December 09, 2020

URGENT Re: 5G on Streetlights: Honolulu City Council Meeting Resolution 20-301 on 12/9/20

Date(s) - 12/9/2020
10:00 am - 12:00 pm

By Debra Greene, PhD of

Stop small cells on city-owned streetlights!

Oppose agenda item on the upcoming Honolulu City/County Council meeting!

We all need to testify. See sample testimony below….

Please write in to oppose! Meeting is Wednesday, December 9, 10 a.m., deadline looming…  

Yes, everyone, even non-residents who love Hawaii and/or own property here. 

DEADLINE: No deadline is listed! Don’t be fooled! Typically 12pm the day before (Tuesday) but, don’t wait! Please submit NOW.

No need for long testimony (but sure can if you want!). Can just say you OPPOSE this use of our publicly owned streetlights in our public rights of way! 

Two options to testify:

1) Written testimony in advance by filling out the form:

It says “Speaker Registration/Testimony” but don’t be fooled! The form IS FOR WRITTEN testimony.

Here’s the info you need for the form:

Meeting Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Council/PH Committee: Council/Public Hearing

Agenda Item: Resolution 20-301

Your position on the matter: Oppose
2) Give oral testimony online the day of the meeting by joining the meeting online at WebEx or phoning in. You will have 3 minutes to testify. Prepare in advance. Best to register at least 24 hours in Click “Join” enter meeting # 1469903404 and complete the registration process.

The agenda has an incorrect link so we cannot access the info for this agenda item (do you see a pattern here?!) The agenda is long! We cannot predict when you would be called on to testify. Best to submit written testimony in advance unless you have time to be online at the meeting on Wednesday (we hope you do! The more the merrier!).

Please RememberAvoid talking about health & environmental effects! If too many people testify about environment or health effects, it can compromise the hearing (because the Telecom Act of 1996 prohibits objecting to cell towers/antennas on those grounds. Sad but true! Stick with the points below, please).
Here are some points you can choose from to mix and match in your testimony.
DO NOT copy/paste them all. Pick one or two and please add your own words.
1) In August when similar proposals were on the agenda, despite overwhelming opposition on record by the people, you passed the resolutions anyway, stating that your hands were tied and you could not legally oppose. This is not correct. You have the power and authority to oppose this resolution. Please honor the will of your constituents and stop the proliferation of small cells.
2) Federal law requires an environmental review. In a 2019 ruling by the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals, any application for small cell wireless telecommunication facilities installation is incomplete if it does not include a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. Please abide by Federal law. The full court order can be found here:
3) There is not a significant gap in personal wireless service. Applicants are required to prove a significant gap in service but there is no such thing. Honolulu is saturated with cell coverage. These facilities are proposed by a site developer, not by wireless carriers. Site developers do not provide personal cellular service. If there were a gap in coverage the carriers themselves (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint) would be making this proposal but they are not. Honolulu has adequate cell coverage. There is no need for more.
4) The placement of these small cells will reduce property values. (If you are a realtor use your expertise. If you live nearby small cells talk about how undesirable they are.) There is plenty of evidence:
5) These facilities will inflict adverse aesthetic impact. Honolulu is a tourist destination and these new small cells hanging off of our street lights will produce visual blight, disturb the view plane, be so ugly, drive tourists away, etc….
6) There are insufficient fall zones around street lights. The potential to cause harm is extreme, such as property damage to nearby cars, and personal injury or death to anyone who might be unlucky enough to be near a cell facility when it fails.
7) Cell facilities have been known to catch fire. A quick search of YouTube will show multiple videos of cell antenna fires. We do not want these fire hazards.
8) Small cells need to be set back from schools and homes. City street lights are too close to schools and homes and children could be injuredif the facilities fall or components are blown off by high winds. Our street lights are too close to condos and businesses (shops, restaurants, offices) with busy sidewalks. Residents and visitors could be injured if the facilities fall or components are blown off by high winds.
9) Noise pollution is a concern. Excessive noise from cooling the ancillary equipment (up to 28 cubic feet) for each small cell antenna would disturb the quiet enjoyment of our streets and neighborhoods.
10) Cell towers in residential areas would create an access barrier to the homes and communities of Americans with Electromagnetic Sensitivity(EMS), an environmentally-induced medical illness that can be caused by RF microwave radiation exposures. These citizens (estimated to be 25,000,000 Americans and growing) with Federally-recognized ADA disability rights, would be barred from accessing public spaces and could be forced to move from their homes.
11) Site Developers are notorious for blanket installing unneeded and unnecessary cell facilities in urban areas because it’s fast and cheap and they make money collecting rent from the carriers for the life of the facilities. Site developers do not have our best interests in mind. They make use of our publicly owned, taxpayer funded streetlights and electricity and pavements. They pay low rent for use of our street lights and saturate our streets and neighborhoods with small cell antennas. Please demand hard data from them. Require records of dropped calls in the proposed areas from the carriers themselves (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint). They can produce this information with the click of a mouse. We demand evidence of lack of coverage. Do not take the site developers word for it. We demand proof from the carriers themselves.
12) We are not anti-technology! We want optical fiber to the premises, which is faster, safer, more secure, more eco-friendly, and ultimately less expensive than wireless. We want SafeG!
Email your testimony by filling out the form (details above):

View the meeting agenda and details by clicking here.Please share with others to oppose. Please stick with the points above!

Here’s a list of individual council members if you wish to email each personally in addition to filling out the form described above.

Subject line: Oppose Resolution 20-301


[email protected] Council Chair Kobayashi

[email protected] Council member Pine

[email protected] Council member Tsuneyoshi

[email protected] Council member Waters

[email protected] Council member Fukunaga

[email protected] Council member Manahan

[email protected] Council member Elefante

[email protected] Council member Menor