Antenna Proposal - Next Meeting - February 1st, 7:30PM
INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF BAYVILLE
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held on Thursday , February 1, 2007 at the Bayville Intermediate School, Mountain Avenue, Bayville, NY 11709, from 7:30PM to 9:00PM. The purpose of said hearing is to continue the hearing from December 18, 2006 regarding the placement of microwave dishes on the Bayville Water Tower as requested by the Nassau County Police Department.
BY ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Maria Alfano-Hardy
Village Clerk
-Courtesy of the Incorporated Village of Bayville website -
Please post comments here relating to this meeting only. Thanks!
If anyone has any current information regarding the progress the Partership for Bayville's future, please post here.
Posted by Admin at Monday, January 29, 2007 7:37 PM 
Categories: Microwave Satellite Receivers and Sticks aka -Antennas
Categories: Microwave Satellite Receivers and Sticks aka -Antennas
We are still here. We have been working on collecting signatures on the petition, and will present them to the Board tomorrow night.
Hope to see you all at the meeting, this is an important issue for our Village, and an excellent opportunity for all of us to fully participate in democracy at it's most basic level.
Edie
Reply to this
It's important for our childred and grand children that we stop the receivers. Who knows what can happen from them, what kind of cancer we will get from them in years to come.
Reply to this
At this point I personally don’t think that anything additional should be placed on the tower. If the PD proposal is significant, which I am a firm believer that an upgrade is needed, then current cell equipment (optional) needs to be decommissioned to make room for the necessary equipment.
Reply to this
I agree. The Village should put a moratorium on any additional antennas until what is already up there is reviewed and perhaps reduced to make room for the police antennas. The Village's expert scientist, Don Cotten, is already on record as saying we need to worry about what's already up there. I sincerely hope the Village took that comment seriously and has taken steps to do just that before make a bad situation worse.
Reply to this
Hi I’m A Bayville resident for about 40 years. I’m an Engineer and a father of 4 kids that are in or soon to go into the Bayville Primary. I’m also the guy that Chris met /wished for an opinion from a while back. I have been researching the antenna topic since December and have gained a lot of insight into it. I am not the best speaker or writer but I have a knack for translating engineer babble to every day life. I have found I have eased many people’s fears just by explaining the technical end of what is going on with what is up there! And what they plan on putting up there. I volunteer my self to explain the technical side of things to you or even a small group of people. You can contact me at Jason@ecoburst.com to set up a time to discuss this topic further. The EcoBurst web site will only be up till April. I must warn you that I am not worried about low levels of RF. If you are looking for an engineer to talk to that is not on the Motorola payroll I would be happy to discus this topic with you.
Reply to this
The Northender has coverage of Thursday's meeting at:
http://www.northender.com/feature_story_details.jsp?id=809
It also has a poll in the sidebar. Unfortunately the only two options in the poll are yes or no. I would have liked to see the option that says "allow the police communication equipment but limit total output on the tower to below previous levels"
Barry
Reply to this
Jason,
I have a question for you. In your opinion,if all of the equipment in question were to be moved to between a quarter to a half of a mile away, would the radiation at the schools decrease or increase due to the fact that the main focus of the RF output would no longer travel overhead?
Also, now that your concerns have been satisfied, has anyone contacted you for your opinion?
Barry
Reply to this
Barry asked
“I have a question for you. In your opinion,if all of the equipment in question were to be moved to between a quarter to a half of a mile away, would the radiation at the schools decrease or increase due to the fact that the main focus of the RF output would no longer travel overhead?”
WOW
That’s almost imposable to answer with a yes or no answer.
The Best way I can answer that is yes it is possible to be furtherer away lower and receive more RF.
Barry asked
“has anyone contacted you for your opinion?”
Contacted Yes Opinion No. I have been contacted by other engineer’s / residents that are willing to help me in some kind of technology/ educational discussion .
Reply to this
Jason,
I figured it wouldn't be a definitive answer, but the point is that moving them further away might not help and could actually increase RF at that site.
Barry
Reply to this
I have had many conversation’s with other engineers ect. They all basically go the same way. The following is part of an email that was sent to me by an anonymous Engineer I thought it would be important to share it with this group. It’s a good summation of the side conversations that I have been having.
I “X” parts to help keep the person who wrote this anonymous
I think we should do something. But I have no idea what. Bottom line is children are going to get sick. Is it because of the antenna or our cell phones? I doubt it.
Every time a child does get sick people are going to point to the antenna, no matter where the antenna are. Do I want to be known as one of the guys who helped keep the antenna by the schools? We're somewhere between a rock and a hard place. I was at the meeting the XXXXX and heard a woman XXXXX me comment "XXXXXX". The woman was referring to our Mayor. I think she was serious.
I can't figure out if these people have a political agenda or are really serious about the antenna. I can't understand why no one asked about the levels near their homes. Are any of these people aware that the numbers in the school are the same as at their homes?
Reply to this
I have An Idea that I know would Help. What I don’t know is how to finance it. I would like to take one of our vacant store fronts and turn it into an “organic living center”. There Are Endless things far worse then RF radiation that are known carcinogens that we as a community use and do every day. Id like to put Bayville on the map as an Icon of a healthy place to raze our kids.
Ecoburst.com is just one way I have been trying to fix our environment and its how you can reach me. Jason@ecoburst.com
Reply to this
Jason,
I understand your and your friend's dilemma, but on the other side of the equation, if someone dies because the call for help wasn't received, do you want to be the guys who didn't speak up.
I understand making an issue of this in order to ensure that a limit is placed on the amount of RF, but to outright deny the police access to the tower is a responsibility that I would not want and others should be more careful about taking it on themselves. I don't envy the Mayor and B.O.T. they are in a no win situation.
Also, I think your idea is great. You might find that there are grants out there for this type of thing. The DEC website is a good place to start but there are many others.
Reply to this
Barry,
Our Mayor and B.O.T. brought this upon themselves.You feel bad? It seems to be their fault, if there were not 52 up there? My opinion lets squeeze some more cell phone stuff up there lets ok the police and then lets put some on the school to really make sure we have good coverage. As long as it's all within fcc reg I'm sure we can fit more! Then lets go to the other side of town and put some stuff there. Oh I'm sorry that would not be allowed.Would It?
Reply to this
1st, I'd like to ask everyone where they were on 2 February. Were there even 1/2 as many residents there compared to 18 Dec, or whenever it was? I think it was less than half. It seems to me there are people who are looking for a scapegoat because of these 52 thing on the H2O tower. Were you there when those went up? I remember very well when they were proposed, and did go up-in fact the original proposal was the UCP by Jones Manor. A lot of people were talking about it.
What I do wonder is this:how can people go to such lengths, insulting and accusing village officials and treating neighbors badly if those neighbors aren't in the cavalry? Cause and effect is a very difficult scientific proposal.
I am not a proponent of the things (antennas), and my opinion will remain with me. I am embarassed by some of the residents of this village and their behavior. Not all-many are civil, reasonable, and ask questions wanting answers.
But a few scare me, and I wouldn't join with any group that seems to have a vigilante attitude and one that will push up against the village government just to do so.
