Some Seek Better Local Industry Rapport After Calif. Governor Vetoes Small-Cells Bill

The California senator who wrote SB-649 is “evaluating next steps,” said a spokeswoman for Sen. Ben Hueso (D). “We’re not certain of our plans for next legislative session.”

The bill's failure shows the need to work better with local governments, explaining benefits of 5G networks, said Kish Rajan, chief evangelist for California tech advocacy group CALinnovates. Tech advocates should “step up and do more to forge collaborative relationships” between industry and localities, he said. It’s a “cautionary tale” for other states demonstrating that action requires ensuring local stakeholders are “completely clear” and “urgently motivated” to support the policy, Rajan said.

The veto should give pause to industry and federal regulators, said Best Best’s Gail Karish, an attorney for California localities in the fight. “Industry reps are fond of talking about the value of working cooperatively with local governments yet they are pushing for legislative fixes instead.” Brown appeared to want industry to “walk the walk,” she said. “Work with local governments on finding the best way forward recognizing that communities want the latest technologies but there are other interests and factors to consider to ensure these deployments happen in a responsible way that benefits the public.”

Rajan is encouraged by an olive branch to Hueso and industry from San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (D), an FCC Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee member who opposed the bill. “Despite the serious concerns I had with this specific piece of legislation, I believe that we should all embrace the opportunity of greater broadband deployment, at better speeds, with the latest technology to the benefit of all Californians,” said Liccardo, urging collaboration on 5G policy. “We can reduce regulatory barriers and streamline permitting to aid the deployment of next-generation broadband service, while also ensuring that 5G deployment benefits the entire community.”

The California bill never seemed to get “the support -- or at least the ‘neutral’ position -- of the state’s city and county associations,” NATOA Executive Director Steve Traylor said. Those groups' active opposition and knowledge of the legislation in more than 10 other states may have contributed to the bill’s failure, he said: “After a year of various states looking at these bills, I think people got a little better educated and started drilling down to see what the various provisions were all about.”

California may have a governor who respects local authority, but not all states do, cautioned Ken Fellman, a local government attorney who participated in Colorado legislative talks. The veto may encourage collaboration in California and like-minded states, but it likely won’t change the dynamic in places where politics favor industry, he said.

Mobilitie remains committed to working with cities in California, "regardless of the legislative environment," said Jason Caliento, senior vice president-network strategy for the small-cells builder. Los Angeles and most other California localities are cooperating, but “there are also local governments that haven’t taken the time to understand the economic, educational, and social benefits of creating connected cities through positive small-cell policies, and they will fall behind.”

The veto elicited local government cheers as far as Maryland. Montgomery Country agrees with Brown “that a more balanced solution is needed,” said County Executive Ike Leggett. He opposed the California bill’s lack of height restrictions and removal of local controls and public hearings. “If not pre-empted by federal or state governments, local communities can do a better job of balancing these interests,” and the county is working on updating local rules to strike that balance, he said. Montgomery County has a community meeting scheduled Monday about small cells.

The California veto disappointed the wireless industry, said CTIA Senior Vice President-State Affairs Jamie Hastings. “Twelve states have already enacted legislation to streamline deployment,” and industry will continue to fight for greater regulatory certainty on small-cells deployment, she said. While 13 states enacted small-cells laws, Ohio's law was rejected by two courts, and now fresh legislation is in the works (see 1710040044).

Ohio, Wisconsin

CTIA and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine​ (R) defended the embattled Ohio small-cells law in reply briefs Monday at the Ohio 10th District Court of Appeals. They sought reversal of a lower court’s order that the law violated a constitutional one-subject rule by including language on animal cruelty in addition to small cells.

“Appellees seek to invalidate” the small-cells law “because they want to impose additional local regulations, and collect additional fees, on the installation of micro-wireless equipment in their towns,” CTIA argued. The one-subject rule is meant to prevent adding a favorable measure to one that unlikely to get majority support, but the cities didn't argue that any of the provisions would have failed standing alone, CTIA said.

"The single-subject rule in an important one,” wrote the Ohio AG, “but its enforcement by the courts must be born of judicial restraint.” The lower court “came to the incorrect decision by disregarding a single subject that had a discernible rational, practical and legitimate relationship to all provisions of S.B. 331.” DeWine has until Oct. 26 to decide whether to appeal a different trial court’s similar ruling supporting Cincinnati’s separate lawsuit against Ohio, a spokesman said.

Wisconsin is now considering small-cells legislation and more states are expected to eye small-cells bills next year (see 1709120001). In a fiscal estimate posted Monday, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission said the proposed SB-425 has no financial impact because the bill would use the same process for reviewing compensation disputes as under existing law. The estimate followed the Wisconsin Senate Elections and Utilities Committee amending the bill at a hearing last week.