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 five attorneys, four staff, and two dogs working in offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, and in 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. Done that!
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.
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
Leave a Reply