Dina Jaeger, who lives on Beebe Hill Road, asked me to post this letter:
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
I am writing to you regarding my grave concerns over the proposed cell tower to be erected on Route 7 at the location of the future Falls Village Fire Department building site. I have always supported and continued to support the FVFD and the vital work that the members provide to our community. And I do understand that there is a need for increased radio frequency communication at this site. But that support not withstanding, I am vehemently opposed to the construction of this tower. There are many reasons to oppose this tower. The most important, to my mind, is public health. These towers emit radio frequencies, a form of electromagnetic radiation, (EMR) for a distance of up to two and a half miles. They are essentially these same frequency radiation of microwaves in a microwave oven. Numerous studies have shown that even low levels of exposure to this radiation cause damage to cell tissue and DNA. There is strong scientific evidence that links exposure to brain tumors, suppressed brain function, depression, miscarriage, Alzheimer’s disease, and numerous other very serious
illnesses. To learn more, go to www.bioinitiative.org (find the summary for the public PDF) and www.safewireless.org.
Children are at the greatest risk due to their thinner skulls and rapid rate of growth. Also at greater risk are the elderly, pregnant women, and anybody with a compromised immune system. Siting a tower so close to two schools and a day care
center is ludicrous. Also ludicrous is the fact that our government does not allow human health concerns to be used as an argument to be used against cell tower construction. That regulation is courtesy of the FCC Wireless Act of 1996, largely written by the lawyers representing the wireless industry. There are no safety standards for electromagnetic low- frequency (ELF) safety in place AT ALL. We all treasure the natural beauty of our region. The vast numbers of migratory birds that pass through the Housatonic quarter are at great risk to EMR exposure. The creatures and plants that make this area one of the most important in this state in terms of biodiversity are also threatened by this radiation exposure. The proposed tower will affect much of Robbin’s Swamp and Housatonic State Forest lands. For information start your search at the websites listed above.
If the health of your family, community and environment are not sufficient to raise concern, consider the effects on your property values. Because my property abuts the proposed site, the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) was obliged to forward to me via certified mail a Hearing Notice on behalf of CellCo Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. This is a very confusing document and is available for review at the Falls Village Town Hall and online at the CSC site. This notice states there will be a public field review at the proposed site at 2 PM on Tuesday, July 1st, when they will fly a balloon to simulate the visual impact of the proposed one- hundred and fifty foot tower. A semi-private hearing at Lee H. Kellogg School at 3PM, and again at 7PM at Kellogg that same evening will follow this. The general public is permitted to make short comments at the 7 PM meeting. The purpose of the hearing is to weigh in on their application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public
Need. Verizon Wireless/ Cellco contends that the public’s need for this facility outweighs any adverse environmental effects. There is cell service currently available at the FVFD site. It’s not Verizon Wireless. Is that company’s desire to increase their market share in
this region a public need?
So, what to do? Get in touch with our local government, stop by town hall, or e-
mail Pat Mechare at canaan021selectman@comcast.net. While you’re at town hall, review the Verizon application. The documents supporting my intervener status are available for review as well. Check out the status of this case online by going to
ct.gov/csc. We are docket number 360. Get in touch with our congressman, Chris Murphyand copy our senators Christopher Dodd and Joe Lieberman. Sign the petition that will be circulating around town (e-mail me if you would like to sign;
dinajaeger@comcast.net). This petition needs to be mailed by June 20th to the Connecticut Siting Council, so don’t delay. Anybody who works, lives or goes to school near this site should consider signing this petition. Most importantly, safe the date of July 1st to have your voices heard.!
I’d like to close with reasserting my continued support for our Fire Department
and others who serve as EMTs. Your health is as important to our community as
anybody’s. Please rethink your position on this tower, for everyone’s sake, particularly
our children’s. Let’s figure out another way to get the radio communication service that you need to do your work. In 2004 the International Association of Firefighters voiced its members’ opinions on cell phone towers and antennas by opposing the installation of cell phone antennas near or on fire stations until a credible study can be done to establish their safety. Go to www.iaff.org for more.
I look forward to working with this wonderful community.
Best regards,
Dina Jaeger
Friday, June 13, 2008
Cell Phone Tower Concerns
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Dan,
Thank you so much for posting this letter. I appreciate your maintaining the blog, while you are so busy with your other ventures! Since we are still new to town, it is a great way to learn what is going on!!! Our twins have kept us very busy but they are 17 months now, so we are finally getting to run around and meet more people. Anyway, thanks again for your hard work and keeping the blog alive.
Best,
Kimberly Allen
Dina,
We are addressing a similar problem in Cornwall Bridge, and although the proposed site is private property rather than public land, it abuts the river and the Popple Swamp. Many of us in the neighborhood share the concerns you've voiced, while others in the community feel that the security issues of having enhanced cell phone coverage is more important. ( I must also add that in addition to the other concerns, our home faces the hill the tower would be placed on, and we object to the visual impact as well. )
We are fortunate in that our First Selectman Ridgway is responsive to our problems with the choice of site. He has worked with someone in Cornwall who has experience designing repeater systems that have been put up in place of cell towers in areas where they won't tolerate them, such are the Pacific Coast Highway. The town sent the proposal to the Siting Council, which has yet to respond.
