Sprint v. San Diego - NATOA joins Amici in support of the City of San Diego in 253 ROW and 332 Siting Case

NATOA continues in its representation in this case, which has three primary issues:  the intersection of Section 253 and 332; whether the standard for Section 253(a) as applied by the Ninth Circuit in the Auburn case is the correct standard (assuming Section 253 applies); and whether Section 253 is violated when the court believes that an ordinance has what the court believes is too much discretion in determining whether to grant or deny an application even though it could be done consistent with current law.  The crux is whether, by simple virtue that a something could be found inconsistent with the law in the future, it is automatically so without evidence in support of the showing.