08-22-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ( We review de novo the district court's grant of sur.rary judgnent. United States ex rel. Glass v. Medtronic. Inc.. 957 F.2d 605, 607 (Sth Cir. 1992). Because the parties agree that no naterial facts are in dispute, sur.r.ary judgment is appropriate in favor of the party that is entitled as a natter of lav to a judgment in its favor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Coro, v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 326 (1986). Cases centering on coning regulations governing a.nateur radio antenna towers present a unique tension anong the various parties' interests. Cn the one hand, a local nunicipality, through the exercise of its traditional police powers, nay regulate the height and placenent of r^’dio antenna towers erected in residential districts. A nunicipality's notivations for such regulation include the possibilities that an antenna nay block the line of sight of pedestrians or drivers; constitute a prcninent eyesore that also nay interfere with a scenic view; fall on nearby residences; or decrease property values. Anateur radio operators, on the other hand, plainly have an interest in naintaining successful anateur ccnnunications and in sustaining a strong network of radio anateurs. The federal governnent's interests are aligned with those of the anateurs, for anateur radio volunteers afford reliable e.nergency preparedness, national security, and disaster relief connunications. Because there is a direct correlation between an anateur's antenna height and her ability successfully to transnit and receive radio signals, federal interests are furthered when local regulations do not unduly restrict the erection of anateur radio antennas. The FCC was attenpti.ng to referee t.he tension between these interests when it issued PRB-1, in which it attenpted "to strike a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur -4-