Posted on

>I’m not sure who has made the official determination that cell towers are the only option for providing cell coverage

>I’m not sure who has made the official determination that cell towers are the only option for providing cell coverage

I’m not sure who has made the official determination that cell towers are the only option for providing cell coverage, or why. Has anyone seen a rooftop installation, shielded by a screen? Probably not – it would be a true “stealth” design (not a 140′ “pipe cleaner” tree). Even more stealth than the non-stealth downtown rooftop installation that no one ever notices. Or, flush-mounted antennae, painted to match a building’s exterior with an interior equipment room? And, for tricky small spots, a mere “repeater” antenna that amplifies the coverage and aims it directly where the gap exists. How much discussion of these options has taken place? From the tone of this “either/or” tower debate, I’ll hazard a guess at very little, if any.

The only way that the full range of options across the Village can be considered is through a Village-wide approach to appropriate options focused on actual coverage gaps, not by these emotionally, physically and financially draining site-by-site battles pitting neighbor against neighbor against town.
Neighborhoods shouldn’t playing “hot potato” with each tower proposal, tossing it on someone else’s doorstep, hoping that when it finally drops, it won’t be in their backyard. It’s a very risky game that may ultimately be lost, along with the goodwill of other neighbors who no longer wish to supported you when that potato drops in your yard – so why play it?

What independent entity has explored, much less confirmed, whether the goal of contiguous coverage necessitates only a monopole design at those identified sites? Or, is it merely the most cost-efficient option for the carrier? Perhaps is it simply the product of a lack of collaboration, patience, foresight and thoughtful evaluation of all needs and options?

Further, to the point that once one site is selected, it is more likely that only one will be built and therefore there aren’t really 3 sites – under what authority do you conclude that all legal rights related to those other sites vanish once one is selected? And, with any such rights come potential causes of action and legal remedies for damages – damages that, ultimately, may become a financial liability to us all.

Instead of trying find a way to pass along this perpetual problem to someone else, the special committee folks are actually looking to solve it. For everyone.
I urge those who aren’t familiar with all the potential facility options to make themselves familiar. No resident’s property will benefit from a tower – though the degree of detriment will vary by proximity, of course. Although it is impossible to completely prohibit them across the board, if we collaboratively explore non-tower alternatives that work for all residents, the town and the carriers, where’s the problem? Does everyone own stock in monopole companies or something?

Starting from an uninformed position of “there’s a coverage gap, so that means a tower must go either here or there” only serves to polarize our community. We should start by saying, where is coverage needed, and what is the best (and least adverse) manner to achieve contiguous coverage? That should be the carrier’s main concern, not how they can squeeze towers into an available lot and then raise the height high enough to make it work just enough.
Is cooperation and amicable resolution really so very difficult? It is in the best interests of all residents to get behind this – why not achieve your objective by helping your Village community and government out with solutions, instead of using that energy to simply move those problems to someone else’s doorstep?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *