Peter Berg: No more Howard Stern in MY head!
Greenwich taxpayers will now pay to assist 12 Cos Cob residents sue the water company over a 17-foot-tall cell antenna at the Mianus filter plant. if someone – Peter Berg, zoning commission honcho, for instance -wants to fall prey to delusions of dangerous radio waves flowing past his tinfoil hat and into his ears well, that’s his right, although it does bring into question his suitability to serve on any town board, let alone the zoning commission. But why should we subsidize and encourage his paranoia by taking over his private law suit (“joining”, theoretically, but from here on in, we’ll be doing the heavy lifting here)? balderdash.
C’mon, Chris – from the Town’s point of view it’s not about the cell tower, it’s about the deed restriction and reversion. The CT Supremes interpreted similar (but not identical) language over in King Merritt Acres as prohibiting any use other than water use. And, the Town was in the lawsuit as a defendant anyway, so it’s not as if it would have been cost free.
Old fashioned cell towers are no longer needed. There is new technology which makes these dinasoars obsolete. The rub is the new tech costs 3X the money, so the wireless companies want to go the cheaper route, and they have the powerful CT ” siting council” which trumps local countrol.
So we are blighting our neighborhoods for nothing more than supporting the quarterly profit reports of a few giant telecommunications companies.
CF – I ‘m a republican, not some liberal tree- hugger, but trust me, I know what I’m talking about here. We should demand the wireless companies use the better tech, and it will require the town’s participation to make this happen. Residents shouldn’t have to fight this battle alone; this is exactly the kind of thing ( protecting our homes and property values) that local governments should do.
How would you feel if ATT got a lease from some greedy neighbor to put a tower across from your deck on your beloved creek, ruining the vista (and your property value btw). Add to that that you knew there was new tech that made this completely un- necessary, and your town said to you “sorry, we have no authority here, its the siting council.” That would of course be unjust and infuriating.
I think we will also come to see in years ahead when this eventualky changes that it was shameful that we acted like passive victims and accepted such an absurb state of affairs.
Food for thought, BC
Ps sorry for all the typos; still have not gotten used to this iphone keypad.
Creek . . . wading birds . . . potato cannon . . . hmmm?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/17/BAP71P31B5.DTL&tsp=1
Backcountry- You may be a Republican but your knowledge of economics is that of a Democrat. Their is no free lunch, if we want better more expensive less ugly antennas then our monthly cell phone bills by necessity go up. I suspect few want to pay more for less nasty towers.
Well maybe technological manufacturing progress will come to our rescue and drive the price of the devices BC writes about down to a level where it’s cheaper for the companies to employ it than fight lawsuits to install towers in residential neighborhoods.
Or even replace existing towers with them?
Apparently Mr. Higgins, one of the 3 neighbor-plaintiffs in the cell tower suit, told the RTM that the neighbors have footed the legal cost, so there will be no cost borne by the Town to join the suit.
And the RTM believed this, apparently. Sorry, but all lawsuits cost money, and often lots of it.
Chris – I’m impressed that you have an open mind about this, and I think that you are exactly on point about prices coming down when the tech becomes more broadly used – this is always the progression. I am told that the new tech (called DAS – for distributed antenna systems) will eventually replace existing towers. I just hope that the old towers get removed, and not abandoned or just left there and used in a marginal way, which sometimes happens when the cost of removal is high.
Balzac-the Town was already a defendant in the lawsuit, so the question was which side it would take, not whether it would have to make an appearance and be involved.
BC – I can’t imagine anyone (other than someone getting paid for a tower lease) not welcoming the replacement of the towers with DAS technology, especially once the prices come down. Perhaps, once the towers are no longer used, their removal can be required.
When is the town going to fight for me and remove all the towers along US1 and I-95? This is crap fighting for a pocket of 22 households when there are at least 10 other towers in town showering tens of thousands of us with an endless barrage of radio waves. Either the town fights for all of us or none of us.