Although the companies use the wedge issue of safety to install the towers, their real priority ( they are a business after all ) is to try to get their product used as much as possible. They want total coverage, something that just won't happen in these hills.
Also hidden in the contracts are options for the owner of the tower to lease out space to other phone companies - more income for them and a higher tower for us.
It is shocking that our government has in place regulations that impact us in so many ways and yet are designed to allow citizens, or even local government, so little voice.
Our situation on Popple Swamp seems to be stalled, but we see this happening in Kent, Gaylordsville and now in Falls Village. I haven't lived up here long, but if there's anyplace that can challenge the status quo, this has got to be it!
I'll be there on July 1 as a concerned neighbor.
Thanks for posting this,
Victoria Montifiore
It is just disgusting that these enormous communication companies can prey on chronically underfunded not for profit entities. They go after churches and even schools as well as fire departments! The proximity of this proposed tower next to our schools is horrifying. As Victoria wrote, and as you can discover for yourself by researching local newspapers, Verizon seems to have started in Gaylordsville and is working its way up Rt. 7 in its efforts to increase its market presence in Litchfield County. Rt. 7 may not be quite as beautiful as the Pacific Coast highway, but it will be much less pristine if we allow these towers to proliferate. It is definetly time for concerned citizens to push back and let the powers that be in Washington and Hartford know that the health of our children comes way before corporate profits.
I am in total agreement and feel a cell tower is long overdue. As a parent with a child that has lived with a life threatening food allergy all his life it has been very frustrating all these years not to have cell service available when it is out there to be used. In years past I have been tied to my house phone for fear of not being reached if he should go into anaphylaxic shock. I know that death cannot be stopped because of installment of a tower, but he could reach me should he need to if he was being transported to the ER. I could meet him there that much sooner if he had a way to call me at home when he is around town.
When cell service is available he would have more comfort traveling around Falls Village when he hangs out with his buddies. If he needs to reach me, if something should happen, having the cell tower would increase his and all the children safety. For those of you that are unaware, the boys in town, because of lack of a swimming pool over the past 4 years, all like to go to the falls and jump in to get cooled off. Not always with parents consent, but then, we all did things without our parent's permission. If the local boys are there wouldn't it be nice to know, if needed, they can call home, 911 or contact someone for help if necessary. Having the mobility to enjoy Falls Village's local pool, or one of our eateries, the library or any other place in town because cell service is available would open up a world for him, as well as all the other children in town, to call home, to check in or, to report an emergency.
I pray the cell tower is approved!! Approval of the cell tower would open up our lives and lessen our stress incredibly. Honestly, cell service should be available everywhere to ensure safety for all peoples with different disabilities or health concerns.
I hope you all reconsider you decision to fight the cell tower proposal.
Please think of the tower as a blessing from a concerned parent's point of view.
Diane Chinatti
Up until recently, I would have agreed with Diane on this. There is a need for service for both citizens and our emergency services. But after reading the research I truly believe the health risks created by this tower out weigh the benefits. Mt opinion is the town should wait until research can be done on alternative methods of communication devices like Cornwall. There is no rush required.
Anyone believing Verizon is in this to support our emergency services is only fooling themselves, they are in it for the money, period. Besides, no one around here has Verizon service because it doesn't work. If we want extended service, why didn't someone ask AT&T to extend their service? Did they offer less rent? IS everyone supposed to switch to Verizon? I know that's what they want us to do.
If the Association of Fire Fighters is recommending they stop installing them in firehouses, (which they are) I have to believe there is a reason that again out weighs the need for serivce.
Take the time to look at the alternatives, a) a different method of communication or b) if required to have a tower does it really need to be smack on Route 7 so close to our schools where our children attend 180 days of the year? And what about the 100s of people working across the street at Hamiltons?
Don't let this be yet another decision that this town makes without research and public involvement. Its too important. I understand the property is privately held but the health risks affect the population as a whole. The income from this is, and should be, insignificant. Did anyone imvolved with this decision take 5 minutes to see if the benefits outweigh the risks or did everyone involved simply look at the rental income and then believe Verizon when they said you couldn't stop it?
Contrary to opinion from town hall, this is NOT a "done deal" and I commend Dina for doing something about it.
If you believe they are safe, ask yourself, would you put one on your own property and feel your family is safe? I wouldn't and that's good enough for me. And if you have the opinion that its far enough away from your residence that it doesn't matter, what about the people who aren't far enough away? And what distance is far enough away?
How many people died of lung cancer before it was determined cigarettes were unsafe? Do you really believe enough research has begun to state these are safe? As far as I can tell, there isn't ANY.
Go Dina and THANK YOU for looking out for all of us!
I think Chris puts this in perpective quite well. Take out any politics, all organizations, rental income, and even the appearance of that beyond ugly fake tree for a tower (did anyone see what they look like before voting on that thing?, another issue for sure....), you are left with this:
There is no evidence these are safe. There is tons of evidence they are not. The Fire Fighters Association has asked that they halt installation at firehouses for a reason - that reason is safety!
