Comments on: Cell Towers / Torre de Señal Celular http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/ State and local issues affecting southwestern Greenwich Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:03:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: celular http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-959 celular Fri, 28 May 2010 20:31:51 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-959 I think There should be more planning on where the tower goes! I think There should be more planning on where the tower goes!

]]> By: Jake Lynch http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-443 Jake Lynch Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:02:58 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-443 T-Mobile wins right to build 120 foot cell tower within 90 feet of residence in Sammamish, WA. "I see no evidence that cell towers will impact property values," says hearings examiner. Full story at <a href="http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/iss-s/news/87372037.html" rel="nofollow">www.sammamish-reporter.com</a> T-Mobile wins right to build 120 foot cell tower within 90 feet of residence in Sammamish, WA. “I see no evidence that cell towers will impact property values,” says hearings examiner.
Full story at http://www.sammamish-reporter.com

]]> By: John Bowman http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-439 John Bowman Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:20:19 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-439 Very interesting link. Thanks. Very interesting link. Thanks.

]]> By: Michael Finkbeiner http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-438 Michael Finkbeiner Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:35:30 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-438 After 28 hours with no power in central Greenwich, I had to update my web site from my cell phone (Thanks Verizon.) The static IP from Cablevision no longer works in comment 1. Your Byram cell tower and 24 others in Town are detailed with maps and photos at http://earthimage.net/Greenwich_Cell_Phone_Towers.htm After 28 hours with no power in central Greenwich, I had to update my web site from my cell phone (Thanks Verizon.)

The static IP from Cablevision no longer works in comment 1.

Your Byram cell tower and 24 others in Town are detailed with maps and photos at http://earthimage.net/Greenwich_Cell_Phone_Towers.htm

]]> By: John Bowman http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-429 John Bowman Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:01:11 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-429 Thanks for your comment Hannah. Good point about bad cell service vs. ugly tower, and that's really the crux of all the debate. The point of my post is not that the cell tower is per se bad, in fact as I stated I kind of like it. Greater minds than mine, with more at stake than me, seemed to answer the question about whether the tower is a good or bad thing: the property owner gets $3,000/month for a 10' x 10' piece of property that he doesn't have to maintain. That can only be because he thinks, and ATT acknowledges, the tower is a bad thing so he needs to be compensated. I think the adjacent neighbors should also be compensated since we suffer as much as the property owner. The other way this is handled is through zoning regulations. No one wants a movie theater next door to their residence, but every town and city knows they need supermarkets so they work out zones where it is appropriate to put them. That system has been working fine for years. It's the same system that prevents your neighbor from building a 10-story apartment and office complex. Cell towers are exempt from that system, and that's why it isn't fair. As for my cell tower, I-95 is 50 feed away, and there's plenty of State land next to it. Same is true for the proposed new tower on the other side of I-95. Trust me, but for CT's law exempting cell towers from zoning regulations, the towers would be alongside I-95 on State property. And you don't get wifi from cell towers, you get fairly crappy that barely supports my iPhone. Maybe if they did wifi the neighborhood so we could get rid of the ugly phone and cable TV wires, the poles would be more attractive. Thanks for your comment Hannah. Good point about bad cell service vs. ugly tower, and that’s really the crux of all the debate. The point of my post is not that the cell tower is per se bad, in fact as I stated I kind of like it. Greater minds than mine, with more at stake than me, seemed to answer the question about whether the tower is a good or bad thing: the property owner gets $3,000/month for a 10′ x 10′ piece of property that he doesn’t have to maintain. That can only be because he thinks, and ATT acknowledges, the tower is a bad thing so he needs to be compensated. I think the adjacent neighbors should also be compensated since we suffer as much as the property owner.

The other way this is handled is through zoning regulations. No one wants a movie theater next door to their residence, but every town and city knows they need supermarkets so they work out zones where it is appropriate to put them. That system has been working fine for years. It’s the same system that prevents your neighbor from building a 10-story apartment and office complex. Cell towers are exempt from that system, and that’s why it isn’t fair.

As for my cell tower, I-95 is 50 feed away, and there’s plenty of State land next to it. Same is true for the proposed new tower on the other side of I-95. Trust me, but for CT’s law exempting cell towers from zoning regulations, the towers would be alongside I-95 on State property.

And you don’t get wifi from cell towers, you get fairly crappy that barely supports my iPhone. Maybe if they did wifi the neighborhood so we could get rid of the ugly phone and cable TV wires, the poles would be more attractive.

]]> By: Hannah http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-428 Hannah Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:00:08 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-428 I"m not sure what one "does" with a property value, since I imagine most townies plan to live in their homes many years, but having one "lowered" because of an unaesthetic cell tower creates a dilemma: does the home owner endure the hardship of crappy cell reception (might that not lower property values?) or get great reception and have an unsightly tower nearby? I see great potential success for an industry that decorates cell towers so they don't threaten property values. The bottom line here: I have not seen one post on where to put the new cell tower, just where not to put it. As the debate continues on and on, there goes the wi fied neighborhood. I”m not sure what one “does” with a property value, since I imagine most townies plan to live in their homes many years, but having one “lowered” because of an unaesthetic cell tower creates a dilemma: does the home owner endure the hardship of crappy cell reception (might that not lower property values?) or get great reception and have an unsightly tower nearby? I see great potential success for an industry that decorates cell towers so they don’t threaten property values. The bottom line here: I have not seen one post on where to put the new cell tower, just where not to put it. As the debate continues on and on, there goes the wi fied neighborhood.

]]> By: Alex http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-418 Alex Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:12:55 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-418 Hey John, I so feel your pain. Check out this article in today's local paper in the community I live in Washington State and where your article was referenced http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/iss-s/news/87372037.html BTW: I'm a long time CT resident and I know the area very well, it's a shame how quick people sell out themselves and others for a buck. -Alex Hey John,

I so feel your pain. Check out this article in today’s local paper in the community I live in Washington State and where your article was referenced

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/iss-s/news/87372037.html

BTW: I’m a long time CT resident and I know the area very well, it’s a shame how quick people sell out themselves and others for a buck.

-Alex

]]> By: paul http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-415 paul Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:51:26 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-415 At least you have 3G coverage.... At least you have 3G coverage….

]]> By: Michael Finkbeiner http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/2010/03/08/cell-towers/#comment-412 Michael Finkbeiner Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:59:55 +0000 http://blog.ctnews.com/bowman/?p=280#comment-412 Researchers caution against using your phone in areas with poor coverage since phones emit more radiation when searching for a signal. Children, which have smaller and thinner skulls, should limit cell phone use, and all users, children and adults, should not sleep with an active phone next to their bedside or under their pillow. See http://96.56.48.67/cellphone_head.jpg for what it looks like in your kid’s head when the tower is at a greater distance and he holds his max power cell phone to his head. Researchers caution against using your phone in areas with poor coverage since phones emit more radiation when searching for a signal. Children, which have smaller and thinner skulls, should limit cell phone use, and all users, children and adults, should not sleep with an active phone next to their bedside or under their pillow.

See http://96.56.48.67/cellphone_head.jpg for what it looks like in your kid’s head when the tower is at a greater distance and he holds his max power cell phone to his head.

]]>