I also know that the writer for the Oyster Bay Guardian, who lives in Bayville, made a comment about the situation and took no sides. Did you know that more than one resident called the paper to complain about that? Were they trying to get someone fired? What a childish and mean thing to do.
I agree that we ought to wait before any decision is made on this issue, and I'd like to see some serious research from someone. Not three lines from a website, I've gone there too. Why isn't someone going to a college library and looking? Instead of accusing the mayor of crimes and misdemeanors-accusing loudly and somewhat viciously, I think a united group armed with real facts, scholarly papers and info sent , maybe by e-mail from WHO and other organizations would carry some real weight. people would listen. I hope we can all be adults about this.
Reply to this
Well I was very happy to see so many residents turn out against this proposal. Where were all the resident IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT? Where was the petition IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT? Where were you Stella...cat get your tongue at the meeting? I am embarrased by the officials of this Village, I'm embarrased that at a public hearing the Village permitted an applicant to interject after every resident even if they were just making a statement. I'm embarassed that our Village officials give more time to an applicant rather than to their residents at a PUBLIC HEARING.
guess what, it's TOO LATE for you to get around to doing the research, Thank goodness for those that took the time and SUBMITTED EVIDENCE in opposition of this endeavor. The village CLOSED the HEARING...that's it, now they make a decision. In 2003 when the MAJORITY of antennas which Mayor Siegel ADMITTED SHE FORGOT ABOUT, (which is a big deal by the way) the Mayor went on public record as making the decision on Village counsels advise that the deed was expired. Where is the documentation from the attorney? Why is the deed issue important in Oyster Bays park with the whole Carousel issue, yet here in Bayville its conveniently overlooked?
You mentioned the Guardian reporter, Stephanie Davy. She spoke at the first meeting and by representing herself as a reporter rather than a resident she opened her paper up. She was also speaking to and giving her advise to the audience, NOT making a statement to the Board. I didn't know people complained, by the way, how do you know that...rumor perhaps? But now that I think about it, I'm glad people called the paper.
What neighbors are treated badly...what village official was insulted...are you being forced to join some group of supporters or maybe the opposition?
Did you hear Mayor Siegel say that she feels if a resident doesn't speak up then they don't oppose a project. IS SHE KIDDING? I guess that means that when the majority of citizens in this country DONT VOTE that they think NOONE SHOULD BE ELECTED...RIGHT? They are elected officials who should stand up for their own decisions, THANK YOU to the man at the end for speaking up at the last meeting. Residents need to open their eyes. Many of the people who spoke against the article did their research and it wasn't from websites. People tend to get appathetic once they know someone else is willing to do the work for you. Where was the PTA? They VOTED AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL BUT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT MAKE A STATEMENT at the meeting. If the group you are referring to is the PBF, there website does list sources, The reader needs to do there own research. Why don't we just trust MOTOROLA's people. They don't stand to make a dime off this...right? I think someone should sue the Village.
Reply to this
The above was supposed to be a reply to Stella.
Reply to this
Stella,
Information was given to the Village from the places you suggested. Anoterh gentleman spoke who does not even own a computer, he got the info from a college library. The PD and Motorola were given the list of the places the information was given to and they disputed each and every case with their research.
One gentleman stated the obvious and I think it is poignant to restate. All the information given to the Village and Bayville Fire Co. was from the side of people who profit from the EMF industry.
Another woman stated it another way. She said we could belabor the point for days. They have their perspective and the people against the Rf have theirs.
There were less people. I do believe many people thought that their vot with the PTA and signing the petitions was a representation of themselves.
Reply to this
Barry,
That was in no way an attack on you. Just frustration with the whole thing!
Lenny
Reply to this
if we break this down to nW/cm2 (nanoWatts per cm2). The fcc standard is 200,000. What the children are being exposed to at the highest recorded level outside would be about 670 nW/cm2. Inside the classroom (near corner) 29nW/cm2. Inside computer room lights off 0, lights on 456 nW/cm2. Explain that one. There is a home on Cyrus Point Ln a half mile away. The only house that has readings inside and out on the survey. Outside the house 24 nW/cm2, inside 52 nW/cm2. These antenna even though there are 52 and within 500 feet of the school don't seem to be exposing the children to any more radiation than they will be getting anywhere else. If you are getting a cell phone signal in your house there is some level of radiation. Again most of the negative reports I read had to do with levels in the 1mW/cm2 range = 1,000,000 nW/cm2. Your cell phone depending on how weak a signal is can be exposing your head to mWs/cm2. That's millions of nanowatts.
I agree with limiting the radiation, not the amount of antenna. I was very surprised that the radiation was in fact that low with 52 antenna that close to the school. I'm perfectly fine with my children attending school at the Primary at the current and even with the NCPD proposal in place.
Reply to this
Why don't all you "engineers" go to the public hearings and state your cases?
Scared that you may be wrong? Just like the experts that have been at these hearings...You CANNOT gaurantee this technology to be %100 safe.
Zeno brought up an interesting piont at the last meeting. The Harrison's who donated the property to the village specifically mentioned commercial purposes not being permitted on the property. Get the deeds, its very specific without any sort of end date mentioned. So the mayor screwed up in 92-93, Seigel later admits that it was not legal, but allows it again in 2003. What the hell was the point of the deed?
Forget the arguments of health related concerns, if possible. Why has our past and present village officials not corrected this problem by removing illegally placed, commercial equipment, on deeded land????
The deed also mentioned anything found to be "offensive" to anyone within 1/4 mile, must not be permitted. Once again, our officials ignored that.
The reason, according to VS: We were advised by legal counsel that the deed expired.
Wrong. There is no expiration on the deed.
Zeno, or anyone else- please post some more specifics about this deed.
Engineers, stop hiding in cyber-space, get tough, show your faces at the next public hearing.....Ooops, too late. VS has stated the next meeting will be for a public vote only. No comments.
The new equipment will most likely be installed. The cell equipment will most likely stay, unless legal action is taken to enforce the deed. I hope someone with money, sues the pants off the village.
Reply to this
I would reccomend that everyone interested go up to the village and request a copy of BOTH deeds for the property under the tower. (Yes there are 2) They will ask that you fill out a FOIL or Freedom of Information form. Marc you are correct our Village officials SHOULD RECTIFY THIS ERROR. Believe me if enough people go and request this info, the Mayor will be made aware of it. The pat answer Mayor Siegel gave...and also gave in 2003 is only there get out of jail free card. "by reccomendation of counsel" gets the Board out of any consequences to a poor decision,
Reply to this
Stella,
The stuff on the tower is there illegally. Sorry to burst your bubble but that is a fact. It dosn't matter who or when it is NOT LEGAL!
Reply to this
Um Yaa
I have something that might actually be constructive. All along people have been trying to link the current cell towers to cancer ect. Why because we seem to have a high rate of these diseases in our children. Well I think the antennas on the water towers are a bad place to look. Why because it’s something that is not special to Bayville. Many towns have much higher levels of RF in there towns and schools. Especially towns that have a radio or TV transmitter in them. We need to look somewhere else. Is it swimming in the creek? Is it our drinking water? Is it some old chemical that was sprayed in the Bayville Woods 20 years ago? Did this all start with the extension on the primary school? Fertilizer on your lawn? Could be but doesn’t every neighbor hood use fertilizer. If you told me it was fertilizer running into the creek then yes that’s unique to Bayville. Get my point?
