Lynn hit by lawsuit from wireless co.

LYNN – Telecommunications company NextG Networks has filed a lawsuit against the city for denying their request to provide improved wireless service.A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 23 at Federal Court in Boston, where the company is seeking relief to go ahead and perform the work they originally set out to do before city officials reportedly stopped them.Despite claims that the company had to jump through a series of procedural hoops only to be denied access to public rights of way, city attorney James Lamanna said the company actually filed the lawsuit before the City Council was even able to take action on the two petitions.”The reasoning behind the delay was because the city didn’t have enough information from NextG to be satisfied,” he said.Based in California, NextG Networks approached officials last year to install wireless services to provide better cell phone coverage throughout the city.According to the lawsuit, the company submitted three different filings to the city in an attempt to accommodate its demands.The lawsuit continues to say that the city arbitrarily set and removed NextG’s petition for a public hearing; required NextG to revise its petition; and after NextG complied with the request, the city required the petition be portioned into separate applications to be heard over the course of a series of public hearings instead of just one.Then, after eight months, the city voted to postpone the petition until an unspecified date, and one month later, voted to postpone the second petition until another unspecified date.NextG officials said the city acted unreasonably by making the company jump through procedural hoops that in the end led to a denial of their petitions.Citing Massachusetts general laws and the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996, the lawsuit is requesting the court rule in NextG’s favor in order for it to meet contractual obligations.If granted in their favor, the company would install fiber-optic lines connected to approximately 53 small wireless antennae mounted on utility or streetlight poles to provide services to wireless communications service providers, including mobile network operators.Lamanna said while the company isn’t happy with the amount of time it took the city to act on the petitions, it was important to deny the proposal because they thought it would negatively impact traffic and cause other unnecessary disturbances.”They’re looking for a court order to (arbitrarily open the streets, but I don’t think this lawsuit belongs in Federal Court, it should be appealed to a state agency,” he said. “So, we’ll find out what happens on Sept. 23.”In an unrelated incident to the lawsuit, City Council president Tim Phelan was involved in a verbal scuffle in February with several NextG employees over a misdirected email that Phelan said insulted him personally and professionally.The email reportedly referred to NextG’s attempt to “grease the skids” (according to the company, offering money to help the city’s charitable interests) and push the proposal forward, but Phelan fired back and said that wouldn’t happen as long as he is the president.Although the matter was later resolved, the two petitions in question were ultimately denied.”The council voted on the feelings of the residents and we (the council) felt that the city doesn’t need this and that it would be aesthetically unpleasing,” he said. “My vote was on the merit of the petition itself. We also don’t need to rip up the roads for their (NextG’s) personal profit.”