According to the documents submittd this tower is not sufficient to cover all the blind spots so an additional tower will need to be built north of this one. When does it stop? Seems to me that perhaps cell towers are not the answer in these hills.
So I say, take the time to research alternative ways. Don't just let this pass through because you don't think there is a safety issue. Lets research it and do the intelligent thing - what's best for everyone. This is not the answer.
Is there any reason to not do the research on alternative ways outside of the rental income and Verizon being "unhappy"? I can't think of any.
I can't believe no one has even considered it. We didn't just take Verizon at the word did we? I sure hope not.
And do take five minutes and ask yourself Chris's question. Would you be OK with one on your property? Would you feel your family is safe? If you can't honestly say you are certain it's safe, then don't let this one go up. This is not about the people who live nearby, this is about the entire community. We deserve so much better than this.
I really would like to see the science that supports the health concerns. As any scientist (maybe anyone who has taken a science course recently) will tell you: "anecdotes are not data".
Surely cell phones have now been around long enough for some epidemiology to have been done on them, and for genuine, refereed scientific papers quantifying risks attendant upon marginally increased exposures to spectrum frequencies associated with cell phones to have been published in reputable scientific journals.
Unfortunately, most of the so-called "research" I have seen cited by the cell tower opponents looks like it was sponsored by the Flat Earth Society -- it's certainly not science.
Geoff,
Go to the site and review the documents Dina has submitted. The science is all telling and very comprehensive. It is also frightening, especially for children.
Also, there isn't a shred of evidence that says it IS safe. Nothing.
If emergency service locations are recommending we do not install them at these same sites, the sites that need them the most and would benefit the most from them, until further reseatch can be done, shouldn't we listen?
I love my cell phone and all its gadgets. But we aren't talking about the cell phone, we are talking about the tower. Would you have a tower at your house? That questions posed by Chris is all telling. I don't know anyone who would say yes.
Everybody is an environmentalist in their own backyard.
I guess we can disagree about whether the science is either comprehensive or all-telling. I did read the 2001 EC paper fairly carefully, and did not see any basis for concern except, really, for the pretty clear risk of people talking on their cellphones, being distracted, and causing accidents. There was information about heat injury but I don't think that's what we are talking about here.
Interestingly, even the press release of the organization that had organized the papers was calling for more research, not for a ban.
Also, I'm not sure that it's really possible to prove something safe, as you request. Unless I misunderstand epidemiology, the usual approach is to examine a symptom or condition and determine the causal factors. And we already know that cell phones are "unsafe" (when people talk on them while driving), so clearly we should eliminate them on that basis. On the other hand, think of the number of people injured in auto accidents when they collide with telephone poles! So, clearly, telephones are hazardous, too, even for those who do not use them!
Actually, I rarely use my cellphone because we don't get any reception where I live. So I would be delighted to at least have a repeater in my back yard -- or my front yard.
the issue of this tower goes a little deeper,than if one side or the other has been proven .the issue is there is a possibility that we will be harmed by this device,I don't see how or why you would debate this if you have done the research.
are we willing to be quinea pigs,history has shown we can't trust the corporations -tobacco/teflon/asbestos
to MAKE SURE they are not harming us
and preying on our fears and adding to them is one of the biggest marketing strategies of our time-hey it worked for W's second term
and THEY are using it on us to sell the need for a cell.
I remember a time when if you needed help or a phone you just had to go to the nearest house and knock and if you where in a remote place
you took a walkie they sell those still and you aren't POSSIBLY
poisoning your neighbors
I want to see the firehouse built I will give all I can to get this done but not my families well being
one of the points of living in a community like ours is to be free of all the chaos and afflictions of the so called real world.
We as a group have to decide if we really want to live in this kind of a community or would we be happier elsewhere
this issue again goes a little deeper
Please consider the BIG PICTURE and this not a time for the easy money,that is what they are counting on,this is an opportunity
for us to grow stronger as a community and stand strong and show what we as a community can get done TOGETHER
SAFELY
if you need to use the phone just knock
Dom Caiati
Geoff. The danger referred to is with the tower, not the cell phone itself. There is plenty of scientific research completed to show there is a danger with the towers. They are being removed all over Europe and safer alternatives are being utilized. The research is there, you just need to find it. Call Dina and ask her for copies.
Dom - you got it right! Everyone wants to see the firehouse built and this has nothing to do with that, nothing at all. I do believe that if the firemen and the town officials were educated on the dangers they wouldn't want it either. I keep going back to the fact that the Fire Fighters Association recommends stations put a stop to new installations until research can be done. That is a powerful statement on the safety of these towers.
The tower can not go up because one of our non-profits needs the rental income. That can NOT be part of the equation. I have known most members of the fire department for years and not one that I know would want this if they were eductated on the dangers. It is unfortunate that Verizon is not sharing the data on the health issues related to towers.
We all understand the desire for emergency services to have better service, but taking this risk with everyone's health is not the way to do it. That site has service, we just need to find a way to fill the gaps.
