Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in City of Portland v. Unites States, No. 18-72689 (9th Cir. 2020), significantly affects the ability of local governments to regulate the installation of so called “small cell” wireless facilities and addresses the ability of wireless providers to utilize utility poles. The underlying FCC orders issued in 2018 (the Orders) addressed issues arising from developing 5G broadband technology. The City of Portland upholds most, but finds some of the Orders overbroad. The decision contains nine rulings on the challenged Orders, and this Article will focus on those having the most significant implications for 5G deployment and state and local regulations. The decision rests upon the FCC’s authority created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) promulgated to address issues arising out of the then new wireless telecommunications industry. The Act states in pertinent part that the FCC is authorized: “to preempt any state and local requirements that ‘prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting’ any entity from providing telecommunications services. See, 47 U.S.C. §253(a), (d).”
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
When Is A Pretext By A Municipality A Bar To Land Use Approvals?
By Steven M. Silverberg
Recently, there have been several instances in which municipalities have been challenged by property owners claiming that the municipal boards have utilized delaying tactics and other actions as a pretext to prevent development of their properties.
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Housing Discrimination Claim Dismissed
Co-Op Did Not Breach Shareholder’s Guaranty Agreement
Co-Op Not Exempt from Lead Paint Mandate
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Environmental Group Has Standing But Loses On the Merits of Challenge to Subdivision Approval
Applicant Entitled to Permit For Small Wireless Facilities
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Occupation of Premises Does Not Establish Assignment By Operation of Law
Amendment to Rent Stabilization Law Is Not Unconstitutional