· Measures have been taken to mitigate the negative aesthetic effects by limiting height, locating the tower in a secluded area, disguising the tower as a tree, etc.
· Towers are inherenly beneficial to the community. They provide a needed service.
Read more to hear what Opposition Might say
· As an inherently beneficial service to the community, cellular towers should be considered as public utilities in the eyes of zoning and planning boards. Thus they should be granted construction permits, even if they cause some negative effects. Their benefits outweigh their costs. (State laws concerning the issues of "inherent benefit" and cellula towers' status as a public utility vary considerably.)
· Providing towers is important for public safety. Drivers with cellular phones can call the police, family of friends to help them in an emergency situation. They can also call the police about reckless drivers they encounter on the road.
· Radiation standards have been set by the FCC. The FCC has the responsibility for assessing microwave safety based on existing standards. So microwave safety concerns are outside the jurisdiction of local planning boards.
What the Opposition Might say
· Towers can decrease property value. This can result from a number of factors including the eyesore factor as well as the cancer fear issue.
· Cancer fears and aesthetic effects cause a town to lose its reputation as a safe and beautiful community and to lose tourist revenue.
· The jury is still out on health effects. We should proceed with caution until conclusive evidence is in.
· Cancer and other health concerns as welll as aesthetic effects cause a general lower quality of life. Issues such as peace of mind and freedom from fear should be issues that a local planning board considers.
· Diesal generators that provide power to the tower cause air pollution and noise pollution. The wind hitting a tower can also cause noise pollution. (These arguments are more likely to succeed in more pristine areas.)
· Additional towers for microwave antennas are not inherently beneficial. In virtually every community in the U.S., there are sufficient antennas for police officers, fire protection, and emergency medical services. These are essential services that benefit everyone in a community; they are inherently beneficial. Additional towers for private cellular phone companies are not. The number of Americans using cellular phones increases rapidly every day, but they are still a small minority of Americans. Citizens of a community cannot be expected to suffer the negative effects of cellular towers so that a minority can enjoy a luxury product.
· In some cases, companies have chosen poorer sections of a town to build towers. Is this part of town, where people are unlikely to be able to afford cellular phones, being asked to house the eyesore and health hazard so the other side of town can use the phone?
· Cellular phones cannot be considered public utilities for zoning purposes. Their public benefit cannot be compared with other utilities, such as wireline telephone and power lines for personal electricity. Both of these are unique services that almost every American enjoys. Cellular telephones are enjoyed by aminority of Americans and they do not provide a unique service, they merely expand wireline telephone coverage.
· Cellular telephones are dangerous. Talking on the phone and driving at the same time is dangerous. Studies show that cellular telephone use substantially increases accident rates. There is also evidence that certain types of celular phones interfere with pacemaker and hearing aid operation. These negative effects on safety outweigh the positive effects of cellular phone use. Additional towers in the community may make the community more dangerous, not safer.
· Ask the company for a master plan of placement of future antennas. This will give the community an idea of how many towers will need to be placed and where the company will want to place them. If the company is honest in its estimate of future needs, the information may open people's eyes to the fact that it's not just one tower that they're voting on, but that hundreds of towers will need to be erected i a city. In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, on communications company expects to place 400 antennas around the region. It estimates that 80 of these will be on stand-alone towers. In Chicago, two cellular companies have a combined total of about 850 cell sites in the region. Each puts up an additional 40 to 70 a year. With increased competition, each city may have eight or nine cellular companies building towers.
· Often companies choose tower locations on the basis of cost-effectiveness while ignoring the needs of a community. If a group can show that there is a tower site that is a viable alternative to the one originally proposed, it can force a company to use that site.
· Ask the cellular company for Guarantees. -- For example, Will they Guarantee the safety of the tower? Will they foot the medical bills for any and all local citizens who develop illness and disease as a result of their facilities? Will they guarantee property values? Will they purchase homes and property, at fair market value, if such property becomes devalued or unsalable as a result of the facility? As a consumer, do you purchase products without a guarantee? Most likely not. If the cellular industry is asked to guarantee their products - with not strings attached - they may change their tune.
Posted on Wednesday, December 10 @ 21:31:00 UTC by rfsafe
