With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and. expensive than the proposed single site solution. But the TCA does not offer providers the best or cheapest option. See generally Amherst, 173 F.3d at 15. Such a rule would effectively abrogate the local government’s authority to control the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. In summary, Cellco’s proposed site was one of the most objectionable locations in Grafton for a 120-foot tower, and the Board gave Célico numerous suggestions that would receive favorable consideration by the Board. Thus, it is simply far “too early to give up on the Board.” Id. at 16. Cellco’s “one-proposal strategy may have been a sound business gamble, but it does not prove the Town has in effect banned personal wireless communication.” Id. at 15 (noting that sit upp. 47 (D.Mass.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Third Circuit has held that a TCA claim

A: holding that a contracts clause violation may support a  1983 claim
B: recognizing such a claim under  1983
C: holding that a tca claim may be asserted under  1983
D: holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under  1983
C.