Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
5G faces resistance on Martha's Vineyard.
Select board won’t answer AT&T’s call
Tisbury board asks for alternative to cell antenna site; approves outdoor dining plan.
By George Brennan - July 15, 2020
Residents of this house at 59 Church St. object to a plan to put a cell antenna on the pole outside their bedroom window. — Rich Saltzberg
They didn’t say no, but the message to AT&T about a wireless small cell antenna on a utility pole at 59 Church St. was as clear as if they were speaking on a landline — find a new location.
In a 2-1 vote Tuesday, with select board member Larry Gomez in opposition because he was ready to vote no, the Tisbury select board continued the public hearing to the board’s next meeting on Tuesday, July 28, to give the company time to come up with alternatives. But with Gomez already openly opposing the site and board member Jeff Kristal and chairman Jim Rogers urging that other sites be considered, AT&T attorney Edward Pare said, “I get the message loud and clear.”
Kristal suggested AT&T look at the town hall roof. The steeple has been taken down and is being rebuilt, and could make a good location for a cell antenna, he said. “I really don’t think they’ve done their homework to find the sites,” Kristal said.
Two neighbors of the Church Street location voiced their objections during the public hearing.
“It’s going to be right in my view when I look out my bedroom window,” Church Street resident Ludwig Alban said, noting the pole is about 18 feet away. He expressed concerns about public health, something Gomez also touched on, linking emissions of microwaves to cancer.
Pare said the cell antennas are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and AT&T complies with those regulations.
{snip}
Tisbury board asks for alternative to cell antenna site; approves outdoor dining plan.
By George Brennan - July 15, 2020
Residents of this house at 59 Church St. object to a plan to put a cell antenna on the pole outside their bedroom window. — Rich Saltzberg
They didn’t say no, but the message to AT&T about a wireless small cell antenna on a utility pole at 59 Church St. was as clear as if they were speaking on a landline — find a new location.
In a 2-1 vote Tuesday, with select board member Larry Gomez in opposition because he was ready to vote no, the Tisbury select board continued the public hearing to the board’s next meeting on Tuesday, July 28, to give the company time to come up with alternatives. But with Gomez already openly opposing the site and board member Jeff Kristal and chairman Jim Rogers urging that other sites be considered, AT&T attorney Edward Pare said, “I get the message loud and clear.”
Kristal suggested AT&T look at the town hall roof. The steeple has been taken down and is being rebuilt, and could make a good location for a cell antenna, he said. “I really don’t think they’ve done their homework to find the sites,” Kristal said.
Two neighbors of the Church Street location voiced their objections during the public hearing.
“It’s going to be right in my view when I look out my bedroom window,” Church Street resident Ludwig Alban said, noting the pole is about 18 feet away. He expressed concerns about public health, something Gomez also touched on, linking emissions of microwaves to cancer.
Pare said the cell antennas are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and AT&T complies with those regulations.
{snip}
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
