Who am I? Why this Blog?
I’m Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer.
In August 2016 I completed my Doctor of Law and Policy (LP.D) degree at Northeastern University in Boston. I received my doctoral hood in September 2016. I was a member in the 8th Cohort of that unique program.
I set up this blog at the suggestion of one of the LP.D program leaders whom I truly respect, Professor Neenah Estrella-Luna, Ph.D. Early in the LP.D program she strongly recommended that each Cohort member track their progress and stand up to the scrutiny of peers, just as we do when we publish or present papers.
I took Professor Estrella-Luna’s suggestion to heart, and this blog allowed me to chart my personal journey from a highly-educated lawyer and masters-level blob to highly-educated lawyer and doctoral-level researcher blob.
At least that was my initial goal…
In real life, I’m a practicing telecom law attorney licensed in California and New Mexico, as well as a radio frequency engineer. My law firm has six attorneys, two paralegals, and two dogs working in offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, and at our covert office on a Southwest Airlines jet (minus the dogs).
I have earned the following academic degrees:
Associate of Science (AS) degree (honors) Los Angeles Trade Tech College. Los Angeles, California.
Juris Doctor (JD) degree (cum laude) Abraham Lincoln University School of Law. Los Angeles, California.
Masters of Law (LL.M) degree (with distinction) Strathclyde University. Glasgow, Scotland.
Doctor of Law and Policy (LP.D) Northeastern University. Boston, Massachusetts.
Having completed my Doctor of Law and Policy degree, just for fun I might go after a few more professional licenses.
My current goal is to become licensed as a Real Estate Broker in California.
I am personally accountable for my education and the work I put in to that education. Because of that, I’ve decided to be transparent about my grades, whether good or bad (but better good than bad).
Q1 – Summer 2014:
Law and Legal Reasoning 1
(LWP 6120) Grade: A
Law and Policy Concepts 1
(LWP 6401) Grade: A
(LWP 6424) Grade: A-
Q2 – Fall 2014:
Law and Legal Reasoning 2
(LWP 6121) Grade: A
Law and Policy Concepts 2
(LWP 6402) Grade: A-
(LWP 6423) Grade: A
Q3 – Winter 2015:
Law and Legal Reasoning 3
(LWP 6122) Grade: A
Law and Policy Concepts 3
(LWP 6403) Grade: A
(LWP 6420) Grade: A
Q4 – Spring 2015:
Law and Legal Reasoning 4
(LWP 6123) Grade: A
(LWP 6404) Grade: A
Economics for Policy Analysis
(LAW 6410) Grade: A-
Q5 – Summer 2015:
Methods & Theory Appl Research
(LWP6425) Grade: A
(LWP6431) Grade: A
Doctoral Research Design 1
(LWP6500) Grade: A
Q6 – Fall 2015:
Public Policy Theory & Practice 1
(LWP6450) Grade: A
Doctoral Research Design 2
(LWP 6501) Grade: A
Q7 – Winter 2016:
Public Policy Theory & Practice 2
(LWP6451) Grade: A
Doctoral Research Design 3
(LWP 6502) Grade: A
Q8 – Spring 2016:
Public Policy Theory & Practice 3
(LWP6452) Grade: A
Doctoral Research Design 4
(LWP 6503) Grade: A
July 2016: My final GPA after all program coursework is 3.958 on a 4 point scale. I can live with that.
Month: August 2016
Today, Gerry Lederer, a respected wireless attorney at the government law firm of Best Best and Krieger, commented on Facebook regarding my thesis defense slides. He asked several appropriate and very probing questions. With his kind permission, I quote his comments and questions here along with my reply. I’ve cleaned up a few bits of the text for readability.
Gerry Lederer: I read [your thesis defense slides] and they are brilliant. How long did it take for the professors to keep up to you? I know I had to read them a couple times. By the way, [your] GPA was rather ridiculous. Not sure I would have had the guts to publish my grades at the beginning of the process. Do you fear than any of the slides will be used against you in future proceedings? Or have some of the community groups questioned your outlook as to whether or not their homes’ values are impacted by the presence of a cell tower?
Gerry, old friend, I deeply appreciate your questions/comments.
