| Author | Message | ||
     Copihue Citizen Username: Cop Post Number: 148 Registered: 10-2003  |
By a 4-3 vote the Zoning Board rejected tonight the Verizon application for a variance to build a telecom tower on Maplewood Country Club property. Voting against the proposal were: D'Alessandro, Buscemi, Kearse and Leventhal; voting for the proposal were Pettis, Eagan and DeLuca. The most common reasons for voting against the proposal were concerns about property values and aesthetics. The men liked the proposal, and the women didn't.  Pack your own chute. | ||
| grw Citizen Username: Grw Post Number: 206 Registered: 12-2002 |
Copihue You beat me to it!! For the few of you who were all for this tower, now you can call Verizon and rent them your backyard | ||
| strawberry Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1503 Registered: 10-2001 |
YOU'RE A REAL FRIGGIN MORON IF YOU VOTED AGAINST THIS THING...disgraceful. "That moment has directly affected my foreign policy. See, it changed the nature of the presidency. It changed the security arrangements of the United States of America. I vowed to the American people I would never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001." --President George W. Bush | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1228 Registered: 12-2001  |
Way to step up the dabate Straw. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 572 Registered: 5-2001 |
Congratulations to the Zoning Board in Maplewood for listening to the concerns of residents. We should only be so lucky in South Orange. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1234 Registered: 1-2003  |
Is there a way to improve the currently lousy service without putting up an objectionable tower? Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Jerseyfabulous Citizen Username: Jerseyfabulous Post Number: 28 Registered: 9-2003 |
For safety reasons I wish my child could use his cellphone if he were in danger. That is not an option with no coverage and I am ashamed of the zoing board. Maplewood also has missed out on opportunities to lower residents expenses by this move. Lond distance is free on my cellphone but I can't use it in my home due to lack of coverage. The zoning board is a disgrace! Tom, No there is no other way. You can't boost the signal. You need more towers for more coverage and I thought putting it amongst the trees of the country club was by far the best option. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1229 Registered: 12-2001 |
I guess I just dont understand the hubub. The zoning board shot down verizon's current proposal, no? It did not rule that there could NEVER be a tower in Maplewood. Just that they would not grant a variance in this particular instance. All you folks upset with the zoning board should go about building a better mousetrap. There was a great little piece in the NY Times magazine this weekend about building towers that blend in the landscape. Here is a link to the article.. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/30HOWTO.html It can be done and the fact that this time the plan didnt pass does not mean that there isnt hope for the future. The zoning board is hardly a disgrace Jerseyfabulous they are balancing an awful lot of plates with each decision and if you were to sit on the board I think you might not find the issue as cut and dried as you do currently. I hope that someone someday floats a plan that makes sense cause I hate not having coverage in Maplewood. But I lived a good and happy life before cell phones and will continue to do so with limited in home coverage. dont give up that land line. There's a problem, feathers, iron Bargain buildings, weights and pulleys Feathers hit the ground before the weight can leave the air Buy the sky, and sell the sky and meet the sky and tell the sky don't Fall on me, fall on me, fall on me Don't fall on me There's a progress we have found a way to talk around the problem Building towers, foresight isn't anything at all Well I would keep it above, but then it wouldn't be sky anymore So if I send it to you you gotta promise to keep it whole Buy the sky, and sell the sky and lift your arms up to the sky And ask the sky, and ask the sky don't Fall on me, fall on me, fall on me Don't fall on me, don't fall on me. Copyright REM 1986 "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3959 Registered: 5-2001 |
I strongly suspect that Verizon will appeal this decision and the matter will be in court very shortly. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1235 Registered: 1-2003 |
bobk, on what grounds do you think they'll put their appeal? Duncan, thank you very much for your contribution. I enjoyed the article. I agree that those fake trees on the GSP look absurd. Those alternative designs in the article you cited are great. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| Jerseyfabulous Citizen Username: Jerseyfabulous Post Number: 29 Registered: 9-2003 |