Reply to this
I decided to go the meeting to see what happened because I felt that maybe I had prejudged the PBF. Well, my first instincts were right. Never had I been more appalled by behavior of these people. These people have a personal vendetta against the Village and there is nothing more to it. They will stop at nothing to make the mayor and the trustees' job more difficult. That is now there full time job. I feel bad bc there are actually people posting on this site that want to help make Bayville environmentally safer. Well, sorry to say but these people don't really care about that. They care about stirring the pot and spreading their propaganda all over town. They only had about 250 signatures on their great petition. There are 8000 people in this town and they represent the loud, obnoxious, nasty and vindicative part of our town. Why don't people speak up? Because we don't want to appear as fools, like you all do. Why don't we make a petition? Because we can call the Mayor and discuss how we feel with her personally. The PBF states on their webpaget that they are working with Village Officials. Never has a statement been more of a lie. All of this accusing of illegal activity proves that you don't know anything about the people that run our town. Sorry, you don't. And you geniuses whe say sue the Village - you are what is wrong with our society. You all are spiteful, hateful and jealous people. It's really quite sad that people can devote so much of their time in hatred and vindictiveness.
The Mayor and the Trustees will make the right decision for the Village as the always have. They live here, have children here and would not delibrately do anything to bring danger to their families or the residents of Bayville. It's a shame that this group of people feel like this is accomplishing anything more than making themselves look more and more vengeful.
Reply to this
Bayville26,
Why don't you grow a set and sign your real name to that hateful, vile spew you've just written?
Reply to this
Edie -
You don't need to know my name. I doubt you'd be that neighborly. I have no need to promote myself. I guess the truth really hurts.
Reply to this
bayville26, you're right, all the anon posters here should own up and sign their real names. i wonder why you all won't?
i would like to ask a serious question though. what is the agenda I supposedly have? Why do i need to "promote myself" as you say? do you even know who i am, as in have we met in real life?
hey wait a sec, there was this really big guy yelling at me and using obscenities when i was at IGA getting signatures a few weeks ago, was that you?
Reply to this
BTW -
Yet another resident has spewed some pretty vile stuff too. Sue the village? How hateful is that? Yet it's ok for her, bc she's on your side. Seems a bit unfair.
Reply to this
Vile stuff? I don't think so, the truth just hurts.
Where were all the resident supporters of this application? Nowhere to be found, guess they don't feel THAT strongly about it. WHere were you Bayville 26? On a blog? Gee, that's a practical way of informing your elected officials of your opinion.
Unfortunately the Village opens themselves up to legal ramifications when they continue to illegally permit any commercial enterprises to install antennas on the tower and also permit building construction under the tower. Mayor Siegel herself blamed the previous administration and her administration in 2003 continued this illegal behavior with a simple "by counsels reccomendation".
I am not a member of the PBF, I was at the last meeting and you are mistaken, PBF was only represented by one person who handed in the petition. Everyone else who spoke was either from the Motorola, th NCPD or were jus' plain ol' residents with an opinion. If you want to check this, just go to the Village for a copy of the record.
So what happened to the PTA???
Anyone notice how the Fire Departments letter asked for 3 additional radios and 2 new repeater antennas to be placed on the tower in the same letter...hmmmmm? As far as I understood it, the Bayville Fire Dept now subscribes to Firecom and would have to pay to join into the new functionality of the Motorola System.
Reply to this
Anyone take notice that the fire department asked to have an antenna up on the tower(letter read by the Mayor)? Aren’t they included in this?
Reply to this
Isn’t this new system supposed to improve communication for the police as well as the “first responders”?
I was told that few years ago the fire department asked the Village for space on the tower for a simple antenna and were declined. Anyone know if there is any truth to this? If anyone should have space up there it should be our own fire department. This should be addressed immediately if that is the case.
Reply to this
Why is this turning into the parents who are trying to protect their children now have to stand up for themselves. Really give it a rest with all the bs. Now that the truth about what is up there and that it is not legal is out I can't beleive it is being turned into not being neighborly . I'm thinking this whole thing is crazy.
Reply to this
To anyone who REALLY cares:
I collected 40 of the signatures that were handed , just so people know there was only 3 people that said they needed to read more about it before they signed. Almost every person who I spoke to in that hour thanked me for taking MY time to do this for the children. Even if it dos not go my way I know I did what I could for my kids. Again my family voted for Mayor Seigel. Please stop spinning this.
Reply to this
I started researching causes of leukemia. I’m trying to find a link between the known risk factors and what is unique to Bayville. I ask that this become a separate subject on this blog.
To start it I have a hand full of questions. Does any one know the ages, year started and type of leukemia the children in Bayville have. Is any one already doing this research? Does any one monitor the water in our creek for chemicals. If so were can I find these reports.
Reply to this
BE,
In the last two water reports I noticed the levels of nitrites in the water was at the highest level permitted. It also stated that this was caused by run off from fertilizer. In researching this I found that only reverse osmosis filters will help with this. As for the types of leukemia I think it is ALL. I'm not positive. The good thing is that Chris has been to meetings at the hall and it seems that Mayor Seigel is looking into the fertilizer issue.I'm sorry I didn't state that nitrites and nitrates are known carcinogens.
Reply to this
Yet another -
Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. I was at the meeting. I don't feel the need to be so vocal. As stated in my previous post that you carelessly read - if I have a problem I'll talk to the Mayor.
Reply to this
Nope, read it jus' fine. I think it's great that you talk to the Mayor, why does the Village bother with public hearings then? Perhaps you are not aware that statements made in private conversations are not on the record, therefore can not be reviewed by the entire board when it comes time for them to vote. I didn't hear Mayor Siegel putting on record how Bayville 26, or any other individual for that matter, gave their go ahead for the project. You'll note that Mayor Siegel in the Newsday article said that the "noone came to the [2003] hearing". Well that ain't exactly true is it? Why 'cause they have a record of it available to the public. People actually (horrors!!!) stated their names and that they (more horrors!!) OPPOSED the project!! Mayor Siegel even was on record as asking a person in the back of the room to quiet down. I guess noone was there...maybe she forgot.
Reply to this
kirsten
Do you know were I can get a copy of the report you are referring to. And I assume you are talking about the water in the creek.
Reply to this
BE,
I was talking about the drinking water.It is the one that is always sent to us.I'm sure the hall has copies.I know I kept mine but I must have put it in one of those really safe places,because I can't find it.
Reply to this
Resident -
Of course she wouldn't say bc private conversation don't go on public record. You said so yourself.
To Bayville Engineer -
Recently my child's school sent home a list of common household products that contain carcinogens, including Lysol, Pledge, Dawn just to name a few. Do you believe that this is also something to be concerned about?
Reply to this
concerned about?
Yes
More so than low levels of RF
There is an organization around since the 80’s “Neighborhood Network” I believe its based right here on the Island. Its goal is to help educate people about the many things we do day-to-day that are sources of carcinogens in our homes ect. I believe they have free seminars. Does any one have the time to see if they would come to US.