I made a decision at the beginning of this journey that I would be transparent as a student and [as] a researcher. On the wise counsel of my program inspiration and chief supporter, Professor Neenah Estrella-Luna, I started my personal blog, JonathanKramer.com to make that goal a reality.
I knew that posting my thoughts and my grades would risk [negative] public exposure, and they already have. I have had to answer questions about my research from several of the jurisdictions I serve, sometimes in response to resident complaints that I am biased. Each time I have been charged, I have unreservedly agreed with the charges of bias: I am biased to discovering [actual] facts, rather than simply accepting assertions as facts. In fact (pun intended), I am currently responding to a new set of resident assertions in one of my client jurisdictions and I will respond the same way: look to the facts, not to the fears, to find the truth.
I have been fully prepared for years to lose clients for political reasons [over my research and findings]. [It’s] a worthy trade for gaining knowledge for the public. I expect to lose at least two or three major government clients within the first few months following publication of my full thesis, and that will not diminish my life by a single iota (Matthew 5:18*).
This doctorate has only whet my appetite to do more and deeper research in the same [subject matter] area. I have the great fortune to have the intellectual honesty to follow where the facts lead without fearing who will be offended. Maybe I can convince Northeastern University College of Professional Studies to let me do post-Doc research to better see where those facts lead.
I stand by what I said in reply to Gerry’s query. Even if the truth is unpleasant to some, I’ll take transparency and honesty even when the results are surprising, uncomfortable, or unprofitable.
* Huh? I’m quoting the New Testament? Sure. Have to cite research sources. jlk
Dr. Jonathan Louis Kramer, DLP
I’m very pleased (and relieved) to report that this morning I successfully defended my doctoral thesis, “Cell Towers, Community Perspectives, and Hedonic Price Modeling: Utility, Limitations, and Localism.”
It was wonderful the be greeted with, “Congratulations, Doctor Kramer” when the three thesis committee members came back from their private discussions after my defense.
Thanks to all of you for your support of me along this path, and for those of you who were able to join in the defense today by video link. If you would like to see the slides I used this morning for the defense, I’ve posted them here in PDF format. The animations would show, but you’ll get the idea.
(Note: the slides linked below contain non-substantive corrections made as of 9/3/16. An errata sheet is provided in these slides. Thank you to Michael J. Friedman for his eagle eyes.)
Sent out today by James Passanisi, Associate Director, Doctor of Law & Policy Program, Northeastern University regarding Jonathan Kramer’s thesis defense:
I am happy to announce that Jonathan Kramer will be defending his DLP thesis Cell Towers, Community Perspectives, and Hedonic Price Modeling: Utility, Limitations, and Localism on Tuesday, August 30 at 11:15 am, Eastern Time. Attached you will find the abstract of his project.
Please note that Jonathan will be defending his thesis remotely from California. Current students and alumni are welcome to attend the defense via webcast or in person at our office in Boston.
Here is the abstract of my thesis mentioned by Mr. Passanisi:
The installation of cell sites in communities, especially in residential areas, is often controversial. Public concerns regarding residential property value diminution and negative health impacts attributed to cell sites near homes are commonly heard at local government planning and zoning hearings. Cell site permit denials can lead to federal or state litigation frequently based on the local government’s denial prohibiting the provision of a communications service, a federally-protected right under the Telecommunication Act of 1996. This research explores the history of hedonic price modeling in assessing the disamenity value of cell sites in residential areas, focusing on the utility and limitations of the prior research conducted in the United States, Europe, and New Zealand, as well as and how that research has been utilized by the courts. Also reported are the results of surveys and interviews of Calabasas, California residents regarding their perceptions of cell site impacts on property value and health in that city. This study finds that the prior hedonic price models of cell sites have important limitations and omit potentially relevant variables regarding spatial relationships and physical elements between cell sites and homes. In addition, the courts have given little weight to hedonic modeling studies, preferring locally-related comparable home value appraisal data. The conclusion suggests and discusses potential methods and variables that may improve future hedonic models of cell site impacts. Survey respondents in Calabasas exhibit an unexpected willingness to allow camouflaged cell sites in residential areas but are undecided regarding potential health impacts from cell sites. Finally, a proposed potential theory is suggested to explain why cell site opponents may argue property value diminution concerns at local government planning and zoning hearings as a surrogate for privately held concerns regarding health effects from cell sites.
