In addition, my understanding is that AT&T does not own the land and does not have plans to buy it. So, AT&T has no inherent right to build on the land, unlike other projects in town such as Palmer Point. (e.g. in palmer point, the developer plans to purchase the land). Therefore, procedurally, public opposition to the tower should be enough to prevent it even without any reason given. Unlike projects such as Palmer Point, I do not believe there is any legal requirement to provide reasons or rationale for opposing the project. Though I do still think the health issue is a bunch of malarchy.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
