All of the cities are very adamant about the need and the desire to embrace technology and progress and wireless communications. The concept, though, is the cities' need to balance that desire, need and progress with their ability to self govern and put proper time, place and manner conditions on the growth within their city. They [also] need to take into consideration their residents' concerns, desires and needs … there's a balance going on and, unfortunately, Sprint disagrees with that balance. |
Everyone's so dedicated to making sure that whatever happens is in the best interest of the city and its residents, which is obviously 180 degrees from Sprint's view. |
I would have expected to see a direction to go back to the district court; and, there's no timing included [in the wording]. We're trying to figure out what the court wants. |
It's one of those situations that's a balancing test. We have technology on one hand and aesthetics on the other. Everyone wants [cell phone] coverage. But where do you draw the line? At what point do we sacrifice aesthetics for progress? |
The city has the right to regulate on behalf of the residents. We are still trying to analyze what the decision will mean to the ordinance. |
There are numerous cities throughout the country involved in disagreements with Sprint [Wireless]. |
We don't need to create the scar, because the technology itself will be outdated. Does the city then become a grand and glorious broom-pusher following behind cell companies cleaning up the problems? |