Subject:  (Curry) Re Neighborhood under siege..... (fwd)
Date:     Fri, 29 Jan 1999 031919 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:26:30 -0500
From: "Bill P. Curry" 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: Neighborhood under siege.....

If the fact that Sprint made no effort to find altrnate sites can be proved,
there might be a chance for an appeal.  See what Larry Grabowski wrote to this
list about how Lagrange Highlands, Illinois was able to get approval of a Sprint
site overturned on these grounds.  Also, see Kirk Wines web pages on how Medinah,
Washington dealt with a similar situation over a period of years.

"Roy L. Beavers" wrote:

> .......How easily 'industry' overcomes the ignorance (and greed?)
> of local officials......cheerio.....
>
> Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
> rbeavers@llion.org................
> ...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
> .................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............
>
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:03:40 -0500
> From: Emrall@aol.com (by way of Newtons at Fruitlands )
> Subject: Fwd: Neighborhood under siege
>
> To Whom It May Concern;
>
> I live in South Portland, Maine.  We recently lost a two year battle with a
> local developer that wanted to put a cellular tower in the middle of a
> residential neighborhood.  The tower, with Sprint PCS as the tenant will be up
> and running by the end of February.
>
> The developers original application was denied by the city.  He sued the city
> over their decision, and won in Superior court.  A group of neighbors picked
> up the appeal of the Superior court decision, and took it to the Maine
> Supreme Court. There is was tossed out on a technicality.  Our court
> battle cost over ten thousand dollars.  The city was then ordered to
> approve the site plan.
>
> However, unless a commercial carrier signed a lease with the developer, he
> would have been unable to build the tower.
>
> I spent hours on the phone with the developers potential tenants.  If we could
> have stalled them just six months, he would have lost his option to build.  I
> identified Sprint PCS as the only viable player, and their representative
> assured me they would work with the residents and the city in an effort to
> find a suitable location.  That discussion was three weeks ago, last
> Thursday Sprint PCS signed on to be the tenant without the slightest
> effort to find another location.
>
> This tower is buffered by hundreds of homes, many within a couple hundred
> feet. Also well within the towers EMF is a group of 96 apartments.  Which
> incidentally are owned and operated by the developer.  He simply could care
> less about the neighbors, the neighborhood, or his own tenants safety.  He is
> driven by greed, just like Sprint PCS.
>
> We are really out of known options or ideas.  Houses are being put on the
> market, and the tower is already affecting the owners ability to sell.  Like
> selling to someone else is really a viable solution, as ultimately someone is
> going be be lit up by this metal monstrosity.
>
> I have spent time exploring OSHA, FDA, and the like for a possible last ditch
> effort to stop this travesty.  My thinking is that since the developer
> operates a business on the site, maybe there might be some recourse
> through government agencies that to date has been over looked.
>
> But I am running out of energy, and the neighborhood is running out of time.
> I am writing to you in the hopes that maybe you might have some
> suggestions for us.  We have played by the rules, and nothing has worked.
>
> When this whole thing started, the city council tried to enact a six month
> moratorium on new towers as was recommended by the FCC.  But three councilors
> with well documented personal ties with the developer blocked three attempts
> to enact the moratorium.  That gave the developer time to get his
> application into the city.
>
> Once the application was in, the city was able to work with cellular industry
> officials to develop a new ordinance.  The new ordinance would have forbidden
> this tower location.  Although I appealed to Sprint PCS to work within our
> current ordinance, they decided to side with the sleazy politics that made
> this tower possible in the first place.
>
> I am so appalled by our government, and the FCC that allowed a bill which was
> fully and wholly endorsed by the cellular industry.  Then to have that same
> industry assist our city in the development of a local ordinance, because that
> was playing by the rules of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  So the
> industry which endorsed the federal bill, endorsed our local ordinance,
> decided to ignore the fact that we played by the rules and subverted the
> whole process by agreeing to this tower location.
>
> Bill Hastings, the Sprint PCS representative in charge of securing a location
> in this area told me when ask, "that he did not think this was an appropriate
> site.  He went on to say that "he was amazed anyone would ever have considered
> it in the first place."  However, that had no affect on his final decision to
> give the developer the lease he needed to be able to build the tower.
>
> This is a sad time for everyone.  We seem to have a government of the people,
> but one that is certainly not for the people.  Here we have a situation where
> the desires of the one, where chosen over the needs (safety) of the many.
>
> Can you offer us any hope?
>
> Sincerely, George G. Hackett.






Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html