California Woman Wins Right to Fight Proposed Verizon Tower 100 Feet From Kids’ Homes

U.S.

2 hours ago

Originally posted by: Children's Health Defense

A Nevada County, California, woman won the right to intervene in Verizon’s federal lawsuit against the county after officials denied the telecom giant’s application to build a 13-story cell tower 100 feet from the front doors of 12 residents, including four young children.

Kristin Phalen, who leads the neighborhood’s opposition effort, is joining the case as a defendant on behalf of herself and her neighbors.

In 2024, the county’s planning department green-lighted Verizon’s permit. Soon after, Phalen and nearby residents appealed the decision.

“We brought our concerns before the board of supervisors, and after a year of hearings, the supervisors sided with us and asked Verizon to pick another location for this tower,” Phalen said.

But instead of “doing the right thing,” she said, Verizon responded to the supervisors’ denial by suing the county in federal court.

When county officials learned about the lawsuit, they contacted Phalen and told her they didn’t plan to fight it. They said if she wanted to lead an effort on behalf of the residents, she could intervene in the case.

“Our neighborhood unified and hired some of the top attorneys in the country” to help us file the motion to intervene, she said. On Nov. 12, the federal judge granted Phalen’s motion.

‘This tower will destroy these families’ lives and property values’

Phalen told The Defender that Verizon’s proposed tower would make nearby homes impossible to sell and would pose a fire risk.

“The site also lacks a sufficient fall zone, so any structural issues with the tower could injure or kill the nearest residents,” Phalen said.

In a recent interview on CHD.TV, Phalen got choked up as she described how the four children who live 100 feet from the proposed tower could be “stuck” at its base if residents are not able to sell their homes and move.

“I’m doing this out of love to protect the children who would be the most impacted by this,” she told The Defender.

Phalen said she and her husband live on property that borders the proposed site, with their house sitting roughly 1,000 feet from the planned tower location.

Virginia Ryan, a Nevada County resident who lives a few miles away, said Verizon is trying to “steamroll our small community” by putting up a tower the residents don’t want.

“This tower will destroy these families’ lives and property values, and unfortunately, Nevada County officials are complacent in protecting its residents from the ravaging effects of these towers on our community,” Ryan said.

‘These corporations prioritize profit over people’

Phalen said Verizon failed to provide solid evidence that the community needed the tower. “That was one of the main reasons our supervisors denied their permit,” she said.

“These corporations prioritize profit over people. They will place their equipment in locations that benefit them even if it costs the local families their homes and their lives,” Phalen added.

Miriam Eckenfels, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, applauded Phalen and the other Nevada County residents for their efforts. She said:

“Even though the county did the right thing when it denied the application, not defending the decision in court was a big blow to residents.

“It’s important that residents use all available tools to fight unwanted cell towers, including interventions in court cases, which gives residents a seat at the table and prevents premature and unwanted settlements.”

CHD’s Stop 5G initiative is currently helping residents in other communities do the same.

Stop 5G is also working with Nevada County for Safe Tech — a grassroots group Phalen belongs to, though it is not involved in Verizon’s lawsuit — to strengthen the county’s wireless ordinance and keep cell towers away from places where children live, learn and play.

Ryan said she hopes the lawsuit will serve as a “wake-up call” for the broader community and push the county to adopt regulations that ensure safer tower placement.

This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.

The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.

Please Donate Today

Verizon claims county made its decision illegally, based on health concerns

In its complaint, Verizon claimed that the county board of supervisors illegally based its denial on health concerns about radiofrequency (RF) radiation.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 bars local governments from considering the environmental or health effects of RF radiation when evaluating a wireless project, as long as the project meets the Federal Communications Commission’s RF emissions rules.

Resident Reinette Senum, former Nevada City mayor, disputed Verizon’s claim. She said:

“Our community respects federal law and understands that local officials can’t base their decisions on RF emissions. What concerns us is how often the industry uses that very limitation as leverage to push through towers that fail basic commonsense tests of need, design and location.

“Our grassroots effort is focused on restoring balance — so local land use decisions are driven by evidence, planning and community values, not by a corporation’s determination to secure one more pole on the hill.”

Phalen emphasized that standing up to Verizon has required significant financial resources. “We are going to need continued support to fight for the safety of these children. Every dollar raised goes to funding the legal team,” she said.

Ryan said the residents are like “David taking on Goliath,” but she draws strength from “the mothers, fathers, grandparents and other people in our community that have come together to pool their resources to try to prevent the installation of this tower.”

Phalen told CHD.TV that widows, veterans, retirees and single parents are among those fighting Verizon. “We’ve put up a really good fight so far,” she said.

Verizon’s lawyers did not immediately respond when asked why the company declined to select an alternative site farther from young children’s homes, as the county board of supervisors requested.

Related articles in The Defender