Again, as with so much in this town, SLOW DOWN and do the research before a decision is made. Take the time to look at the alternatives. Take the time to inform the public, including the emergency service volunteers and please, take the rental income out of the equation. If anyone reading this is angry with this "concern" based on the loss of that income, well, something just isn't right. And this community is better than that!!!
I just read in todays Litchfield County Times that the CT Siting Council has denied two cell tower applications in Gaylordsville. The citizens organized and were heard! Awesome!
my question is - according to the minutes this arrangement was made with the fire company more than two years ago. Why wasn't the public notified of this arrangement before now? Why was this kept so quiet? This is a public issue, not a private issue. It doesn't matter who owns the land the tower is on, its a public issue. Is there something to hide? I hate the fact that this was hidden from the public until now and everyone is told there is nothing that can be done (thankfully that is not true). Its unfortunate we can't operate like other towns in the area - with transparency and community involvement. It is just so sad that this is apparently all about greed. What has happened to this village?
My other question is who is going to have to pay all the taxes for those who now have a right to have their property devalued due to the tower affecting the property value of all homes within a two mile radius? Did anyone take the time to research THAT? How much will that cost the taxpayers? Is the fire company going to donate the rental income to the town to make up the difference? Is it enough?
Again, what has happened to this community? Is it being run totally on greed and money with a total disregard for the health, well being and value of residents homes?
Has ANYONE looked through the trees to see the forest of chaos that could come of this or are you only looking at the dollars?
Truth is, I don't believe its all about greed. I just don't think anyone took the time to look at the repercussions of putting up this tower. Money is powerful. Of all the places in this town, putting it in the most heavily populated area of all the property within the town is just plain stupid. I apologize, its a harsh word, but I am hard struck to come up with anything better.
I would love to sign this with my name but because I was one who insisted, and lost, this be made public over two years ago, I can not.
sad to say, this has been the way of politics in Falls Village for the last several years: A good ol boys network with ALOT going on behind the scenes....
Ok-wow,
its time to use the anger in a positive direction
being at odds with each other is why all of the so called behind the scenes issues happen
we can find an answer to this together as a community that is what is needed
If Gaylordsville can do it so can we!
this issue is not going to be resolved using one financial reason to defeat another
who cares about property values
this is a long term issue-a long term health issue
that if presented to the right people with respect and understanding- the undeniable, this tower COULD MAKE US ALL SICK,why risk it!
That is how we are going to defeat this-
please do as much research as possible and present
this research-with respect and understanding-
to all interested parties
hearing is on July 1st 7pm LHK
I have been informed that this is not necessarily
a forum for debate or comment-
but a pleasant attitude may go a long way at getting our objections heard
write Chris Murphy about your concerns
this may help.
Joe is to busy being wooed from both sides me thinks.
anyway, come on -we can do this
and it does not have to be with a negative spin
see you all July 1st 7pm LHK
I'm concerned about some of the misperceptions that I've read on this blog, which by the way I read infrequently. I've been involved with the fire department for a long time and for someone to suggest secrecy on the part of the department about this matter is unbelievable to me. There was no effort by the fire department to hide the fact that it had been approached by Verizon as one person on this blog has suggested. The interest and offer was discussed by the department at numerous meetings and I can assure people who read this blog that NEVER, EVER were members of the Department told to keep Verizon's interest a secret. As far as I know no one came to the Department with that or any other concern. I try to make it my business to be well informed about town issues. It is my understanding that unless a tower is proposed on Town owned property, the Town has absolutely no say in the where a tower might be located. Property owners don't have to come to the Town for permission to negotiate an agreement. Whom the communications company might approach for a possible siting or whether the property owner accepts any overtures is not information the Town is generally privy to until the communication companies have signed the contract with the property owner. The Town receives a voluminous report from the legal firm that represents the communications company. A very complete study is done and made available to the Town and its various boards and Commissions. All this information also goes to the State of Connecticut Siting Council which reviews it and sets a date for a hearing, if appropriate. On the day of the hearing many other procedures are adhered to and a balloon is flown at the site. The blogger who said that the Town makes this decision is incorrect. The local government does not make the decision about tower location nor do the townspeople, although citizens are encouraged to speak at the hearing in the obvious effort to influence the decision. The Connecticut Siting Council makes the decision about tower sitings based on the information that it is legally allowed to consider and it is they, not the Town, who decides a proposed tower's fate after that hearing, which as others have mentioned is to be held on July 1 at 7 PM at Kellogg School. Like it or not the Federal government does not allow concerns about human health to be considered and as I understand it the Connecticut Siting Council can disallow such testimony at the hearing, although I have heard that they generally do give the courtesy of people stating their concerns. I found at Town Hall a copy of the Dina's attorney's extensive brief and numerous other pieces of information that she felt might be helpful for people to know about and as I understand it the Board of Selectmen had absolutely no objection to her placing it there for public consumption. Doesn't sound to me like anybody there indicated the decision on the tower was a done deal as was suggested by one of the bloggers! I read the brief and no where does it mention human health issues. It focuses on environmental issues of floral, fauna, birds and other wildlife and protected areas as these are things the Siting Council can consider in its deliberation. As I understand it the document submitted to the Siting Council by the communications company has been available for months at the Town Hall as well. If you are serious about halting the building of this tower you ought to focus on those things which the Siting Council can consider and make your case. By the way as part of my information gathering Verizon is making application for another tower on Route 7N after the flats and that document too, has been part of public information for months, although as far as I know no application to the Siting Council for that tower has been made as of yet.
