Upon further investigation, Sprint was actually trying to sublease space on the roof to Clearwire without telling our client. They never mentioned until pushed that the maintenance actually included adding 3 microwave dishes and a cabinet on the roof. This wasn’t a impulsive decision by Sprint- when we asked they provided construction drawings and a structural analysis for the roof, both of which they had no intentions to provide to the owner.

In reviewing the lease, we found that Sprint had the right to sublease but they did not have the right to add the equipment as the agent had suggested. We immediately contacted the agent and sent a letter stating that they would be in breach of the lease agreement if they proceeded after delineating the specific reasons for our objection.
Sprint’s tone changed pretty quickly and they are now willing to negotiate an amendment.

The purpose of relating this story is that it represents a change in how Sprint and Clearwire are acting in relationship to each other. Previously, Clearwire would have directly approached the landowner to negotiate a second lease. Now, they have obviously worked out their differences and as a result are trying to add Clearwire equipment to a rooftop without telling the property owner. In these situations, it is crucial that you understand what your lease allows Sprint to do and what it doesn’t. Since these issues are primarily technical ones, you should find an attorney who understands the technical limitations of the underlying lease agreement. For more information on cell tower subleases, please see Cell Site Subleases.

The obvious problem with this is that the value of the “guarantee” is only as good as the long term viability of Md7 Capital Three.  Suppose that Md7 Capital Three is undercapitalized and T-Mobile terminates a significant number of leases held by Md7 Capital Three after 4-5 years.   Then Md7 Capital Three could simply file for bankruptcy and the landowners who agreed to accept less rent in exchange for the guarantee won’t even receive the guaranteed rent.   Please note we aren’t saying that Md7 Capital Three is or is not well capitalized nor are we implying that Md7 set up Md7 Capital Three to avoid its liability under the guarantee.   We really don’t know.   However, if you are considering a guarantee from any company that they will pay rent for 10 years, we believe it is prudent for you to do your due diligence and review the assets and liabilities (short and long term) of the company that is offering the guarantee.   If Md7 is unwilling to provide this information, then that signifies a warning sign to us that you might want to really consider your options.

If you need help assessing the value of your lease and whether the implications from Md7 that T-Mobile might consider terminating your site if you don’t accept their “guarantee”, please see our page on T-Mobile Lease Renegotiations.   We are not and will never be affiliated with Md7 in any way.

Before you get the wrong impression that I am trying to single out a particular tower company or lease optimization firm- I want to point out that this tower company isn’t alone. The lease optimization firms use similar tactics regularly. The lease buyout companies also rely upon constant calls as a tool to wear down the landowner and make them agree to terms that they wouldn’t absent the constant pressure. The constant suggestion is that if you don’t do something now- our offer will decrease. Fact: With rare exception, the offers almost never decrease.

Who is the worst- the lease buyout firms for sure. Some of the lease optimization firms call you over and over- not leaving a message but waiting until you pick up. And if you don’t pick up, they use another number that you might not recognize until they get you. One lease optimization firm told a client’s secretary that if she didn’t get her boss on the phone, that he would sue her personally. (I called the wireless carrier who retained this firm to let them know of this pathetic tactic. They promised to resolve it so that would never occur again.)

When did their business objectives become more important than common decency? The simple answer is never. If you are getting pestered and don’t feel that you have the answers to make an informed decision, please contact us. There are very few situations where you have to make an immediate decision and we will certainly let you know if yours is one of them. Otherwise, take your time, do your research. We will be here when you feel that you need help.

This particular site water tower is located in an urban area. Without knowing anything else about the area, it is easily clear that just by the fact that there were four users interested in going on the site, that this is a unique site and should have commanded significantly higher rents.

I assume that the decision maker’s had the best of intentions. I assume they contacted other municipalities nearby to find out what other villages were being paid. However, they were incorrect in assuming that their location was average and that the comparable lease rates should apply. As a result, they did their constituents a disservice. As a result, this particular Village will lose out on a minimum of $500,000 in future value over the course of the leases. All because they failed to understand the unique value of their property and relied upon average lease rates.

The pictures are pretty fascinating.

A story about the FBI getting involved can be found here.

The first is a water tower at a farm:

The second is a stealth pine tree in the middle of an orchard:

Clearly, one of these accomplishes the objective of being fairly stealthy- in that it is not readily apparent without a second look where the cell tower is. The water tower is well done- fits the environment. The pine tree on the other hand is ridiculous.

The question that remains is whether the second tower is really that much better than a typical monopole in terms of visibility? This is similar to a 100′ pine tree tower near downtown Tampa that rises out of a commercial area. It is completely out of place. Seems to me that stealth towers should actually be stealthy in the area that they are located. This burden falls on the local land use planners to actually understand what they are approving.

None of our clients chose to go forwards with Crossroads. In hindsight, that may have been a wise decision. In February of 2009, a group of Crossroads creditors chose to file for involuntary bankruptcy for Crossroads. The Bankruptcy Court granted an order to convert the bankruptcy to a Chapter 11 reorganisation.

As it pertains to land leases, Crossroads was successful in signing up 2000 or so landowners. They now want to get out 197 of those leases. Whether these leases are ones where they actually started construction is unknown. Perhaps the leases that they want to retain are ones where they haven’t started construction or they have finished construction.

For more on this situation, please read an excellent article on the subject at Wireless Estimator.

“As I mentioned during our conversation, due to the Economic Situation, T-Mobile is not moving forward at this time, with any leases, since no towers are going to be built. We would like to keep this site as a possibility for future reference, since it is a future interest for T-Mobile.”

Our client was understandably angry because this particular lease reimbursed him for legal fees that he had already expended. So T-Mobile’s failure to sign the lease meant that he wasn’t going to be reimbursed even though he had done everything they had asked of him and had signed the lease.

It appears from this message that T-Mobile tower construction nationwide is on hold. We have heard a rumor that capital expenditures from T-Mobile in some markets have been dropped 90%. We suspect that they are still continuing with construction on some towers but that a budget hold has been placed in effect and a good number of towers are not being constructed at this time. In our experience, these setbacks are typically an indicator of one of the following:

1. Poor financial performance: T-Mobile has not been having a banner year.
2. Possible merger: Carriers typically stop construction prior to announcing a merger.
3. Need to reallocate budget for 3G.

I believe this is probably indicative of the 1st scenario. If you are in a similar situation, there isn’t much you can do other than wait. Whatever you do, there is no cause to get angry towards T-Mobile.