by Becki
The CT Siting Council is considering a proposal from Verizon to place a cell tower at 445 Prospect St. There will be a public hearing tomorrow (1/21) March 11th (we think & will verify tomorrow) at the Woodstock Town Hall from 1PM to 10PM to allow townspeople to express their opinions on the proposed site. This is a courtesy extended to us because the council can actually allow tower placements pretty much wherever they choose. The CT Siting Council was formed this way specifically because towers are needed and, if individuals/groups within communities could obstruct/prevent towers just by sheer volume of objection alone, we wouldn’t have many towers at all … So, we will be getting a tower at some point.
This goes beyond NIMBY, really… I understand people’s objections but, just the fact that some of us have objections doesn’t mean that we should have the expectations that those objections should have overwhelming weight in the discussion. This comes a lot closer to an expectation that our individual opinions, about any/everything, are so important that they should displace common sense.
None of us should ever have an expectation that our definition of life, in this immediate moment, should not change. It is a wonderful goal to attempt to minimize our human impact on this planet. However, it is absurd to try to imagine that humanity can exist without leaving a footprint. Change comes to us, regardless of whether or not we are screaming at the top of our lungs in protest.
There are 25 residences and 51 telephone poles on Prospect Street between Route 197 and Cortis Road (just over the line) in Southbridge MA. Most of those residences cannot see the tower site either due to elevation impediments or tree cover. Other than the 2 residences across the street from the proposed site, the closest home sites are the two farms on the road, Ox-Bow Acres (south) and Look Away Farm (north) – both about a quarter mile away. Mr. Kuper’s residence is almost half a mile (north) from the proposed site [as an aside, Mr. Kuper probably can’t see the lighted towers in MA because of tree cover, but the lighted towers to the west on Lebanon Hill are fully visible]. The proposed site is also 2/3 of a mile from Converse Road to the east and close to a mile from Route 169 to the west.
As far as affecting property values, there is a new house being built on Cortis Road, just over the line in Southbridge. Obviously, not everybody perceives the existence of towers as a detractor and deal killer. Conversely, it could be said that lack of cell phone coverage could be considered a detractor to property values, as well.
As far as viewsheds are concerned, wouldn’t it be nice if none of us had to look at any of the modern contrivances? Early in the 20th century there was a huge outcry over the scar left on the countryside with telephone poles and their incumbent miles and miles of wires. I don’t understand why the Academy lights have to pollute my nighttime views. I am not particularly fond of seeing the exhaust plumes from the energy plant on 395. And I did not notice a huge protest about all the trees (except for three) that went missing on the ridge of Bull Hill not long ago.
I do think any and all of us are entitled to our own opinions. However, if you own property within the confines of a town you need to follow building codes and zoning restrictions. If you object to that, then you need to go find a great big piece of land and make your own town so you can have your own rules (and single-handedly pay the expenses). If you expect the entire view from your living room to remain unchanged, you better start buying it, so you can make sure it stays that way.
This comes down to a matter of perspective. While one can complain about their individual view being altered, what percentage of that view is actually being altered? If you want to see landscape being altered, look up Woodstock on Google Maps, the satellite image… you can’t see the towers but you can see the footprint of Woodstock’s townspeople. What you’ll really see is how much of Woodstock remains intact. We live in a special place, and it won’t be less special if Verizon puts up a cell tower on Prospect Street.
I’m sorry, Becki, but your first paragraph really hits a nerve with me.
When you say “it’s a courtesy” that the Siting Council holds public hearings, you are legally and technically correct. And it’s true that they can put a tower pretty much anyplace they choose. I have a problem with that because it speaks to a larger issue. I have a problem with the fact that the Telecom industry has this much power that they do not legally have to consider either a property owner’s rights, nor the health and safety effects of the tower that they can erect anyplace they choose. They have been given that power by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. One of the primary authors of that legislation was a man named Ivan Seidenberg. He was not at the time, but is now the CEO of Verizon. Anyone can view the full text of this legislation on the FCC’s website. It’s massive and sweeping, to say the least. And since it was passed in 1996, there has been a growing body of research done in Europe and elsewhere that shows the harmful effects of living too closely to these towers (prolonged exposure). So far, our government has chosen to look the other way. I feel that the FCC regulations are too loose in this regard.