Dom Caiati for President !!!!
I agree with Dom and hope most others do too. I understand why so many are angry, its normal. I do believe this should have been brought to the attention of the community immediately, not so late in the game. Leaving packets at town hall, without publically letting people know they are there, isn't really disclosure. This involves the entire community and should have been dealt with by the entire community. But, that's the cards we have been dealt so now it is time to deal with it rationally and with a cool head. Go to the meeting on July 1st and be heard and listen. If we join together as one, like they did in Gaylordsville, we will be succesful. We should all be on the same team. The "enemy" here is Verizon. Let's focus on that.
I'm all for a cell tower-I would be a little worried about the health effects of living under the high electric wires.
The anonymous blogger who wrote that human health issues are not allowed for consideration in siting cell towers is correct. This outrageous situation needs to be changed. We must work to change the law. On another note, isn't the Falls Village part of Route 7 a designated 'scenic road'? Does anybody know if that actually means something?
Hi-wasn't it a beautiful day
Please help me-I have been sifting through the
Ct. Siting Council 's web site to find out more
and there is plenty about the up coming hearing
Go Dina, Bodies we need bodies at this hearing
Dina and the wetlands/conservation commission
have plenty of evidence-you would think-I have read some of the doc's sited and don't see how you can
ignore the truth" they just don't know what these towers-including the electrical ones are doing to us"
NOT WORTH THE RISK
I encourage the board of selectmen and the Fire Department to read these as well.
We don't need this kind of money
ALSO-I found on the same site
there are THREE more cell sites in Falls Village
and one of these is on there APPROVED list
145 Beebe Hill Rd. owned by CL&P APPROVED
100 Railroad Street "" town of Canaan
35 Railroad Street "" Falls Village Fire Dept.
is this true-please someone go on this site
and tell me I am WRONG,please.
One final note-about the hole issue of secrecy
I don't believe there has been a lack of discloser
on the part of anyone involved,and remember the majority of our community is volunteer,we should be supporting these people or maybe volunteering
ourselves,if we have a problem with how things are run.
Having said that I do think the elected officials particularly in our town -have been elected
to there positions at least by me to say-
HEY DID YOU KNOW THIS WAS GOING ON
WHAT DO YOU THINK-this is what is needed to
help all of the bad feelings and issues that seem to arise in our little town
any way I hope this is taken as constructive
and please someone help me out with the cell info on Ct. Siting Council
See ya for a waffle
For those of you who don't know, I found out that this application HAS BEEN discussed at Board of Selectmen, Inland Wetland Conservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, all public and noticed with agendas prior to the meetings, so I'd say that town officials have put the matter of the application out there. Further, it has additionally been reported in the newspaper and as someone else said all this information has been available at the town hall for a long time for anyone to view or ask questions about.
Come on, let's admit it, not many of us pay attention to what happens at any of these meetings as is evidenced by public attendance and it doesn't seem that very many of us read newspapers extensively either. We're all busy with our own lives and families and in most cases, with both mom and dad working we have our hands full with day-to-day tasks. We don't seem to volunteer very much, and if we do, it usually has something more directly to do with our kids. Then when we haven't paid attention to something that might be important to us and find out about it later we sometimes don't have all the background and accurate information.
Someone on this blog attempted to explain the whole process that the Siting Council uses and health issue concerns, as Noelle has reiterated, cannot be considered. Maybe the Inland Wetlands Conservation Commission can make a compelling argument regarding negatives to the environment, but if they have official remarks I suspect it has to stay in that realm to be seriously considered.
I've gone to the Siting Council website like Dom and the rest of you who have blogged here should go to the site too. Go to the section about decisions that have been made regarding placement of the towers. Use as much of that information as you can to make your case. You'll see that not in one decision where a tower was denied was the decision based on a single human health concern. You won't find decisions about some of the towers that may have been proposed and you've heard about, because an application was never filed with the Siting Council.
Talking without action solves nothing. You have a much better chance of effecting change if all of you who think there is a human health danger with these towers become active on a broader level as Noelle has suggested to persuade the feds that there is enough evidence to prove there is a human health danger. The Siting Council is locked into the current criteria when considering tower sitings. I have great respect for you folks who have this opinion and are so passionate about it, although personally I'm not particularly persuaded at this point in time and agree with Geoff about the science of it or lack thereof.
To try and answer Dom's other concern I think the "towers" noted on Siting Council's website at 35 Railroad and 100 Railroad are simply antennas for radio communication that have to be registered with the state. I'm not sure about the 145 Beebe Hill approval, but I think that had something to so with adding some sort of telecommunication system to the existing high tension tower near the road there. I remember several articles in the newspaper probably two years ago about it.