JEL Codes: K11, K23, K40, K41, R30, R38
Keywords: Telecommunications Act, cell tower sites, wireless, hedonic, property value, radiation, health, Calabasas
Today I received my PI’s approval for the title of my thesis.
I had suggested, “Hedonistic, Hedonic, or Hilarious: Taking the road less paved” for my contribution to society. Alas, my PI preferred “Cell Towers, Community Perspectives, and Hedonic Price Modeling: Utility, Limitations, and Localism” for the thesis. Who am I to argue with one of three people on my thesis committee who stand (or sit) between me and my doctorate.
Well, okay then. I’ll take the road officially approved.
I defend my thesis on Tuesday, August 30th around 9 a.m. Pacific Time, which by my calendar is just 13 days from now. Tick-tock, Tick-tock.
Today I submitted the conclusions chapter of my thesis to my co-P.I., Professor Neenah Estrella-Luna. This is a huge milestone for me, and I remain on track to defend on August 30th.
PS: It’s also a huge relief. The writing is done. All that remains are to address the very few edits to the preceding chapters received from both of my P.I.s and my second reader, Dr Ed Kammerer, J.D., Ph.D. jlk
PPS: Someone else very happy with the submission of my final chapter is Christina R. Sansone. She’s been waiting for me to finish this for a long time. I’m happy she’s still talking to me. Now it becomes my primary job, Chris.
Good luck to Evadne Hagigal, who will be defending her Doctor of Law and Policy doctoral thesis on Friday, August 12th. The title of her thesis is, The Unintended Consequences of Federally Mandated Minimum Wage Increases: An Examination of Employment Trends and Employers’ Perspectives.
(UPDATE: She successfully defended her thesis, and will become Dr. Hagigal on September 22nd, and hooded on September 28th. Great!!! -jlk)
I’ve written 5 of the 6 chapters that comprise my thesis. The chapters are:
- Literature Review
- Research Methodology
- Resident Surveys and Interviews
- Hedonic Price Modeling and the Courts
- Conclusions and Recommendations
The final chapter, my conclusions and recommendations for further research, is in progress. I should have it finished later this week, and then off to my editor.
I’m still on track to defend my thesis on Tuesday, August 30th.
I am happy, but I’ll be happier when I’m done.
In my previous post I mentioned sending off a chapter to my editor, so it occurred to me spill a few words about my editor, Dissertation-Editor.com
I’m using Dr. Alan Roda’s Dissertation-Editor.com service to professionally edit my thesis and ensure that it complies with APA 6th formatting style. I was exposed to Dr. Roda’s service way of a trusted recommendation from member of my cohort who was very happy with Dr. Roda’s services, and I now know why.
Dissertation-Editor.com’s staff of Ph.Ds has done exactly what I need. They have edited my chapters to ensure scholarly tone and style. They have suggested changes to words, sentence structures, and paragraph order to help me clarify my intended meaning. They have challenged me with questions based on what I have written as my Principal Investigator would. What they have never done is to cross the ethical boundary of writing new material for me.
Frankly, I appreciate the cost effectiveness of Dissertation-Editor.com billing practices. They charge a basic rate for their services with their normal turn-around, but offer quicker turnarounds for a modest additional fee. This quicker turnaround service has been valuable to me as I play ‘beat-the-clock’ on some of my chapter deliverables.
Look, it’s impossible to effectively edit your own work. No, you’re not that good. In case I’ve not been clear, I’m happy to recommend Dr. Roda’s group, Dissertation-Editor.com to any doctoral candidate who wants to turn in scholarly work that is coherent and free of errors in grammar and punctuation..
No, I’ve received nothing from them for saying the things I’ve said here. I just appreciate and respect excellent work at very fair rates.
PS: I had to edit this text hours after posting it because (a) I did NOT have Dissertation-Editor.com edit this piece, and (b) I found two errors in the text. It goes to show… jlk