Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.
Residents of Belmar, New Jersey, won the right to intervene in a lawsuit Verizon brought against Monmouth County officials for allegedly illegally denying the telecom giant’s applications to build nine 5G towers on a stretch of boardwalk located in the county.
U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day last week ruled that a local activist group, Belmar Against 5G Towers, and seven individuals who claim Verizon’s proposed wireless facilities could harm their local environment and property values may join the suit.
Belmar is a small borough in Monmouth County. The boardwalk, which runs along the Atlantic coast, is home to multiple endangered species, including the least tern.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which is providing legal support to the residents, funded their efforts to join the suit.
Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia, director of CHD’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and Wireless program, called Judge Day’s ruling a “big deal” because it allows the residents to “have a seat at the table — as they should.”
“The proposed 5G towers impact their health, the environment they live in, their property values and the aesthetics of their neighborhood, so it is important that they can advocate for their interests in this litigation,” Eckenfels-Garcia told The Defender.
As official intervenors in the case, the residents will now be able to make arguments, file motions, request discovery and be part of any settlement negotiations, she said.
An initial scheduling conference is set for April 8, after which discovery could begin, Law 360 reported.
Towers could have ‘enormous effect on this precious ecosystem’
The lawsuit is the second time the telecom giant has sued in an attempt to get its towers — opposed by more than 200 Belmar residents — placed along Belmar’s beachfront.
Caitlin Donovan, although not listed as an intervenor due to a potential conflict of interest as a borough council member, is a key organizer for Belmar residents’ resistance to the 5G towers.
She told The Defender that she and other Belmar residents understand how even small changes can have “enormous effects on this precious ecosystem.”
Donovan grew up on Belmar’s beach and is raising her children there. “I honestly think that when you live near the ocean, it becomes part of you. … It’s an incredible privilege, but as a community, we understand that the privilege of living here comes with the responsibility of taking care of it.”
“We worry not only about how constructing these towers will affect how the beach looks, we worry how it will affect the endangered species that also call it home,” she said.
Verizon first sued Belmar on May 10, 2021, in an attempt to get its towers installed on the city’s boardwalk.
The lawsuit resulted in a settlement favorable to Verizon. However, soon after, Verizon learned that the land in question was under the jurisdiction of the county and that it would have to submit its application to the county, not the city.
Verizon sued Monmouth County after county officials on Aug. 8, 2023, denied the company’s project application. County officials cited, among other things, that Verizon had failed to submit a correct or complete application.
Instead of resubmitting the application with the required information, Verizon sued the county in federal court, alleging Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules preempted state and local laws governing the project.
Do FCC rules preempt state environmental protection laws?
In its complaint, Verizon alleged the county did not support its decision with substantial evidence and asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief so Verizon could begin installing its 5G towers along Belmar’s public rights-of-way area.
Verizon also contended that Monmouth County couldn’t stand in the project’s way because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts state and local regulation of environmental effects of wireless infrastructures’ radiofrequency radiation emissions, as long as the infrastructures “comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.”
Eckenfels-Garcia said, “This case is of strategic importance for our EMR & Wireless efforts because it tests the limits of federal preemption of state environmental laws when it comes to the placements of cell towers.”
