| Author |
Message |
    
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 457
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 9:46 am: |     |
someone told me this morning that Verizon won some sort of challenge in court. No news here about it? Maybe it's a rumor? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 424
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:38 am: | |
For your reading pleasure.
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/goldman/Verizon041230.pdf
TomR. |
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 341
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:46 am: | |
It's on the front page of the news-record, looks like the town laid down |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 259
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 9:26 am: | |
I'm wondering... To those objecting to the cell towers.
Do you have cell phones?
Next question, how to you expect to get service without towers? They have to go somewhere... |
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 461
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:08 am: | |
in fact we have 3 verizon phones and all of them work perfectly well. we also have children who play nearby and property values to be concerned with, not to mention a view that is currently unencumbered by ugly metallic structures that will only line the pockets of Verizon and the golf course, yet provide little value for the existing citizens.
Yes, they have to go somewhere....somewhere else would be nice.
|
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 462
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:10 am: | |
and apparently there is only one other cell tower in a residentially zoned area in NJ. Makes you say 'hmmmmmmmmmm' |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 262
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:45 pm: | |
sully-
I find that hard to believe about with the exception of one place there not being cells towers anywhere there are houses.
As for the Country Club area, isn't that a mixed zone area? Let's see, there's the Country Club, the old Piersons, the library, school and train station.
You have cellphones, you use towers. Get rid of your phones, then you have a right to complain. Until then, get over it. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4727
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:49 pm: | |
Isn't the cell tower supposed to go up at the other end of the country club, the one near O'Reilly's? If I recall correctly, the majority of the cell tower complaints were being voiced by Millburn residents who live on the Maplewood border. |
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 463
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 3:34 pm: | |
It's not a mixed zone area. That's why Verizon needed a variance. Taylor I'm guessing you don't live near the country club. Excuse me, I have a right to complain. The last time I checked this is the U.S., right? There are ways for Verizon to make the tower less noticeable, but they won't spend the $$$ unless we push them. Actually, never mind. Let's just let big businesses trash our town. If they get one approved, it won't be long until the next one is approved in your back yard. There is more to this than the physical tower.
Joan: the tower is supposed to 'tower' over the existing trees. It will be noticeable from many locations. |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 267
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 4:32 pm: | |
That's right you have a right to complain. BUT when you have cellphones of your own, Verizon to boot, it lesson your complaints. As I said, they have to go somewhere.
I did a google search, but can't find anything to back up what you said about Maplewood Country Club being only the second 'residentially zoned
area.'
No, I don't live in the Golf Island area; but I do know more then a dozen families who do. They have cellphones, so they don't complain...
As for one being in my backyard? I don't think so. howeever IF one of my neighbors wanted to put one in their yard, go ahead. I have a cellphone, so I give up my right to complain about a tower.
Cancel your Verizon accounts, if it bothers you so much. Tell them why you're canceling. If enough people do this, it will hurt them where it counts. |
mwsilva
Citizen
Username: Mwsilva
Post Number: 433
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 3:15 pm: | |
Have you seen the new Cell phone tower system that just went online? It is on top of the Springfield Avenue building, above Pizza Primo. That is just off the Prospect and Sprinfield Ave. intersection.
Seems that no one seems to notice this one. |
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 352
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 3:24 pm: | |
The one for the golf course is 150 ft tall, with a brick building at the base with A/C units, etc |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1770
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 3:36 pm: | |
I guess I don't understand why we can't have more of the smaller, less visible antennae (is that the correct plural) ... which seem to be able to provide the signal. Of course, they may not provide coverage for as large an area or a place to hang other services, so Verizon doesn't get to make as much money ... that's probably the real answer (much as they may tout this as an improvement in service to their customers here in town.) By the way, I have Verizon and I get a good signal pretty much everywhere in town other than inside the stores in the Village. I can live with that. |
ReallyTrying
Citizen
Username: Reallytrying
Post Number: 580
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 9:55 am: | |
Taylor, thank you. I'm sick of not being able to reach my children when they're in town, of not being able to call from my own house.
sullymw, we have five Verizon phones, and Maplewood is the ONLY place we lose calls. Put it somewhere else? Great NIMBY tude. Where should it go? (Please keep your response family-friendly. ) |
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 470
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 10:37 am: | |
ReallyTrying: not sure what to tell you. Maybe it's the area you live in. Most people with Verizon in Maplewood have decent service as far as I can tell |
suburbanguy
Citizen
Username: Suburbanguy
Post Number: 14
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 3:58 pm: | |
To all those who are saying, "if you have a cell phone, you have no right to complain", take note.
There is a big difference between a cell tower and cell antennae. The issue here is whether the town should set a precedent by putting a 150 foot tower in a residential area. No one is against cell service or cell antennae. They are a neccesity - and there are a bunch already all over town that you may not be aware of - on top of apartment buildings on Valley, on the movie theatre, etc.
