Florida League of Cities, 3 Communities Challenge State Over Wireless Law
The challenged legislation comes as telecommunications companies set the stage for planned 5G wireless technology.
May 10, 2019 at 02:16 PM
3 minute read
Just days after a legislative session filled with debate about state lawmakers overriding the power of local governments, the Florida League of Cities and three communities have filed a constitutional challenge to a 2017 law dealing with wireless technology.
The league and the cities of Fort Walton Beach, Naples and Port Orange filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Leon Circuit Court, contending the 2017 law infringes on home-rule powers and would lead to an unconstitutional taking of city property.
The law, which received almost unanimous approval from the Legislature, involves antennas and other equipment that wireless-communications companies need for new 5G technology. Cities contend, in part, that the so-called “small cell” law improperly required them to allow the companies to attach the equipment on such things as municipal light poles and limited the cities to charging $150 a year per pole.
“By requiring municipalities to commit substantial taxpayer and public funds to accommodate wireless providers' collocation of facilities on municipally owned utility poles, while prohibiting municipalities from charging appropriate fees to wireless providers for that privilege, the small cell statute effectively requires that municipalities use taxpayer and public funds and property to subsidize private companies,” the lawsuit said.
Lawmakers passed the measure as telecommunications companies set the stage for expected widespread 5G, or fifth generation, wireless technology. Among other things, 5G is expected to provide faster speeds for users of wireless devices.
During discussions of the bill in 2017, House sponsor Mike La Rosa, R-St. Cloud, said he wanted to “make sure Florida is ahead of the technology curve.” Legislative supporters turned aside many objections raised by local governments.
“In order to strengthen and expand a growing network, I think we need to make sure that 5G technology is deployed in unison across our state and not leave it up to essentially local governments that may delay the progress of something that is so innovative and something that would meet growing consumer demands,” Rep. Bryan Avila, R-Miami Springs, said at the time.
While the lawsuit was filed two years after the bill passed, it came three days after the end of a 2019 legislative session that included numerous battles about the state seeking to “preempt” the powers of cities and counties. Lawmakers considered preemption proposals dealing with issues ranging from plastic-straw bans to local occupational licensing and passed a measure (SB 1000) that would place new restrictions on local governments about communications facilities.
The lawsuit, however, focused on the 2017 changes and raised a series of constitutional arguments, including that the law leads to a “taking” of municipal property. The lawsuit said cities are “protected property owners under the Florida Constitution and are entitled as property owners to constitutional property protections from unjustified government takings.”
“By authorizing private wireless providers to place and to maintain small wireless facilities on municipally owned utility poles, without an appropriate process to determine the public purpose for such taking or the full compensation owed to municipalities, the small cell statute deprives FLC's (the Florida League of Cities') members, including plaintiff municipalities, of their rights under the Florida Constitution,” the lawsuit said.
Jim Saunders reports for News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250