A segment from another letter to the editor that appeared in
The Baysider on May 31.
Quote:
The new Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance enacted by Alton's residents clearly prohibits the type of facility proposed by ICE. Instead, it encourages more targeted low powered and new systems such as Micro Cells and Repeaters. One solution could be the use of a camouflaged repeater placed below the ridgeline on Rattlesnake Island. This repeater could take a signal from the cell tower on Old Wolfeboro Road, amplify it and rebroadcast it. Conceivably, it would cover most of Alton's Islands and Lake area, the gaps around Clay Point, Black Point and Robert's Cover and even the gaps in West Alton the applicant's plans will not cover. This is only one possibility. A RF Engineer specializing in Repeater Technology could provide several alternatives for service with safety. These avenues will not be explored by ICE because these options do not support their objective of obtaining critical real estate.
Under the Telecommunications Act (TVA) of 1996, the Federal Government has given Wireless Service Providers certain rights of redress if they feel local zoning ordinances or planning boards have prohibit ed adequate wireless service. Vertical real estate developers do not have these same rights. In an effort to merge the rights, granted by the TCA to wireless providers, with the desires of ICE, Rural Cellular Corp. dba Unicel is listed as a co-applicant. The applicant's attorney, Duval and Associates, has done this to blur the distinction between the two, but the difference between their objectives must remain clear. The objective of ICE is to create vertical real estate, whereas RCC's goal is to provide adequate service. Variances need not be granted to ICE in order for RCC to provide adequate service coverage. Duval and Associates have threatened to sue the town if they do not get their way. Furthermore, when asked if they would camouflage the towers, they flatly refused. These are not the actions of a benevolent service provider cooperating with the town, but rather a greedy developer who is trying to intimidate and bully the town into getting its way.
I applaud the ZBA, Planning Board and Town Attorney for taking the time to get it right. The learning curve on these issues is very steep. The developers and their attorneys are well practiced in twisting the TCA to intimidate small towns to get their way.
Gathered in one day is a signed petition of 152 Alton residents petitioning the Zoning Board to deny the variances for these cell towers. We ask that the ZBA and Planning Board to protect the well being of Alton's residents and the scenic beauty of Alton Bay while seeking the best and safest way to develop wireless service. Deny these variances!
Russ Wilson
Alton Bay
Russ Wilson
Alton Bay
May 31, 2006
|
Apparently there are 152 Alton residents against the further
urbanization of the lake. I would've signed the petition myself if I weren't a
non-resident taxpayer (a tax payer who is not allowed to vote).
I am for "seeking the best and safest way to develop wireless service." I am not against cell phones, per se, (I AM against the unsafe and/or intrusive* use of cellphones) I am simply against ruining the ridgeline view with cell phone towers. Let's take our time and explore the use of microcells and repeaters. As I keep saying, once the towers are installed they are not going to be coming down anytime soon.
*referring to the very well-stated response by Waterbaby