Subject: Haverford Residents vs Omnipoint (Ciccone)..
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 183041 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
..........Forwarded by EMF-L.......
(guru comment at bottom......)
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:01:04 EDT
From: Cheryl Ciccone
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: Technical Evidence: Haverford Residents vs Omnipoint
Roy,
An update to the Haverford Residents vs Omnipoint case.
--------------------------------------------------------
To recap, this is a situation where Omnipoint (a PCS Communications Co)
has applied for special exception to the local zoning board to install
multi-directional antennae within the existing structure of the bell
tower of a local church which also houses a daycare center that cares for
94 children ranging from 2 months to 5 years. This church is also in the
middle of a residential neighborhood.
PCS Companies:
Some of what I've learned; Roy, correct me, if necessary ...Omnipoint
operates at ultra high frequency (1850/1900). Due to the inefficiency of
these high frequencies, PCS companies need 'line of sight'
antennae/towers to complete what they define as reliable coverage. Their
signal does not travel as far as the (800/900) lower frequencies used by
the original communications companies and emergency services. These high
frequencies were taken from news media and auctioned off or given away by
our government with the assurance of new and competing communication
companies to develop technology.
A special meeting, 4/18 was the fourth continuance from prior meetings.
Of special note regarding technical evidence:
Background:
Omnipoint Communications had a RF engineer submit and testify to maps,
charts and graphs illustrating the quality of phone coverage for their
company resulting in their definition of a 'significant gap.' (Yes, friends,
they fabricate information and twist results; Read below)
Haverford Township is only 4 square miles, and Omnipoint already has four
(4) towers operational with a 5th tower approved and not yet built.
Discovery:
Through cross examination, our attorney discovered that the drive tests were
not executed by this engineer (heresay and questionable accuracy), and that
the tests were conducted on a separate frequency, so did not take all of the
four surrounding towers spill coverage into this 'gap' into consideration!
HUGE error in methodology.
In addition, Omnipoint (in prior testimony) had said that some 'gaps' were
acceptable if traveling from 'reliable coverage to reliable coverage.' It
came out that due to the geographical nature of a portion of the area within
their gap (trees, curvy roads, hills and valleys) ... a portion may NEVER be
'reliable' even with approval of ANOTHER tower at this proposed site.
Potentially, our attorney was able to get the expert to conclude, if other
existing towers and newly approved site were actually included in a new
'drive-test' by Omnipoint or a neutral expert, the gap in coverage may be
less than representative of a "pencil thin line" which would be about
one-tenth the amount of what was already deemed as an 'acceptable gap.'
(Therefore, they might not even NEED this tower, but are going for the
OVERKILL! ... no pun intended on the 'OVER-KILL')
Another note, when asked about alternative site considerations that would
be less intrusive to the community, there was never a satisfactory answer
provided to the zoning board.
Property Values:
In Pennsylvania, sellers are required to disclose what may have an
adverse effect on property value. We interpret this to include stealth
antennae.
Also, in PA, property owners may testify to the value of their own
home/property, their concerns and preferences for any purchase they would
consider. Therefore, my attorney questioned every single neighbor that
got up to testify. The neighbors could then enter on record that they
were concerned about their property value, they would not purchase a
property near or adjacent to microwave antennae and they had concerns
about the tax base when the proliferation of towers and antennae would
necessitate reassessments.
Several parents, neighbors and one teacher who works in the daycare
testified about their health concerns and their suprise that a church or
the zoning board would even consider this application if the remote risk
existed that this could endanger our developing children or our
neighbors.
Current status: Record held open until nearby approved tower is erected
and operational with the requirement of a new drive test to consider all
Omnipoint towers/antennae. I will assist my attorney (and husband) in a
legal brief that we will make available for those who may benefit.
I am sharing this information in hopes that at least one of you may
benefit from our experience as we have benefitted from all of the support
we have found through concerned citizens across the world and through
Roy's network.
Thank you so much for your continued debate. This resource has helped to
shorten our learning curve and win round one of our local challenge.
cheryl ciccone
haverford, Pennsylvania
cheryl_ciccone@hotmail.com
[.........guru comment: I like the techniques and obvious understanding
of the issues displayed by this attorney.....Particularly his cross
examination of the company engineer..... This is where many 'good'
attorneys fall short.....!!!......guru....]
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com