Reply to this
"you are all are spiteful, hateful and jealous people. It's really quite sad that people can devote so much of their time in hatred and vindictiveness"
Bayville26- first of all i find it ironic that you are actively participating in the very behavior that you condone in your post. In addition, it appears to me that you are perhaps one of the "jealous and selfish ones"...why do you feel so threatened by a group of residents who is trying to protect their children from what they deem a viable danger?
I personally believe that people like you who speak in generalizations about matters they know little about are what is wrong with our society...you are uninformed and angry and quite frankly, i feel bad for you
Reply to this
Jose -
Don't presume that you know anything about me. As I stated, I have my reasons for how I feel. Just like the people posting here who are angry, I have just the same right to express my views. Secondly, you mention nothing of the wonderful people claiming that suing the village is what needs to happen (or someone who has money that should sue the village). Don't you believe that is a little extreme as well? The problem is there are "people" with money who sue the village. I happend to feel that that is hateful and spiteful.
Reply to this
Bayville 26
I could see your point if the Village has not done anything wrong by permitting those antennas to be installed. However, Mayor Siegel and the Board are human too, they make mistakes, they forget things and if they based their vote on an attorneys opinion they assumed were correct, they need to step up to the plate and fix the prolem (if there is one). Since they have had 3 years to do this, the only course left to someone to attempt to right this situation is a legal one. The Mayor indicated at the last hearing that this deed thing was not can issue based on attorneys advise from several years ago. She could have said the Village would review the matter.
Personally, I have very little disposable income and have been involved in a lawsuit against the Village for an entirely different matter. Was it hateful? No..Spiteful? Not at all... Why? because Bayville made a decision that was legally wrong, they thought it was right, or maybe they thought nobody would sue them and they'd get away with it. Well, the courts found in my favor...surprised, well don't be, it happens more than you think.
Reply to this
Bayville 26,
Don't presume that I am "people"...I speak for myself and am not on anyones "side" as you also assume. I find it interesting that you have only taken issue with my comments about a lawsuit, but not with any of the others. Lisa, thanks for putting these thoughts in words not quite as strong. My intention is not to offend anyone, but it is not my fault if some are more easily offended than others. This is a blog and as such is a place for "people" (and I refer to anyone) to post their thoughts..you don't like 'em. too bad, it's still a free village..oops I meant country.
Reply to this
Bay Eng.
There is a yearly report done on the water quality in the creek. You can ask the Village for time to read it there.
Also, Bay26, a petition is a petition, since most meetings the village holds have only one or two people in attendance, having over 100 at both meetings regarding this issue, plus 250 signatures is quite noteworthy in this village.
Kudos to all of you who took your time to collect the signatures.
Bay26, you have seirous social problems I feel for you. Are you suggesting that you know who all "these people" are? You refer to "these people" at the meeting and on this blog. Are you suggesting that you know who everyone posting on this blog is? Even more outrageous you group "these people" together and assume to know and judge their political, social, economic and moral stature in their lives and this Village.
This blog is fairly anonymous, you do not know who is posting. You sir/madame are the one who has made himself/herself the fool by posting such inflammatory posts.
When something is wrong, there needs to be a correction made. If Mr. Zino's revelation of the deed is accurate...the Mayor needs to respond to Mr. Zino's requests which were to research there earlier decisions and rectify the problem. When is that going to happen?
Reply to this
kerri said:
"plus 250 signatures is quite noteworthy in this village."
Not really. Fourth (4th) Grade parents in Bayville rallied over 325 signatures on a petition to reduce class size, which was totally ignored by the Board of Ed. It would appear that you need over 1,000 legitimate signatures to have something officials consider worthy of affecting their decisions.
Are some of the posters in here seriously recommending that ALL of the equipment on the water tower be removed because of the deed? Is that what I'm hearing?
Reply to this
Kerri -
Please don't assume that you know me at all, thank you.
Reply to this
Lisa, You are right there have been other petitions more heavily signed. The road going out of town petition had 3000. I merely was pointing out that 250 is more than the amount of people who show up at any Village Meeting in one given year combined. That was the correlation I was trying to point out.
Bay26, I do not assume to know anything about you. YOU assume to know all those things (financial status, politcal affiliations, agendas, social stature, malicious intent) about "these people" who you target in your writings. You are correct in not posting your name because your postings are filled with the very hate, anger and vile you so despise in "these people".
Just pointing out the obvious. You do not know who posts here, therefore you are wrong in making assumptions about "these people" if you do not know who you are talking about.
Can we talk about something else? This deal is done. Even if you fight the legality of it it will be caught up in court for years.
How about other Village issues, first posted here by BArry?
i.e. Zoning, Environmental issues like Mill Neck Bay Marina, and others he posted in the initial blog. They were important and worthy of talking about.
Reply to this
Lisa,
I agree, 250 signatures is not enough. However, I don't know how many signatures it would take to make the Village Board take notice and take heed of the wishes of the villagers.
I was personally shocked that EVERY SINGLE PARENT of a child currently in the Primary school did not seek out the petition to sign. There were signs out at IGA, notices at both the preschools, as well as here on the blog and in personal emails. not to mention the public notices posted by the village and placed in the local papers. I can't speak to why that is.
Ultimately, it's my opinion that there will be a HUGE shock if the PD proposal is okay'd and it goes up. Part of the proposal is TWO 12x24 buildings to house additional equipment, as well as the dishes and stick antenna's on the tower itself. That will be an eyesore for sure.
Reply to this
Edie said:
"I was personally shocked that EVERY SINGLE PARENT of a child currently in the Primary school did not seek out the petition to sign."
I fail to understand why you are "shocked". Only 45 or so people voted against it at the PTA meeting. That's a tiny portion of the total membership. Either the rest of the parents don't care, trust their local officials to do the right thing, or don't see it as a problem.
Reply to this
"I fail to understand why you are "shocked". Only 45 or so people voted against it at the PTA meeting. That's a tiny portion of the total membership. Either the rest of the parents don't care, trust their local officials to do the right thing, or don't see it as a problem"
Lisa,
My shock is a reflection that i am so scared by the potential health risks based on what i've read about antennae near schools, that i guess naively i expect everyone else to feel the same way.
As far as numbers on a petition or at a meeting in Bayville.....here's my take on it all:
I'm not a member of that PTA, but it's my understanding that there are usually FAR fewer than 45 people at a regular meeting. so the fact that 45 people showed up is a BIG response to the issue.
just like there is usually just one person at the village meetings so to have 100 (give or take) at each of the last two public hearings on the PD proposal is also a BIG deal.
finally, Election Law only requires 100 signatures on a petition to be added to the Ballot. So if 100 signatures is enough to run for office, wouldn't 250 be enough to sway a governing board?????
i'm done here. i did my best to do soemthing i thought was right to help the kids and teachers in the school and to help the people who live in that direct area. in exchange for that i've been opened up to the nastiness shown here on the blog.
