file photo by Boyd Loving
Readers Not buying Village’s Ignorance on Mobil Cell Tower
I’m floored that the Village hasn’t demanded the structure be removed immediately. If a resident had one of these in their driveway, all hell would break loose.
Rutishauser can spot an illegal 2′ x 4′ contractor’s sign on a front lawn from 6 blocks away and issue an immediate summons, but misses a 100 foot cell tower? I smell a deal being brokered between the Village and AT&T.
No one from the town noticed the tower which has been up over 4 weeks??.The town searches DAILY for the smallest violation like a sign on YOUR OWN LAWN. They missed a cell tower?? Something is going on here. By the way, make sure you get your garage sale permit too!!
They way things are going in this town we should become part of Hudson County.
They should take it down immediately and go through proper channels. No free pass for skirting the law.
How about a big fine?
I second that. Take it down and pay up the fine as opposed to the payout that probably went under the table to someone to ignore it.
Thank goodness this is finally being managed. They were so RUDE to the woman who spoke at the Village Council meeting a couple of weeks ago. Of course the video was not super clear, but when Arohsohn got shitty with her being frustrated, that came through loud and clear. He wants transparency, but only when there is good news. Bad news clouds his transparency.
To order removal, and fine the operator, requires an ordinance and due process I checked the village web-site with regards to cell towers and all I could find was a definition of commercial cell tower. If anyone could point me or others to the right ordinance that authorizes, fine and removal I would greatly appreciate it.
On the patch there is an article about the town issuing 2 summonses, 1to exxon and 1to the property owner but the tower is still there.
Glad some residents have eyes!!! Obviously our Village Engineer and Council Members aren’t looking up!
CELL TOWER UPDATE: A review of Village Council meeting minutes dating back to 2008 may provide the answer as to why the mobile AT&T tower was brought in.
What the meeting minutes reveal is that for years, several cell phone carriers have attempted to construct a new monopole style tower on property owned by the State of NJ on Franklin Turnpike. However, indications are that Village officials objected to this location because of the State’s unwillingness to share site rental revenue with the Village. Instead, several Village owned properties in the Route 17 corridor were offered as alternatives to the State of NJ owned property. Unfortunately for the Village, there were insurmountable technical issues with each of the alternative sites.
The State’s policy has been to reject construction of cell towers on their properties when objections are made by local government officials, So, due to the objection voiced by Ridgewood officials, a new cell tower can’t be built at the NJDOT facility on Franklin Turnpike (which seems to be the only location that offers the requisite ground space, and meets all technical parameters). Thus, the current holding pattern – and unusual risk taken by AT&T to keep their system functioning (the existing AT&T shared use tower in the construction company’s yard is unable to support equipment required for 4G service).
It is believed that construction of a new tower on State owned property would result in removal of the existing tower at the construction company yard. The Village would get property tax revenue despite the tower being built on State owned property (most likely more tax revenue – the new structure would be larger).
However, the Village would not get any of the site rental revenue, and that’s what this seems to all boil down to; we want our cake, and we want to eat it to. Why do Village officials feel the State of NJ should share site rental revenue with them? Would they expect the same of any property owner? Then why the State?
Oy, oy, oy, nothing is ever simple with Ridgewood government. What are the clowns up to now? No wonder our mayor got short-tempered with the lady who complained. There is always a back-story, and now it looks like the back-story involves money for the Ridgewood coffers.