Dom is right. Come out to the hearing July 1st to express your opinion, one way or the other.
You're right. Most of us are so busy we don't have time to go to town hall and read the information available or go to the meetings. Many of us also do not read the Lakeville Journal. The notices by Verizon were put in the Hartford Courant and the Register Citizen, neither of which are read thoroughly for Falls Village news because typically there isn't any. I do have to wonder why they did not put the information in the Journal, the only paper available for the NW corner. That's disturbing and you have to wonder if it wasn't intentional given the fact that it is the only newspaper that covers the area the tower is expected to be built. The only article was Terry Cowgill's a month or so ago.
Given all of this and the fact that this is a community issue, not a Fire dept issue at all, I would have hoped the issue would have been brought to the public's attention more thoroughly then postings at town hall and meetings that all involved are rarely attended. Its too important to leave it at that. I believe its the job of the officials to keep the community informed of decisions and it would have been better had they taken the time to really inform us. I agree that what has happened to date is not "disclosure".
I would estimate that prior to this blog and Dina's efforts to inform the community, at least 70% of the residents of Falls Village had no idea this was happening. That is just too many uninformed people.
It is true that you can't fight this with health concerns due to an idiotic federal law (that's another issue worth fighting) so you have to resort to property values, environment and scenic roads - all mentioned above and definitely in Dina's documents. I agree, compared to health issues, property values are immaterial, but given the fact you can't base a case on health, we have to give every other negative aspect of this tower consideration and use it to fight the battle.
I do not have the education in cell towers to make a real sound judgment on the health issues but I do agree that putting this tower in the most populated area in the whole town is beyond absurd. There is enough information out there to justify concern, at the very least, and to risk the health of so many individuals by this one location is irresponsible, inconsiderate and I agree, STUPID. Have the officials of town actually agreed that this is a "good" site? According to the letter written by Ms. Mechare to the citing council they have.
As asked above, did anyone take the time to even consider alternatives? It doesn't appear any one did which leaves at least me to believe all that was seen were the dollar signs. Ignorance and greed at their best.
Do take the time to read the material on the website. Show up on July 1st. Ask the questions, be informed.
As a family who sought out natural beauty and rolling, historic farmland we were greatly disappointed and shocked to learn - thanks to a concerned neighbor - of the proposed Verizon cell tower just five days ago. We are opposed to the tower and it’s placement for many reasons; near a school and populated areas (unknown health risks), near private residents (a certain devalue of our investment and the investment of our community), and in the scenic National Heritage Area (irresponsible use of green space forgoing natural beauty). For us, it’s disheartening to learn that our home will be at eye level with this 157’ tall fake pine tree receiving the full brunt of the electromagnetic frequency as well as the audacious visual interruption to incredible beauty.
It is curious that an antenna would be put into a low valley attempting to reach higher elevations. Certainly, towering over the Housatonic River Valley is not the optimum site. There must be a better, less populated, more inconspicuous place if the argument ‘against’ turns into the argument for ‘where’.
After reading a lot of material available I would like to add a few websites that might provide some support or education. Since it seems difficult to argue a case regarding health issues we need to find alternatives as suggested by others.
Check out this site for the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area as it’s full of information we might be able to use. I have contacted the new Director; his name is Dan Bolognani, informing him of the hearing on July 1st.
http://www.upperhousatonicheritage.org/
http://www.hvatoday.org/show.cfm?page=land/heritage.htm&folder=land
This site talks about Legislation passed designating the Upper Housatonic River Valley as a National Heritage Area making the region officially part of the National Park Service system. Please note the ‘Highlands Critical Treasures’ map. Also, HVA launched the Housatonic RiverBelt Greenway to meet the need for comprehensive land protection and management and river corridor revitalization along the Housatonic River and its tributaries.
Here is the Kent Times site talking about their recent cell tower debate:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19322490&BRD=1657&PAG=461&dept_id=13476&rfi=6
Two older articles but worth reading for some cell tower background:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0889.htm
http://www.cellslayer.com/links.htm
The Electromagnetic radiation information page
http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/index.htm
http://www.emrpolicy.org/review/2007.htm
Thank you.
Mitzi Magid
plese see the blog entry "Speak Now" dated Feb 15th, regarding the parcel of land on Rt.7. Is this the same parcel to be used for the cell tower?
Was the cell tower an unknown item at this point in time?
Way to go Mitzi! and welcome to town.
So the tower will jeopardize our health, especially the health of our children, our property values, our environment, our designation as a scenic road, our designation as part of the Housatonic Valley National Heritage, our availablility of grants through this designation, possible loss of tax revenue through lower property values, and the list continues.
The benefits - rental income? Wow, this seems like a no brainer to me. If we have gone all these years without a cell tower and all these years without the rental income, I can't imagine why anyone would favor endangering any of the above. No money is worth all that!
In the letter from the First Selectman to the citing council it states they have the STRONG SUPPORT of the selectman. The letter is dated April 28th, 2008. Did anyone even know about it then? I do hope the citing council understands the strong support comes from three individuals (the selectmen) and is not a representation of the town as a whole. That would surely be misleading. I can't imagine why there would be strong support for an issue where obviously the negatives have not been researched or considered.
July 1st, 7pm. BE THERE!
How important is a town's visual appearance?
Falls Village residents are lucky to live with a minimum of visual contamination. Rural aesthetic seemed to be the big factor in the discussions brought up while forming the recent town plan. Keep the charm, leave things as they are was the consensus.
How do we feel about branding ourselves as a communications hub? What comes to mind as you drive by the huge metal tower/ trees in other places.
The first thing any resident or visitor might see upon arriving to Falls Village would be a massive tower structure completely out of scale with it's residential surroundings
A modern icon whether we like it or not, you pick if it's positive or negative, regardless, the town would be visually branded forever.
Ask yourselves if this is how you see the future of Falls Village?
As stated in this blog this may not be won by health science in the near term but in the short term we have an opportunity to try to protect the aspects of this town that are unique and positive.
I encourage everyone to come up on Beebe Hill road on Tuesday for the balloon flying so we can see exactly how large the proposed tower is. A good show of faces at the meeting at 7:00 might help influence the citing council.
Personally I prefer the image of the Great Falls as representative of Falls Village (even if they are in Amesville!) rather than a monolithic fake pine tree! The last Town Plan, written by the citizens of our town, said over and over that preserving the fundamental rural character of our town was a number one priority. This is such a boondoggle in the making! Come out tomorrow night at 7 at Lee H. Kellogg School to have your voice heard. And the public is most welcome to attend the 3PM session (also at Kellogg) to witness the proceedings and stand in solidarity with our local hero, Dina Jaeger.
So...if I've got this right it's 2 PM today Tuesday, July 1st, when they will fly the balloon at the site, i.e on Route 7; a semi-private hearing at Kellogg at 3PM today where we can show up but not say anything; 7PM at Kellogg again today, when general public is permitted to make short comments. Well, that sort of gets my day organised. Now off to work so I can be back home by 2.
I thought the meeting last night went very well. All who spoke “against” the cell tower acknowledged the need for the emergency services to have the ability to communicate. Everyone supports that issue, as far as I could tell. And I think everyone in town supports the fire dept and emergency service personnel 110%, that was made even more clear last night.
However, with only 1 speaking for the tower and many against, it was also made very clear, at least to me, that there are so many real issues with this site and this tower. What are the health risks? Why put it in the only populated area of our town? What happens to the property values? Who does pay for the reduction in tax revenue due to the lower assessments to neighboring properties? What happens to the animals, amphibians and the birds, specifically the almost extinct eagle? Or the blue spotted salamander? Why can’t a radio tower be installed instead of a cell tower? Who is getting the rental revenue and will it be used to offset the lower tax revenue? And as was questioned many times lastnight, when Verizon/Cellco offered to the First Selectman last October (!) to be part of a public informational meeting, why didn’t our First Selectmen accept the offer? I think the community deserved to have the meeting to be informed and I find it very disheartening to learn that the person we have elected to represent the community as a whole has chosen to represent only the interests of the fire department. In whose best interest was it to make the decision against a public informational meeting? Why would the offer be declined? I can't come up with a reason to say no. It certainly was not in the best interest of the community.
Lastly, as one gentleman said “Do we really want to be known as the town that says “ take a left at the cell tower?”
Dina Jaeger: thank you for looking our for all of us and doing what you believe is the very best thing to do. You really are out hero.
Who contracted and is paying for the Attorney Fees attached to the Town Attorney (co-council) sitting next to Mrs. Mechare during yesterdays Cellco/Ct Siting Council hearings? Would that be the Fire Dept., or the Town of Canaan, or some other interested party?
This should be (and under law is) public information.
How does one ask for this information?
ASK THE QUESTION!
Via email or phone call to Mrs. Mechare, or by calling or stopping by town hall and having a conversation with Mrs. Mechare or our other Selectmen Peter Lawson and Chuck Lewis.
Practice and INSIST on Democracy!
Have a great 4th of July!
I did not attend this meeting but have heard so much about it. It sounds as if there is little concern about it being put up on this site which is a relief. But, where are the other locations being considered? Can the people who know PLEASE inform the public NOW so we don't go through this again?
I don't know why town council would be at these proceedings but having known Mrs. Mechare for decades I have to believe she is either being paid for by the fire department, which Mrs. Mechare is a member of, or there was a reason why the town needed to be protected by an attorney during the proceedings. I don't begin to understand why, but as said earlier, ask Mrs. Mechare why the lawyer was there and who paid the bill. Mrs. Mechare will tell you the truth, just ask.