Reply to this
I too would not be shocked if it goes through. First of all, you have the Fire Department endorsing it; that's pretty big in this town. Second, you have people right here on the blog who are very knowledgeable of the subject stating that it is not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. Also, I don't think 250 signatures represent a significant portion of the population of the town. I would be shocked if it didn't pass to be honest.
Reply to this
According to the NCPD at the 1st public hearing, the Fire Dept will not be part of this project. The system has the capabilities. But supposedly will not be implemented. I confirmed this with a FD Dispatcher in NC. IF this is true, the FD is being mislead.
So here we go again...the Deed for the water tower is going to be ignored, again???
Motorola isn't a "commercial enterprise"? They are certainly charging a monthly fee to NCPD (tax payer money).
I think the deed should be ripped up. It obviously means nothing to the people responsible for enforcing it.
NC is also planning a wireless network for computer purposes, throughout the county. I am sure that equipment is going up on the bayville water tower as well. The Williams are surely turning in the graves.
Reply to this
Chris,
While the cellular antennas are private enterprise, the police department communication equipment is not. The fact that they are manufactured and installed by Motorola has no bearing - they are solely for public safety and not corporate profit. The deed restrictions will have absolutely no effect on this application.
Barry
Reply to this
Dear Barry,
The applicant is Motorola not Nassau County or NCPD, I have a copy of it from the Village.
Reply to this
Edie,
If something I said to you which seemed nasty, please point it out. It was not my intention to be nasty, merely to point out different perspectives. There seems to be an unfortunate trend in this area that people who disagree with each other are unable to debate a topic without getting into name-calling and making it personal. This is unfortunate indeed, no matter what the issue. Opinions on issues should be formed based on facts, and individuals are entitled to whatever opinion they wish to hold. It only becomes a problem when one group or individual holds their opinion in higher esteem than the others and seeks to force their opinion on those who disagree.
Reply to this
Lisa,
You were not the nasty I was referring to.
Others here are being so vicious that it's scary. I'm home alone with two kids running around town all day xxxxxxxxxxx with my actual name on this blog taking an unpopular stand. based on the reactions here and one person in particular when i was collecting signatures, i just want to pull back because honestly i'm a little freaked out.
Reply to this
Sorry Edie, but please refrain - even if you substitute letters it still means the same thing. Much of the discussion on this issue has already sunk to below my own personal standards and I often wrestle with the pros and cons of censorship and blacklisting, but language is a no brainer for me- even if it was aimed at yourself.
I am finding it harder and harder to justify not pulling complete comments and blacklisting posters (this is not aimed at you Edie and I respect the fact that you are not hiding behind an anonymous name), especially when those comments and posters offer nothing constructive to the discussion. Is it my imagination, or do the people who post intelligent thoughts seem to disappear when the discussions turn to insults and personal attacks. Perhaps they are embarrassed to be associated.
Yet to me censorship is censorship and so the rest of us have to endure the drivel and look on while something that was truly created with the intent of providing a sense of community for this village, instead sinks to the lowest common denominator.
Barry
Again Edie - not aimed at you
Reply to this
Barry,
I agree with your last comments about insults and personal attacks.
I got turned off from the blog, several weeks ago, from behavior on both sides of this discussion.
When posting a legitimate comment, one should not have to worry about defending there personal character. Backing up facts on the other hand, should not be responded to with insults, but is a legitimate part of debate.
I think the admin should remove any comments that are out of line.
Its easy to get passionate when your children are involved (like in my case), or when you really believe you are right .
Bottom Line: If you wouldn't say it to there face...don't say it here.
Chris Zino
Reply to this
I'm confused over the debate of the legality of the antenna. Barry, you stated that the Police antenna would not violate the deed. Would the other ones up there violate that deed? And are you 100% positive that they violate the deed? I would appreciate any comments that would explain this situation.
Reply to this
AM,
I think your directing the deed question to Barry, hope you don't mind me putting up the info I have. Someone else asked for deed info several entries back, as well.
BEFORE ANYONE Bashes me...these are JUST FACTS. All of this info is available to the public at the Village Hall.
In 1950, Mona Williams, deeded the property that the Water Tower sits on, to the Village of Bayville. In the deed, it specifically states that a water tower may be built in its current location. The deed also clearly states that no “commercial enterprises” shall be permitted on the property. The deed also mentions anything that is “offensive, dangerous, or obnoxious…[to residents] within 1/4 mile radius…” should not be permitted.
In 1992-93, the first nine cellular phone company antennae were installed.
In 2002, the Village of Bayville, adopted the Local Law 2002-8. In it, is stated: “The Village finds that wireless Telecommunications Facilities may pose significant concerns to the health, safety, public welfare, historic character, aesthetic qualities and environment of the Village and its inhabitants.” It goes on to describe the applicants obligations to notify the residents: “The applicant shall notify all landowners in writing whose property is located within fifteen hundred (1,500) feet of any property line of the lot or parcel on which the new Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are proposed to be located by certified mail, return receipt requested no less then ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled date of the public hearing.”
In 2003, additional applications were made to the Village for more cellular equipment to be installed on the resident’s water supply. According to a public statement (at the 2/1/07 public hearing), the Village was advised by counsel that the Harrison Williams Deed was expired, and therefore the cellular equipment could be installed. Many residents attended the Public Hearing in 2003, and some spoke out, mentioning the Deeds Restrictive Covenants, which apparently have NO expirations. In the minutes from that meeting, the Telecommunications Act of 1996(TCA) was mentioned. Yes, the TCA states that local government cannot deny cellular phone companies access for reasons of health concerns; however, it also states that the TCA "does not expressly or impliedly preempt the power of private citizens to enforce restrictive covenants or otherwise limit the judicial enforcement of those private citizens”.
If anyone would like a copy of the actual documents, just email me: czino@optonline.net
Reply to this
Thank you so much Chris for the detailed information. I must admit that I am still confused over the legality of the antenna. The language seems to be vague and left up to interpretation. Do you know if the Village has been mailing the certified letters to those homes withing 1500 feet of the tower? Which of the antennas up there now would be considered commercial? Is it possible that the counsel the Village received is wrong? Or have they interpreted the language differently than others? I'm just asking questions bc it seems to me that the Village wouldn't be able to refuse the antenna based on the TCA of 1996 ("the TCA states that local government cannot deny cellular phone companies access for reasons of health concerns"). I hope that there is a way to get to the bottom of this without a lawsuit. Has anyone had a lawyer read the deed who is unbiased of the situation?
Reply to this
As far as the deed. Vague is definetly not the way I see it. If you wanted them to mention Cell Antenna, remember that it was written in 1950.
Request a copy of the Deeds from the village, make your own judgements of it.
A local govt Can refuse cell antennas if they happen to be on deeded property with restrictive covanants. I am not a lawyer, obviously...but its pretty straight foward.
I am sure that the error will be corrected by the removal of the existing cell antennae. The loss of hundred of thousands of dollars in rental income for the village will not be missed. And I am positive no one will mind having zero cell service in Bayville. Sorry, I thought a little humor was needed up here!
OK, the Village Engineers had a go...any Village Attorneys out there.
