|
|
Wednesday, 06 January 2010 18:09 |
|
FCC Sets Cell-Tower Siting Application Timeframe
The Federal Communication Commission has issued a declaratory ruling establishing timeframes for the processing of wireless tower siting applications.
Currently, Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act provides that a state or local government must act on a wireless tower siting request "within a reasonable amount of time." Pursuant to the recent ruling, the FCC now interprets "reasonable period of time" as being 90 days for "co-locations" and 150 days for all other towers. If a jurisdiction fails to act, the applicant may file a claim for relief in court within 30 days of the failure to act.
|
|
Read more... [FCC Setting Shot Clock]
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 23 December 2009 16:31 |
|
House Approves Funding from Eaton County Transportation Authority and Other Local Entities
On December 11, 2009 the U.S. House of Representatives approved an appropriations bill that provides federal funding for the Eaton County Transportation Authority. The legislation, pushed in large part by Congressman Mark Schauer, includes $1,000,000 for the Eaton County Transportation Authority (EATRAN). The funding allocated to EATRAN in this legislation will allow EATRAN to purchase additional transportation vehicles and upgrade its current equipment. EATRAN serves the citizens of Eaton County by providing curb-to-curb public transportation in areas such as Delta Township, Grand Ledge, Charlotte, Eaton Rapids, Olivet, and other Eaton County cities. |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 23 December 2009 16:28 |
|
Court of Appeals Rejects "Actual Prejudice" Test and Requires Regional Transit Authorities to Receive Written Notice of Injury Claim
In Pollard v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), No. 288851, the Court of Appeals - reversing prior authority that failure to provide written notice was not fatal unless the authority could show actual prejudice from the lack of written notice held that the trial court improperly denied summary disposition because the statute clearly requires written notice within 60 days, which the plaintiff did not provide.
|
|
Read more... [COA Rejects "Actual Prejudice" Test]
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 16 December 2009 17:06 |
|
It's inevitable. When reviewing your municipal ordinances, you will run into a provision that contains ambiguous language. This discovery will lead to a rash of questions: Does the language need to be amended? Would the ordinance be upheld by the court? Is the ordinance overbroad?
|
|
Read more... [MSU Ordinance Held Unconstitutionally Overbroad]
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 31 32 33 Next > End >>
|