AT&T is asking the federal court to clear the way for the company to build a 5G cellular tower at Moore Creek near the soccer complex.
In a lawsuit filed March 21 in the U.S. District Court of Northern Mississippi in Aberdeen, AT&T alleges the city, through its planning commission and city council, violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by denying the company a permit to build the tower at its chosen site. It is asking the court for a declaratory judgment to that end, as well as an order forcing the city to grant all necessary permits for construction.
The city council, needing a tiebreaking vote from Mayor Keith Gaskin, denied AT&T a permit to build the 155-foot monopole tower on property at Moore Creek the company leased from Lowndes County. That followed two decisions from the planning commission – one in December and another in February – recommending the permit be denied.
The proposed site is in a highway commercial (C-3) zone, where city ordinance permits cellular towers.
But the pole’s vicinity to the Roger Short Soccer Complex and the future Burns Bottom Redevelopment site caused aesthetic concerns, as well as concerns of lowering surrounding property values. City officials asked AT&T to either collocate on a tower nearby or find another place to build one.
However, in its complaint, AT&T claims it provided the city ample evidence that wireless communications towers do not adversely affect property values. Further, it alleges denying the permit based on “generalized aesthetic concerns” violates federal law, especially since the plan met ordinance requirements to obtain a permit.
Specifically, AT&T is accusing the city council and planning commission of violating the Telecommunications Act because its denial was not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record and by effectively prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
AT&T selected the site at Moore Creek in order to increase capacity and fill gaps in its wireless coverage, according to the complaint. It cited poor coverage, especially south and west of Moore Creek.
The company first looked to collocate on existing towers, an option the complaint says is generally faster and less expensive, but no options were close enough to the target area to remedy AT&T’s “significant” service gaps.
In a press conference Wednesday at City Hall, Gaskin noted the city council had discussed the lawsuit during an executive session of its Tuesday evening meeting.
“I’m disappointed, obviously, with this. We requested they look at some other areas … to see if that would work,” Gaskin said.
He noted a “business person,” whom he did not name, had offered AT&T a co-location spot on a nearby tower “just outside the area” where the company wants to build a new one.
“The city would rather come to a conclusion like that than to go to the expense of some type of lawsuit. A corporation the size of AT&T trying to sue a municipality is a little offsetting for me,” Gaskin said. “… If everybody sued every time the city made a decision they didn’t like, you can see where that would take us.”
City Attorney Jeff Turnage, who also attended Wednesday’s press conference, was more buttoned-up in his comments.
“We will vigorously defend the allegations of the complaint,” he said. “Beyond that, I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment on pending litigation. It will be in our answer when we file it.”
The deadline for the city to file its response with the court is April 23.
Eminent domain for easements
Also in executive session Tuesday, the council agreed to let Turnage and City Engineer Kevin Stafford pursue “as a last resort” taking needed easements for a $6 million watershed project.
The city has obtained more than half of the 85 needed easements for the project, which will target various sites around the city and be funded through the American Rescue Plan Act. On Wednesday, Gaskin said the rest are in flux due to trouble finding owners or heirs, property owners wanting too much money for the easement or people simply not trusting the city due to past “bad experiences.”
He said in order to meet the federal deadline of September 2026 for spending all ARPA money, the city needs all the easements in hand by the end of this year.
In cases where a conventional deal cannot be reached, Turnage said the city can obtain easements through what it called a “quick take.”
The city would get those properties appraised, file a lawsuit and the judge would grant the city possession to complete the work.
Litigation over the amount the city owed the property owner would follow.
He noted the city only wants to install improvements and have access to maintaining them.
“We’re not really taking anybody’s land away from them,” he said.
The council on Tuesday also approved a $64,954.61 contract for Neel-Schaffer, where Stafford is North Mississippi manager, to acquire the easements – work the firm has been doing since February.
Waggoneer Engineering designed and is overseeing the watershed improvements.
Zack Plair is the managing editor for The Dispatch.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 34 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 34 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
