|
|
Post by jdelisa on Aug 29, 2010 11:39:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 30, 2010 9:10:49 GMT -5
Interesting read.
I think the risk being taken by all of the anti-cell tower advocacy groups, meaning the risk that their challenges and opposition could fail or be denied, is their reliance on specious health risk arguments.
In my opinion, health-scare tacticts should be abandoned altogether, and advocates against cell towers should focus exclusively on aesthetics and propery values. Those are two arguments they could win in some cases. They are also two arguments which will be drivers for the cell tower industry to improve both their technology and their siting strategies.
Putting health-scare issues on the table reduces the impact of challenges because doing so creates an inference by the adjudicating authorities that the challenge is poorly thought-out, ignores a key factor of the law, and is really just a NIMBY action in disguise.
I note with interest that twenty years ago there were no cell towers, and firmly believe that at some point in the not too distant future there will be no more cell towers as a replacement technology will have emerged to replace them. If the objections to cell towers focus on the tangible, real and present negative effects on property values and aesthetics, that will force the hand of the cell tower industry to hasten the eventual date of the demise of cell towers, from let's say 20 years to perhaps 5 years.
Conversely, tilting at windmills and fighting the imaginary boogey man of health risks will only serve to prolong the conflict for irate citizen groups. There is already a federal statute dealing with (disposing of) the health risk argument. That statute did not arise accidentally or haphazzardly; it had a purpose and sufficient validity to pass muster and survive court challenges. The Town of Hempstead has acknowledged that federal lawsuits brought against the Town based on the Town's occasional past consideration of health-scare tactics are (expensive and embarrasing) "automatic losers" for the Town.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradnanita on Nov 27, 2010 16:06:49 GMT -5
"chriswendt" got it right, except that most of this opposition to cell antennas is based on the totally bogus claims and ignorance based fears that there is a health issue involved. Nobody who really takes a look at all the other ugly hardware lining our streets can honestly claim that a few additional antennas strategically located on a few buildings will make a noticeable difference. The property value issue is currently real, but it wouldn't be real if all the fear mongering hadn't been so successful, and it would go away if the general public was better educated.
|
|