Reply to this
The location of antennae wasn't mandated, as Mayor Siegel mentioned in the 2nd hearing, an alternative location would have had to be offered by the Village. Of course the counsel for the Village could be wrong, that's what keeps attorneys and the courts so busy. Each attorney is entitled to their opinion, unfortunately the Village did not include any of the Village attorneys reasons for his belief in the 2003 hearing notes. There are 2 deeds, perhaps that is where the confusion came from. I would hope the Mayor and board look into this, it is not at all a black mark on their administration if they research and hopefully repair damage started by the prior one. Unfortunately our current Village Attorney is the same who made the one sentence satement in 2003 so they would have to seek outside counsel. As far as unbiased, well that's always a toughy. One can almost always find an attorney to take a case, that's why expert witnesses are available for hire, right? If the Mayor wants the tower to remain, they would probably hire an attorney to support the deed. And if she wants everything to stay the same then they could hire the big guns, I'm sure Motorola would be more than happy to subsidize that (not overtly of course), of course they could just stay with Reilly's opinion, it's worked so far. I predict that "by counsels reccomendation" or some other such disclaimer will be in the final decision and their hands will be "clean" again.
Reply to this
sorry, I meant if the Mayor wants the tower antennae dismantled, they would probably hire an attorney to support the deed.
Reply to this
AM,
I am not an attorney and am rarely 100% sure of anything, but the fact that Motorola is listed on the application probably doesn't make it a commercial enterprise. It will still be used exclusively for our first responders and so it is a public use. The cell antennas are a different story - they are owned and operated for profit.
Also, please remember that the Village cannot discriminate against a particular carrier so once the first antennas were placed a precedent was established. If you were to challenge the legality, you would probably have to do it based on the placement of the first antennas. This is one of the reasons that I suggested in my "Fix the Problem" entry, that we limit the total output (or number of antenna or whatever) and put it out for bid. This would not discriminate, would limit RF, would keep the revenue stream, and allow for cell service to continue in Bayville.
Barry
Ps: Thanks everyone, for raising the quality of the posts since my last outburst.
Reply to this
I'm sure there is a legal reason that NCPD is not listed as the applicant. That aside, I personally have no issue with non-commercial antennas remaining or being placed if the commercial ones are taken down. And yes, the placement of the first antennas was the genesis of this problem, as I said I would hope the Village would look more carefully into the matter. As for the revenue stream, honestly, Bayville has a long was to go with making better use of its budget and would probably benefit from taking a gander at streamlining a bit.
Reply to this
“it my imagination, or do the people who post intelligent thoughts seem to disappear when the discussions turn to insults and personal attacks”
It’s worse than that It keeps a lot of “intelligent thoughts” off of the Blog. Many people I talk to say “there is no point talking to those people”
In the 1996 time frame the village was sued by a resident for the right to put up a satellite antenna in his yard (One of the older large receivers). The village lost and had to pay ever one’s Lawyers This tainted the village about law and antennas. This was talked about in the December meting. What wasn’t talked about is the real reason the town got on the residents case in the first place. The resident was (And is) a slob. A big slob (Can you say garbage dump) rat problems you name it. Well some neighbors Finally had some leverage or so they thought and were out to get him. Well the village lost got cold feet and now we have cell antennas next to our school.
If you push the Deed issue one of two thing can happen.
1) The antennas must be put some place else. There is no good spot for them so the RF in the school could get worse.
2) We will have no cell phone service in Bayville. When you are at the beach at night and your kid gets hurt good luck getting help.
Please don’t let history repeat it self.
I don’t understand why there is so much energy still put into this issue when there are some many other More important things we could be doing to help or kids / community.
If your reasons are politics stop it your going to make things Worse.
If your afraid of the RF please find some one you trust who can explain what is in your house (24 7) and school that is not from the antennas. If after that your still afraid of Low levels of RF you seriously need to think about moving in with the Amish in PA.
Reply to this
Could you please be more specific:
"If your reasons are politics stop it your going to make things Worse."
Make what worse?
Reply to this
BE,
I was wondering if you looked into the drinking water issue.Also I don't understand why people keep bringing up politics, what exactly dos that mean?
Reply to this
Bayville Engineer,
Let me make sure I understand. Because a bayville resident had a messy yard, then a dish receiver. Thats the reason that dozens of antenae are now on the tower?
As far as my feelings on RF safety, I have no issues with health effects anymore. I am cured.
I do however have problems with elected officials responsible for the entire villages affairs, that do not follow the rules. I would consider that political. Stop asking or implying. It is. I voted for VS, I am not happy about things that have happened while she is in office, its political. No doubt about it.
Reply to this
so i guess you would rather move the antenna to another location. that location being possibly lower relative to the school but further from the school. that could possibly increase the current levels at the school and at some residences if not all residences. the tower itself looks to be on the highest level of ground up there.
i'm in this for the safety of the kids. i have no problem moving the other antenna but be warned there is the possibility of increaseing the current levels at different locations.
i hate politics, because everything seems to get twisted. i'm not trying to figure anyone out here. but i think we should stay focused on the kids.
as i said before i think a safer spot may be on the other side of the WT. On a higher tower. This looks like it may be violating a deed. again this won't bring those levels down a whole lot.
Reply to this
so i guess you would rather move the antenna to another location. that location being possibly lower relative to the school but further from the school.
this should say:
so i guess you would rather move the antenna to another location. that location being possibly lower relative to the current antenna but further from the school.
i dont' know if you can fix that Admin. It might be easier to read. Sorry.
Reply to this
Not a popular stand,
Half my last entry got cut off some how, but I don't feel like retyping all of it right now.
I was being sarcastic about being cured.
Of course this is about the kids, but politics must be discussed, thats my point.
Reply to this
Bottom line is the higher the better. Lower level (landscape) should not increase the signal to dangerous levels. But if we are really looking for the safest levels (lowest). I think we have them. If safety is issue 1 (#1 concern). Wouldn't it be logical to find the alternative plan, before we consider kicking off existing antenna because of a deed violation. Or because the antenna don't look nice on the WT.
Thanks for the quick reply Chris Zino, you worried me for a second.
Politics should never fog our judgement. However I can always appreciate a little sarcasm.
Reply to this
To Bayville Engineer,
"If after that your still afraid of Low levels of RF you seriously need to think about moving in with the Amish in PA."
Awww, now what do you have against the nice Amish people?
Reply to this
Kirsten,
Yes I am still looking into the water issue sorry it’s a part time thing and it will take me a while.
Chris,
Chris rote (Or I wrote what ever)
“Let me make sure I understand. Because a bayville resident had a messy yard, then a dish receiver. Thats the reason that dozens of antenae are now on the tower?”
Yes that was definitely a contributing factor.
What Im afraid of is that 5 years from now my kid dies because no one could make a cell phone call. Why would the antenna be gone Because some one had a political problem with VS.
You don’t like VS I can respect that.
Do I think you had an integral part in starting all this RF stuff yes And I’m Glad you did.
I’m afraid you and other people are trying to give the current administration a hard time because you don’t like them. I see this as counter productive.
If your not afraid of the RF I have to ask you this.
What Good will come out of pushing the deed issue?
Do you know why the Germans didn’t build the Bomb first?
