br /> request "in writing and supported by sub- <br /> stantial evidence contained in a written <br /> record," § 332(c)(7)(B)(i[i), and "any person <br /> adversely affected by any final action or fail- <br /> ure to act'! may bring'an action in court <br /> within 3o days after such action or failure to <br /> act, § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). <br /> Mark Abrams took the City of Rancho <br />Palos Verdes, California, to court because the <br />city denied him' a'conditional Use permit for <br />the second antenna tower he wanted to build <br /> <br />on his residential hillside property. He suc- <br />cessfully argued that the city had violated the <br />TCA and the district court Ordered the city <br />to.issue him a permit for the tower. When <br />Abrams asked the court for money damages <br />and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. <br />§ z983, the court refused because the TCA <br />does not provide a remedy of such damages <br />and fees. <br /> Although Abrams won the right to build <br />his second tower, he appealed the issue of the <br />damages and fees to the Ninth Circuit Court of <br />Appeals, which agreed with him, ruling that <br />remedies from both the TCA and § ~98~ are <br />available to successful plaintiffs. They sent the <br />case back to the district court for a determina- <br />tion of money damages and attorneys fees. <br />The city then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to <br />review the case. <br /> What is 4.2 U.S.C. § t9837 A person states <br />a.claim under ~2 U,$.C. § ~.983 if he alJe§es <br />that the defendant deprived him of a constitu- <br /> <br />ZONING PRACTICE 8.05 <br />A~ERICAN PLANJ,JlNG ASSOC,~T,O~ Ipag~)31 <br /> <br /> <br />