1 of 4
Maps courtesy of Crown Castle.
Map overlays of the Crossgate community showing proposed locations of small-cell 5G network towers.
2 of 4
Maps courtesy of Crown Castle.
Map overlays of the Crossgate community showing proposed locations of small-cell 5G network towers.
3 of 4
Photo by Erin Nelson.
A cell phone keypad.
4 of 4
Images courtesy of Crown Castle.
A photo simulation of a small-cell 5G tower between 1626 and 1630 Crossgate Drive.
Plans to expand the 5G cellular network in Vestavia Hills are likely to move forward, despite complaints from some residents who will live near the new towers.
Members of the Crossgate community off Columbiana Road showed up en masse to the June 26 Vestavia Hills City Council meeting to voice their opposition to a series of 35-foot small-cell 5G network towers planned for the community. Their main concerns included the short timeframe to notify the public about the project, the potential negative impact on the appearance of the neighborhood and a belief that the towers could cause health risks.
Prior to opening the public comment portion of the meeting, Mayor Ashley Curry and City Attorney Pat Boone explained that the plans to erect 5G towers in the city are part of a federal law enacted in 2018 to establish small-cell 5G capabilities across the nation.
While regular utility installation and maintenance — such as electricity, natural gas or cable television — are subject to city oversight, the 5G federal law trumps state and local law, and the city leadership has little, if any, recourse to prevent the installations. Curry called the federal law an “overreach.”
“Under the old state law, cities had to give permission to utilities to access the right of way. Federal law, they give them the authority to do so,” Curry said. “So what does that mean? I’m the layman, but what I’m telling you is the cities can’t preempt the law.”
Curry went on to say that the city cannot prohibit contracted providers from installing the small-cell towers, nor can it pass zoning ordinances against them or establish prohibitively high franchise fees designed to dissuade 5G tower projects on city rights of way. The mayor said he hopes the city and the citizens will work with Crown Castle, the telecommunications company contracted for the Crossgate small-cell project.
“What I’m telling you is that we want to work with these providers and work with you to help position, maybe, where the pole goes,” Curry said, “but we cannot tell them, ‘Hey, our citizens don’t want this, and, therefore, you can’t put it in.’”
Boone expanded on Curry’s explanation with a brief history lesson regarding the state law and state Supreme Court decisions establishing the legal ownership of cities on public rights of way. He then pivoted to the heart of the matter: the federal law overriding all state laws and local ordinances.
“Notwithstanding the [state] Constitution, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of Alabama, cell companies have the right to install small-cell facilities in a public right of way owned by the city,” Boone said.
“And furthermore, cities,” he continued, “we don’t want you getting frisky. You are prohibited from enacting a zoning ordinance that prohibits such facilities being built in the neighborhood.”
Additionally, federal law says that municipalities have a short timeframe in which to notify residents and to vote on the proposals — 60 days if the tower is to be attached to an existing pole or 90 days if a new tower is to be constructed.
The public comment portion of the meeting lasted for more than an hour, as resident after resident took to the podium in an effort to crush or delay the council’s vote on the project. Leading off the public comment portion was Val Early, a longtime Crossgate resident, who spent much of his allotted time asking the Crown Castle representatives in attendance to consider moving a pole planned for installation directly in front of his home on Cross Wood Lane.
“We all want to be good neighbors. We all want to have good corporate neighbors. I’m virtually certain that the Crown Castle representatives here tonight want to be known as good neighbors,” Early said. “I would ask for consideration of an amendment, at least with respect to one of the three poles that are suggested for Crossgate.”
… we want to work with these providers and work with you to help position, maybe, where the pole goes, but we cannot tell them, ‘Hey, our citizens don’t want this, and, therefore, you can’t put it in.’
Ashley Curry
“If Crown Castle is willing, they can move it right up the hill and put it between two trees that are already there. It will be camouflaged,” he added. “I am virtually certain, but cannot say with absolute certainty, that the neighbors will consent to and will execute any necessary rights of way or easement agreements as may be required.”
A stream of frustrated Crossgate residents with an array of concerns followed Early at the podium. While some cited highly controversial and unproven reports that claim a link between 5G towers and cancer, most aired concerns over the potential loss in property value and frustrations over the city leadership’s inability to help.
“Even if you were to completely ignore the health and safety concerns, there’s also the fact that it’s simply ugly,” said Brian Chen of Crosswood Lane. “Studies show that 90% of people would pay less for properties near cell towers and antennas, and a possible up to 20% decrease in property value would occur if one were to be built.”
I’m virtually certain that the Crown Castle representatives here tonight want to be known as good neighbors. I would ask for consideration of an amendment, at least with respect to one of the three poles that are suggested for Crossgate. … They can move it right up the hill and put it between two trees that are already there. It will be camouflaged.
Val Early
Kimberly Lynch, a real estate agent and Crossgate resident for more than 25 years, agreed with Chen regarding property values but also suggested that the city does have recourse as to where the towers are located.
“From what I read, and I understand the law,” Lynch said, “it seems like the city does have some input as to what can and can’t be done. I think that you need to protect the residents that live here and listen and answer these questions.”
The vote on the measure was postponed until the Aug. 14 City Council meeting to allow for Crossgate residents to submit questions to Crown Castle for further discussion and clarification.
Editor's note: This story was updated on Aug. 7 to correct the location of the Crossgate community. It is off Columbiana Road.