It was a letter from one scientist to another all it said was. What are the Germans going to do with the refined uranium?
You don’t like VS. fine just please tell me you thought this one threw.
Reply to this
Maybe I'm an optimist, but I would like to think that the deed was not intenionally violated by the Mayor and Trustees. One of the things that disturbed me in reading the blog is that there were two people stating "I hope someone sues the Village". I sincerely believe that because the Mayor and the Trustees live with their families in Bayville that they would always keep the health and best interest of the residents in mind. Also, I truly don't believe that VS is a person who randomly chooses to break the law. I'm sorry, but that is my opinion. And I also don't think that she is recognized for everything that she has done for this Village.
I think the political issues brought up here stem from the last election (and I know and have read the Zinos stating that they had voted for VS so I am not really directing this toward them). I believe that many residents have questioned the intent of SOME invovled in the BPF (again, I've lived here a long time and am speaking from what others have told me!). For example, one of those who was outspoken at the last meeting has had previous issues with the Village and who is related to who, etc. This is what people keep referring to by politics.
Reply to this
Thank you for defining politics, as it relates to this issue.
Soon as the word politics came up, a lot of people assumed the previous election was at work here, with this issue. That may or may not be the case, I don't care. I am not running for office, nor is anyone else I know of. I know one thing, Edie & others at the PBF, only had the childrens well being in mind. Thats it.
When I say "it is political", I simply mean that the "Political" People I helped put into office, should, as I asked at the last meeting, have some sort of answer as to why the deed was ignored. I just want to make sure that it doesn't happen again. My KIDS are everything to me & my wife. Any possible threat, no matter how small is a big deal to me.
Not A pop stand makes a very good point, nothing should be ripped down to put into a more dangerous place, even though it is farther from the school.
So BE and NAPS, are you saying the Bayville water tower is the only feasible place for any radio comms in bayville? If thats the case, what is up there now is going to double in the next few years. NCPD, the Wifi WEB project, and general demand of services will all contribute.
Chris Zino
Reply to this
Chris wrote
“are you saying the Bayville water tower is the only feasible place for any radio comms in bayville?”
Only Feasible. NO.
But if they are forced off the tower Do you get to pick were it goes?
Neither do I.
Reply to this
we can't throw off just one or two companies (legally, my understanding). that was my first thought. everyone in bayville just use the same service. dump the rest.
even if we do come up with an alternate plan (site) are we garranteed they (radio comms) follow. they may decide to place the antenna elsewhere. Stehli or Centre Island Beach. that may lower the level at the school, for sure. but it could create higher levels than currently at the school at homes near the new antenna site or sites.
then what? again, these levels won't be near fcc dangerous. but they may be higher than we currently have at the school and now residents are exposed for 24 hours. what do you say to those parents? or even those people who don't have kids.
short answer.
if there were currently no antenna and no school the tower would be the obvious safest for all homes in bayville even those homes nearby.
so why does the fact that there is a school there change everything?
because there 52? it shook me up too.
Reply to this
as for doubling in the next few years . . .
my research gave me the impression that the analog phones used more power. is it possible that some of the antenna up there is shortly going to be obsolete?
could they currently be taken down?
i wonder how many companies have antenna up there. why? didn't AT&T recently combine with cingular? sprint with nextel? could that be a couple extra antenna just throwing some useless RF out there?
Wifi WEB project? ya right?
didn't i read something about possibly limiting the RF? make it a comodity? i didn't quite understand how it would work but it seemed to protect the area around the tower by limiting the amount of RF. pretty unique idea, but with a couple of engineer types and lawyer types in the same room, anything is possible.
Reply to this
I have an Idea. Feel free to bash it if you like. (Why because I haven’t thought this one all the way through)
What if we start a not for profit group. We by the highest point in Bayville (The middle of the Bayville woods) we build an antenna tower that mimics a tree. We charge the cell phone companies and use the money for other environmental issues. Drainage or What Ever?
Reply to this
Hey! I'm up on a hill. They can stick one in the corner of my property in the woods. I have over half an acre. Each company can pay ME $5000 a month to put their antenna there.
Reply to this
Not a popular stand,
The RF as a commodity idea was addressed in my "Fix the Problem" entry. If I am correct, the 52 antenna are generally arranged in clusters of 4 so that we have 13 clusters (engineers please correct me). Because the first carriers were allowed up there and we can not discriminate, we now have 13 carriers. If we were to pass a resolution to allow only four antenna clusters with the same individual outputs (or whatever number agreed upon) we could now put those four positions out to bid. The highest four bidders would then keep those positions until the term of the lease were up and it would be put out to bid again. No discrimination, reduced RF, maximum revenue for what we lease, fewer ugly antenna, room for NC police and BFD communications. It would be a compromise we could all live with. The only problem is the terms of the existing leases may extend well into the future (does anybody have this information?). It also doesn't back the Mayor and BOT into a corner.
Reply to this
i am told there are 2 transmit 1 recieve configurations. these type could be 9 or 12 antenna in the cluster. i found an example below see B
http://www.tessco.com/yts/customerservice/techsupport/whitepapers/antennas.html
the easiest way to determine the lease situation is by getting the info through the village.
i understand these carriers can have multiple clusters.
do these carriers have separate leases for each cluster?
if we do implement this commodity idea how do we stop losing bidders from plotting thier antenna elsewhere? or worse we present the commodity idea and they all move thier antenna?
the problem is the levels here are so far below what is considered fcc safe. these carriers would be able to do whatever they want.
we are not in an area where they need higher powered antenna say 400 watts. this of course when placed on a roof in a bad situation may exceed the fcc or at least bring residents close to fcc exposure.
Reply to this
Part of the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996 states the following:
(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.
(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.
If the Village decides to deny the application for the antenna based on the resident's complaints of RF emissions, then Motorola may commence an action against the Village. So if the Mayor and Trustees vote against the antenna, that may not be the end of this issue.
Here are some articles discussing the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996
http://farrellfritz.com/pdf/art-115.pdf
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Telecomm/SullivanAug01.aspx
The second article, written by an attorney Tim Sullivan, Esq., notes the following:
The biggest unsettled issue remains what set of facts are sufficient "substantial evidence" to justify a local government's denial of a wireless communications facility application. Five years after passage of the Act, courts are still struggling over who has the burden of proof upon a judicial review of a local government decision to deny a siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility. Some courts indicate that the burden of proof is on the local government to justify the denial. See, e.g., Laurence Wolf Capital Management Trust v. City of Ferndale, 128 F. Supp.2d 441 (E.D.Mich. 12/18/2000). Others indicate that the burden falls upon the wireless telecommunications carrier. See, e.g,, Century Cellunet v. City of Ferrysburg, 993 F.Supp. 1072 (W.D. Mich. 1997). While still others note the existence of the controversy but avoid deciding the issue. See, e.g., SBA Communications v. Zoning Comm. of the Town of Brookfield, 112 F.Supp.2d 233, (D. Conn. 9/26/2000).