The question we have to ask ourselves is, why did we move to a beautiful town like Maplewood in the first place? Would you buy a house right under a tower? If we let one tower in, do we open the door for other industrial-like structures and towers to creep into the village?
No one is going to look out for the aesthetics and quaintness of Maplewood except for the people of Maplewood. Verizon certainly isn't.
The answer is to achieve better service without destroying the very thing that brought us to Maplewood in the first place. Towers should be reserved for highways. And put other less intrusive antenna for the places where people want to live.
Verizon stated that they had a specific radius where this tower needed to be. "It has to be here, and we can't budge". What if another cell carrier claimed they needed a tower on Maplewood Ave. "And that is the only place it can be. Our experts tell us we cannot co-locate on the Verizon tower." Would we have to build that one as well? This will multiply itself.
There has got to be a better way. There is a reason people choose to live here. The town needs to step up and defend what makes Maplewood... Maplewood. After all, this is a town that has a design code for the little awnings on the village shops. What's the point if there's just going to be a tower looming over it eventually?
Just some food for thought. |
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 471
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 4:02 pm: | |
the people who say "deal with it" are short-sighted regarding the overall implications. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 4757
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 4:27 pm: | |
What implications are those? |
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 472
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 4:35 pm: | |
those spelled out by suburbanguy as well as potential health effects, property values, etc |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 156
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 9:19 pm: | |
Suburbanguy,
Write your congressman. Your main beef is with the lawmakers who created the Federal telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996, which has broad authority to supercede local zoning in favor of communications vendors.
Last night, the Township Committee decided to appeal this court decision. That means the town is doing what it can to stop the Verizon project. But it's an uphill battle, given the power of the TCA.
|
filmboy
Citizen
Username: Filmboy
Post Number: 54
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:37 am: | |
The towns appeal is less about the TCA and more about the language of the ruling handed down. The ruling cited the BOA as coming to its conclusion and vote in an arbitrary and capricious way. Thats not the case. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 157
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:32 am: | |
In his post on another thread, Mayor Profeta provided a good explanation of the difficulties with the town's appeal. Here's an excerpt:"More problematic is the BOA's second reason for not appealing - chances of success on appeal. As I have indicated, in my opinion the Superior Court decision is not well founded and is vulnerable. But the Appellate Division could affirm for reasons not addressed by the Superior Court. Some of those might be based on the primacy of Federal law in this area.
However, Federal law will not preempt local regulation when alternative sites for a tower are available. I am not convinced that such alternatives are impossible, and I don't know that Verizon conclusively showed impossibility in its expert testimony." Here's the link to his full post.
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3127&post=327388#POST3273 88
As I said above, the town is doing what it can, but federal law still casts a long shadow over the whole affair.
|
grw
Citizen
Username: Grw
Post Number: 360
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 12:58 pm: | |
As long as the Town goes the route (and it looks looks they are), regardless of the odds Maplewood voted this thing down, and I beleive they should see it to the end. If the appellate court rules in favor of Verizon, at least we can say that Maplewood stood fast on it's ruling. Thanks to Mayor Profeta, Dave, Kathy and Ian |
frannyfree
Citizen
Username: Frannyfree
Post Number: 42
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 1:00 pm: | |
I'm with Taylor...
Cell tower..not a big deaal.
Where are you people about preserving the quaintness of Maplewood when the planning board wants to remove old beautiful buildings like Nelson's garage. They say it's an eyesore and want to put up "new" buildings. No sense of the history of the town. Old does not mean ugly. Some of the buildings they want to do away with should be protected from these short sighted politicians. Forget about a cell tower. It is going to happen.and nothing is destroyed by it. The issue is camoflage for the real problem.
We have to save our older buildings if we want to keep the town's prewar feel. We don't all want to be another Springfield...where the feeling for the town has been lost. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5570
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 2:51 pm: | |
Yeah, I also like the look of Nelson's garage. I noticed it the first time I walked by it. And yes, Springfield is definitely nondescript, though I wouldn't call it ugly, either. |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 87
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 4:38 pm: | |
fannyfree:
Where did you get the idea that "the planning board wants to remove old buildings like Nelson's garage" and says "it's an eyesore and [they]want to put up 'new' buildings"? No such statement was ever made or implied. No official body in Maplewood has indicated a desire to target Nelson's for removal. In fact, on a related matter, at its Wednesday hearing on the designation of a redevelopment zone in the area of Verizon and Universal Chain, the planning board specifically recommended to the Township Committee that homes along Burnett be excluded because of their historic value.
As for me personally, it would be difficult to have lived here all my life and not be sensitive to the history of the town. History should not control everything, but it certainly is an important factor. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page