I did attend the meeting and although it did seem that Cellco/Verizon was at least bloodied, it was not a knock out. Before getting too complacent, we should remember that the testimony and cross is due to go on during the next hearing, July 31st at the offices of the Citing Council (unless the Citing Council kills the application before then). Cellco/Verizon did talk about another tower being necessary for continuous coverage and mentioned a location somewhere near Rts. 7 and 63. I would hope that the proximity to Robbin's Swamp would get the DEP involved if that is the case. Cellco/Verizon wants market share and will keep trying, so we have to be vigilant! I just heard that they're trying again in Cornwall on Dark Entry road... Because of the hills we live in there will NEVER be complete coverage, just an enormous amout of dangerous, ugly towers - unless we keep our eyes (and mouths) open!
with all these hills, Noelle is correct, we will never have complete coverage with cell tower technology. Is there a reason we haven't looked in to satellite phones? Isn't that where we are headed anyway. When they are the 'newest technology" and required by the feds with some new stupid laws like the telecommunication laws of 1996, all we will have left is outdated technology and a bunch of really ugly towers.
If this issue is truly about coverage for emergency services, and not about money for a firehouse that will never be built, then lets look into the latest technology and see if we can't get the very best for our fire dept.
This blog is the best thing to happen to this town in a century! Due to a family emergency I was unable to attend the meeting on July 1st and am so grateful to have a place to find the information I missed.
With the people I have spoken to it appears the risk of a cell tower going in on this spot is not very threatening and to that I say, Mrs. Jaeger, you are the best!.
Now what has been learned however, is very troubling. More sites, more towers, more issues. I like the idea of satellite radios and phones. They are already here so why waste the time, energy, ill-will, health, environment, landscape, and everything else on something that can so easily be avoided with satellite technology. Do these require a type of tower? I haven't heard of any.
The other disturbing news is the fact that Verizon offered to hold a meeting for the citizens of Falls Village to learn of this tower, technolgy, and anything else we could ask, in an informal setting 9 months ago. I would very much like to know why our First Selectman turned down that offer. I agree with the post above, it is truly disheartening to know our "mayor" didn't consider the entire community with this issue. To me, that just isn't fair and it is not what the elected officials are required to do by state Statute.
At they very least a public meeting should be scheduled immediately when the next application is discussed, not enforced, discussed! since they are already being discussed I feel it appropriate to call one now. Anyone else feel that way? Verizon is willing, why isn't our First Selectman?
does anyone know if the state and federal funds received for the new firehouse were given with the knowledge that a cell tower is under contract since june of last year, to be built on and leased on this property which is within the national heritage and on a scenic road? is that allowed? was it disclosed before funds received and spent? not a cell tower issue I know but it will be a community issue if it has to be given back to the feds and or the state.
let's focus on the cell towers. the rest is just unnecessary. If there are more sites to be considered then lets have the public meeting with Verizon so we can all be informed together. The only way to bring the best solution for the community is if the problems are solved together as a community. Remember, there is no "I" in "team".
Very wise words. How can the community work together to solve the problem of needed communication for emergency services, together rather than one person or one entity? Wouldn't it be great if we could put together a committee to solve this problem and then go to the town at a public meeting with solutions and ask for suggestions. Wouldn't it be great if we considered everyone's opinion as best we could? Obviously we can't please everyone but it sure would be nice if everyone that wanted to got a chance to be educated on the subject and a chance to be heard. Isn't that what democracy, especially in small towns, is supposed to be?
This IS a community issue, let's solve it AS a community.
I would like to ask everyone in the community to write to the Siting Council with their concerns about this cell tower. All written correspondence needs to be in their hands prior to the next hearing date (July 31st). Pro or con to the placement of this tower, your communicaton will not be considered to be part of the testimony unless you get it to them before this date. I would also like to encourage folks to write to our local papers...we're front page news at the moment, but not yet reflected in the Letters to the Editor...please, put it out there! Our congressman, Chris Murphy, should also be copied (or written to directly) on the issue. The Telecommunications Act is an outrage. Push back! Shouldn't we in the United States have the same safety standards as, say, Turkey? Or Taiwan? Or the UK? Or Switzerland?
Good for you for fighting this cell tower... I think we all have reasons to be concerned about EMFs/cell phone radiation... especially the parents of children.
Look at this video of cell phone radiation being measured:
http://emfreview.com/product-reviews/aircom.html
I think we should get all the information we can and do what we can to protect ourselves and our families.
For all of you that cell phones that say the tower is a health hazard. Well you put them cell phones to your ears don't you, they're a health hazard, too. But noone thinks about the cell phones being harmful to your health. And I would say 90% of you have cell phones. For the people that don't support the fire department with our fundraiser that we have, then how can we raise money with out your support. We had a carnival but we did get the support to make money, our raffles are ok, other fundraiser with out great support!!!! WE HAVE BILLS JUST LIKE YOU !!!!! Equipment is costly and WE PROTECT YOU AND YOUR HOMES!!!!!!! This tower is income for the fire department, IF we don't get the support from fundraisers and can't get income from other options. Eventually this town will have no option but to have a paid fire dept. & EMS , or nothing at all. Just remember one thing we Volunteer All Our Time and alot of it !! So for the ones that are spending all their money on figthing the tower, Donate it to the fire dept and support us and we would not have to look for other ways to get income. Thanks Robert
Post a Comment