|
|
Friends win lawsuit against AT&T over proposed cell tower at edge of BWCAWRead the court’s ruling
Media coverage:
In its ruling, the Court rejected AT&T’s arguments regarding the impact of the proposed tower, finding that the proposed tower would “have a significant, persistent and long term negative effect on the scenic views from numerous locations within the BWCAW.” The Court also rejected AT&T’s contention that there was no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed erection of a single 450’ cellular tower, stating “the evidence strongly shows that there are reasonably feasible and prudent alternatives to the Proposed Tower.” “This is a major victory for the hundreds of thousands of people who visit the Boundary Waters every year, and for the wilderness’s scenic vistas and wildlife,” said Paul Danicic, executive director of the Friends. “We hope AT&T will pursue without further delay a tower plan that expands cell service in the area for local residents, while preserving the most popular wilderness area in the country.” The ruling was the result of a four-day trial in Hennepin County District Court the week of April 11 in a lawsuit that the Friends filed last year on behalf of the State of Minnesota. The Friends were represented by a pro bono legal team from Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, led by partners Stephen Safranski and Tom Mahlum. “This case was not about whether AT&T could provide expanded wireless service in the area. It was about whether AT&T was required to do so in a way that avoids unnecessary harm to the scenery and ecology of one of our last great wilderness areas,” said Safranski. “We are very pleased the judge agreed that AT&T’s original tower plan violated Minnesota law in light of the available alternatives and the profound impact the proposed tower would have had.”
###
One Comment |
Mission »Featured Work »Join the Friends » |
|
Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness | 401 North Third Street, Suite 290
Minneapolis, MN 55401-1475 |
[...] Instead, AT&T will be permitted to build an unlit, smaller tower (measuring 199 ft) in the same location. It was deemed that a unit of this size would provide similar coverage to the Ely area – despite the defendants’ contentions that it would not. [...]