Duncan, How long has this proposal been around? Mark my words that it will be years before a tower is erected. What company wants to waste 18 months and go in front of an anti-business zoning board? "All you folks upset with the zoning board should go about building a better mousetrap" Are you proposing I develop a new cellular system or find time to engineer a new tower design. Sorry but I probably can't squeeze that in this week. I understand the concerns of the zoning board but I disagree and say they are a disgrace. For safety reasons alone a tower should be raised. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1231 Registered: 12-2001 |
I didn't mean that you personally should, you're right. What company wants to spend 18 months.... you ask. Well, it wouldn't take that long if the company wasn't trying to ram something down the throats of the town. It seems that this whole thing has been made more contentious by the arrogance of a HUGE company. But I honestly don't know. I doubt it will be years, the need and the very real value of a tower in Maplewood will accelerate the process and someone will mount a reasonable proposal. This just wasn't the one. We agree to disagree I guess. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3960 Registered: 5-2001 |
The federal law on the subject, procedural issues at the hearings, etc. are all reasons for an appeal. Even Verizon has admitted that the cell tower will do little to improve coverage and the drop rate here in town for their customers. It appears that Verizon wants the tower so that they can sell space on it to other providers. Putting smaller repeaters in church towers, town hall, etc.(as pointed out in the article Duncan linked) would improve service here in MW and not be unsightly. However, it would not bring the profits a tower such as the one proposed will bring to the owner. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2489 Registered: 10-1999  |
I think all you folks have summed up the issue nicely. As Bobk points out, the tower would NOT do much to improve service around town. So, the "what if there's an emergency" arguments really don't apply. Furthermore, as Duncan pointed out, there are all sorts of options for less intrusive cell sites, using existing high points around town, if service in Maplewood is the issue. The bottom line is that Verizon wanted their own, tall mast on which to hang additional antennae, to up their profits. They do not have a federal right to that, however. The zoning board made the right decision, not just on aesthetics, but also on engineering, techinical, and legal grounds. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1237 Registered: 1-2003 |
I agree with you 85% nohero. I support the idea of a more attractive tower, but I think we need a tower. I *like* the idea of Verizon renting space out to other providers, because while Verizon's service may be adequate around here, mine (T-Mobile) is not. Most companies need big improvement around here, and that *is* about convenience and emergencies. Tom Reingold There is nothing | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 318 Registered: 7-2001 |
Congratulations to the zoning board . This proposal wasn't going to lower anyone's expenses. It would marr our most valuable asset. Again ,put it in the resevation , make it look like a tree , or a flag pole. | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 395 Registered: 7-2001 |
As I understand it, per the FCC, Verizon does have the right to put a tower up somewhere/somehow. This denial of the CC variance does not mean they're going away. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2491 Registered: 10-1999 |
The law does not give Verizon the right to a tower. Section 704(a)(7)(B)(i) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 says: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof –The zoning board did not "discriminate among providers". In addition, based on the evidence provided by Verizon itself, the decision does not "have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services". That's why it was a legally correct decision. | ||
| Jerseyfabulous Citizen Username: Jerseyfabulous Post Number: 30 Registered: 9-2003 |
It would lower my long distnace bill, Jet. And what is our most valuable asset again that this tower would harm? Duncan, sorry but all cellphone companies are huge companies and Maplewoods Democrats fear of big business will always get in the way. Techinally, enough boosters would work but in a town like Maplewood, with lots of hills, there would always be a ton dead spot. I am up for putting in it the reservation but that wasn't proposed and isn't on the horizen anytime soon. A 1000 foot tower is the ideal tower for a company, but a smaller tower was the plan I thought all could agree on. Any tower will be an eyesore @ first and I am sure protests will abound if one is put in the reservation. | ||
| Tom Reingold the prissy-pants Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1239 Registered: 1-2003 |
I don't think the FCC regulates property rights. They have the right to buy property and build on it, subject to zoning board regulations. Same as any other person or business. How could the FCC regulate property? That sounds bizarre. Tom Reingold There is nothing |
