UPDATE The City of Columbus, MS, is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by AT&T (NYSE: T) after officials denied the company’s request to build a cell tower near a soccer field and sports complex, according to The Commercial Dispatch.
In a motion to dismiss filed April 21 in District Court, City Attorney Jeff Turnage argued that AT&T’s case is both procedurally and substantively flawed. He criticized the lawsuit for its “abusively long” structure, noting that its excessive length alone should warrant dismissal.
“The Complaint violates the spirit and letter of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which calls for a ‘short and plain statement’ of the claim,” Turnage wrote, pointing out that AT&T’s complaint stretches over 100 paragraphs without stating a formal Count until paragraph 90.
AT&T filed the lawsuit on March 21, claiming that the city’s denial of its application to build a 155-foot monopole tower violated the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The company argued the tower was essential to improving service coverage, particularly in areas south and west of Moore Creek. The proposed tower site, leased from Lowndes County, was chosen to fill these coverage gaps.
However, the city council rejected the application on February 18, after the planning commission recommended denial twice. Concerns cited included the tower’s proximity to the soccer complex, the future Burns Bottom Redevelopment site, and potential impacts on nearby property values.
AT&T’s lawsuit contends that these “generalized aesthetic concerns” are not valid grounds for permit denial under federal law. The company also claims it submitted evidence showing that such towers do not negatively affect property values.
The city, in its response, disputes AT&T’s assertions. Officials maintain that the decision was not based on vague aesthetics but on specific concerns that the tower would clash with the character of the soccer complex, surrounding parkland, and planned redevelopment area. The city also stated that AT&T failed to provide credible evidence to support its claims regarding property values.
Additionally, The Dispatch reports that the City of Columbus argues that AT&T’s proposal did not meet the intended purposes of the city’s ordinances, citing specific provisions in the counter action.
Reader Interactions