Current Issues Post 1/26/15 by Bo b S (KCNetwork)

I suppose people are getting tired of my rant regarding KCNET but let me say it one more time. I don't necessarily have a problem with the communication towers on SLohA's common property, as long as building permits were taken out for their construction and the work was inspected by the County inspection office. Neither do I necessarily have a problem with KCNET placing its broadcast antennae on these towers. But what I do object to is the fact that SLohA receives no compensation from KCNET for the use of those towers. As a retired municipal official, I know how much cellular phone companies are willing to pay for the priviledge of placing their broadcast antennae on municipal water towers and emergency communication towers. In the last community I worked for - West Allis, Wisconsin - the five major cellular carriers paid the City approximately $20,000 each per year to lease space on the City's two water towers. What further troubles me is my understanding that KCNET also gets paid by Verizon to "re-broadcast" its cellular signal from one of those towers. Since those towers sit on SLohA property, why shouldn't WE be getting that payment from Verizon? Also, let's not forget that KCNET is not just providing internet service to S-bag residents. Its customer base includes several subdivisions and retirement communities in the surrounding area. Again, why isn't SLohA getting a piece of that revenue stream in return for allowing KCNET to use our communication towers?
There's been a lot of talk recently about the possibility that the settlement of the recent lawsuits will cause SLohA's liability insurance premiums to rise. Considering how much potential revenue is at stake from leasing out space on our communication towers, that brings to mind the old Scriptural proverb: "strain out the gnat but swallow the camel".
Incidentally, I am curious about Bb St aib's statement about hiring an engineer "to document that the towers are safe or not". It is my understanding that any structure within S-bag requires both a park permit and a County building permit. Moreover, having gone through that process myself when I put on my screenroom addition, the County requires the submission of certified plans from a professional engineer as part of the application for a building permit. So, wouldn't there already be a set of engineer's plans on file with the County building permit for the towers? That leads to the next question: was a County building permit ever taken out for those towers. If we are so concerned about rising insurance premiums, how do we think our insurance carrier would react to the discovery that a 30 foot tower was erected in a hurricane-prone area without a building permit or engineer's plans?