Now, I agree to a point with you when you say that if people could object to towers, then we’d have hardly any. Both of these viewpoints are extremes at opposite ends of the spectrum. It is extreme for people to feel that there can be no progress or very little progress. It is likewise extreme to say the Telecom Industry can do whatever it wants to whomever it wants in pursuit of technological progress. There needs to be a balance and all it would take is a little common sense. Our FCC needs to re-evaluate safety guidelines and simply impose a safe setback distance between a cell tower and a residence. That will never happen because the Telecomm Industry has a stranglehold on our government. So, as a result, we see neighborhood groups, such as the one Lisa started, popping up all over the country, not just in our state. But it’s usually only done by certain people, like Lisa, who take the time to become well-informed as to what’s really going on here.
So far, no one seems to have intervened in the case of Docket # 397, the proposed site on Mr. Rich’s land. If no one intervenes, then the Prospect St. site will be approved. I haven’t taken a position on this tower either way but it would seem to work for all involved, as far as I know. The neighbors from the original site of Prospect St. & Child Dome Road seem pleased with this arrangement and the fact that no one has intervened yet suggests that Mr. Rich’s neighbors don’t seem to have a problem with it. The Conservation Commission has a problem with it but if they really want to seriously explore the possibilities of stealth technology (trying to disguise it) with Verizon in the case of this tower, then whomever heads up that Commission needs to have First Selectman Walker contact Mr. Baldwin of Robinson & Cole (Verizon’s counsel) and start discussions as to what stealth applications would work in that particular location (for the purpose of making a tower blend in better in the view). I know that Mr. Baldwin has said in the past that Verizon has disguised towers on church steeples and I think he even said they did one as a cupola or weathervane on a barn – something to that effect; I’ve since forgotten the details exactly. The point here is that middle ground is key in all of this. Yes, we need towers and the service provided through their use. We also just need to exercise a little care in where and how we place them so that as few humans as possible are adversely affected by them and the impact to the environment is as minimal as possible also.
Newcomer, I have heard that any concerns about health issues are promptly squashed and not admissible as a credible reason to interfere with the cell towers installation. Is this true?? If they are indeed a health issue, how can this be? And if there is a health issue, how far does one need to be from one of these things. I have also heard, that a property owner gets about $2000 a month from one of theses things.
Chick,
What you have heard is true. In deference to the Telecomm providers, issues of health and safety may not be used as a reason to prevent siting of a wireless telecomm facility. I refer you to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 if you would like to read about this for yourself:
http://www.mttlr.org/volthree/mclaren_art.html
This link is a brief of Section 704 done by the Univ. of Michigan. You can also read the original Section 704 in its entirety at the FCC website if you like but as is common with Federal legislation, it’s not the easiest reading unless you know the ins and outs of every subsection being referenced. If you attend the next CT Siting Council hearing here in town, you will hear this for yourself. Every hearing is opened by the Council stating on the record that in accordance with Section 704 no discussion of health and safety matters is permissable.
As to whether or not these wireless towers are “really” a health hazard or not…that’s unfortunately open to interpretation at this time. A google search of the issue will yield you a slew of websites citing European scientific studies clearly demonstrating various health hazards. Our FCC refuses to acknowledge any of these studies officially because the Telecomm Industry refuses to acknowledge any of them. The Telecomm Industry is an enormously powerful lobbying block and the legislation crafted in their favor (Telecomm Act of 1996) insulates them from having to take any responsibility for adverse health effects. The industry simply denies the findings of these studies and goes on about its business. That’s my opinion anyway but review the info and decide for yourself.
Here’s a website link to get you started:
http://www.createhealthyhomes.com/cellphone_risks.php
In general, the concensus of the European scientists seems to be that about 500 meters (or about 3/10′s of a mile away) is a safe distance to live from one of these towers. Some studies suggest as far away as a 1/2 mile.
As far as the $$ amount that a land owner gets when leasing their land for a cell tower, the amount truly depends on how good a negotiator the landowner is and how desirable his/her land is as a cell tower site. I’ve heard that some landowners yield about $24K a year but I’ve heard of at least one landowner who gets close to $60K a year. Most leases run for a 20-25 year period so we’re not talking chump change. Some working class people don’t make that much in a year.
Newcomer, Thank Yoy so much for the information!Thank You for taking the time to write it!
Chick,
You’re welcome. Anytime.
As an aside, did you hear about yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling? … (see Newcomer’s new article. Admin).
If and when there is sufficient “scientific” evidence, Section 704 should, of course, be deleted.
Build the darn cell tower. Woodstock needs to evolve with today’s technology. What is the reason why you can’t put one at the town garage near the other tower? It is one of the highest points in town and in the centrally located.