****
Reply to this
--continued:
Federal court decisions reviewing local government decisions regarding efforts to site wireless telecommunications facilities are intensely fact and local law specific. Five years after the enactment of the TCA, local governments and service providers still are unable to reliably predict whether or not a decision to grant or deny a particular siting application will be upheld on an appeal to the federal courts. This inevitably leads to great frustration for the wireless service providers who are under federal licensing requirements to build out their networks. Such frustration leads to state legislative pressure to restrict the decision-making authority of local governments - an occurrence that has been witnessed in the State of Washington.
Given the uncertain standards imposed by the TCA, the lack of available funds for local planning, and general community hostility to wireless telecommunications towers, there is little incentive for local governments to plan effectively for wireless telecommunications services. Wireless facilities will continue to be treated in a manner similar to the way many local jurisdictions treat adult entertainment uses. Because there is a risk that a court will say that the use must be allowed somewhere in the local jurisdictional boundaries, cities, towns and other local governments will reluctantly set aside some disfavored sites where the use may exist. As many local roadblocks as can lawfully be established to discourage the use will also be interposed.
The second article cites the following cases:
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Mills, 124 F.Supp.2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 12/20/2000). Grants a permanent injunction against the Ossining Union Free School District enjoining it, and all other persons who have knowledge of the injunction, from preventing Sprint from operating a wireless telecommunications facility located on the roof of the Ossining High School at a RF emission power level other than what the FCC allowed. The School District sought to have Sprint operate the facility at a signal level 13,000 times below the applicable federal standard. The court found that the level of RF emissions from personal wireless facilities is completely preempted by federal law and that the District and Sprint could not contract for a wireless telecommunications facility lease with a lower power level.
Reply to this
--continued:
Telespectrum, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Kentucky, 227 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 9/8/2000). Affirms District Court decision granting an injunction ordering the Kentucky Public Service Commission to issue a permit to allow Telespectrum to construct a 199-foot high wireless telecommunications tower on a heavily wooded unzoned parcel of property in rural Carter County, Kentucky. The closest home to the tower was 412 feet away. The Public Service Commission denied the application based on the testimony of the closest homeowners, the Chambers, who expressed concerns about exposure to electromagnetic radiation and a diminution in property values. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that the evidence presented by the Chambers was inadequate to justify a denial of the permit application under the substantial evidence standard.
My personal non-legal opinion - to those who do not want the antenna on the tower - you may have to come up with an argument as to how the antenna exceeds height ordances or some other Village ordinance that is in existence. The RF emission issue may not be enough to stop the antenna.
Other interesting reading:
The 2007 Capital Improvement budget for Nassau County:
http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/OLBR/Docs/PDF/2007-2010-CIP.pdf
Note the following at page 25:
Motorola, the vendor for the Interoperable Radio System was awarded the contract for this project in
March 2005. However, Motorola is behind schedule in completing licensing agreements with radio
transmit/receive sites. As per contract, the milestone payment of $4,587,000 will not be paid until this is
completed. These sites are on numerous water districts countywide and negotiations for these sites must
be initiated with each individual water district. Since radio site acquisition is a critical component of the
project, these negotiations have delayed the project by six months. Currently, it is estimated that
negotiations for these sites will be completed by the first or second quarter of 2007. The Police
Department is currently in Phase II of its analysis with the consulting firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton,
Inc. Phase II consists of establishing a long-term strategic plan, system design, development and
issuance of an RFP, support during the selection process and system implementation and acceptance.
Reply to this
I missing something
The comment
“we are not in an area where they need higher powered antenna say 400 watts”
Are you saying a cell site of 400 watts?
If I’m right (correct me if I’m wrong) the max cell site is 3 watts (older analog stuff). The newer stuff is about 1 watt; why it’s pointless to transmit at 400wats if the cell phone can only transmit at 1-watt back. Hence the system is a bunch of low power cell’s
Reply to this
there are 6 antenna proposed for the NCPD site. 2 recieve, 3 non-dipole, the one di-pole is a 100 watt antenna with a 3 DB gain. i was told there are situations or regions where a 400 watt antenna may be used. higher power.
did i misunderstand?
Reply to this
e911 is a service the cell carriers provide and are required to provide coverage throughout the nation. this will also make it difficult in getting the carriers to move.
Reply to this
popular stand
I think you were talking about police antennas
While I was talking about cell phone antennas
Sorry
Reply to this
bayvilleengineer and not a populer stand,
please tell me your credentials. i would like to believe everything you say. having an alias is keeping that trust factor from me and others. for all we know you could be in a completely un related field. i don't type well so please don't make fun of me.
Reply to this
"i understand radiowaves and microwaves. i have a EE degree. a close friend who works for verizon 18 years (10 years a cell tech)."
the above is a quote from 12/30/2006. it was from my first entry. i have a bachelors degree in electrical engineering. i am in no way attempting to mislead anyone. in fact i was asked to site my research on "Fix The Problem". i did because i am using an alias. i am currently working in an unrelated field. i have never worked in the communications field and therefore have no reason to lie about my findings.
my main credentials are my kids who will or are attending bayville primary.
if there is something i wrote on this blog you don't understand or believe i will point you to the research.
Reply to this
Similar
"I understand radio waves and microwaves. I have a EE degree”
I have designed and worked around large power RF devices Up to 100Kw (Not for communication)
I have A close friend that is 75 years old who designed built TV transmitters for way to many Years
(Same engineering theory)
My kids attend and will attending Bayville primary
I also work in an unrelated engineering field.
I work in a company that has many engineers that know the cell phone system better than me
Being an engineer doesn’t give me all the answers but it enables me to be able to ask the right questions from those that do.
As stated in the beginning of this I monitor, Research, worry about a lot of environmental issues (Most people watch TV)
Reply to this
Are you EEs sure about those cell mast watts? I could of sworn that I have seen a range of 4 to 18 watts in some of the lease agreements, I could be wrong.
Another question. You multiply the gain X watts to get the actual antenna output, right? If thats the case, the NCPD transmit antennae at 100watts X (6 or 8.5 dBd gain) would equal 600watts or 850watts per antenna (there are 5, I think). Please verify this. I am using DR Cottons report. Page 49 has the antenna specs.
CZ
Reply to this
Chris asked
“Are you EEs sure about those cell mast watts? I could of sworn that I have seen a range of 4 to 18 watts in some of the lease agreements”
I’m not sure of the exact power up there. 4 watts sounds reasonable. The point I was trying to make was 400w is unreasonable for a cell phone cell (or small coverage area)
(Also I miss under stood he was talking about police antennas not cell phones)
Why is it unreasonable because a cell phone is typically 1 watt. It can only reach as far as 1 watt can reach. A phone call is a two way conversation. So what good is a lot of power talking if you can only hear with a little power. Next point is cells are small you don’t want the conversation of one cells transmissions getting into other near by cells
Another question. “You multiply the gain X watts to get the actual antenna output, right? If thats the case, the NCPD transmit antennae at 100watts X (6 or 8.5 dBd gain) would equal 600watts or 850watts per antenna (there are 5, I think). Please verify this. I am using DR Cottons report. Page 49 has the antenna specs.”
WOW about a years worth of math class in two lines or less. The sort answer is no 6db is about x2 (And Yes I had to ask one of my antenna friends to get that). If you start looking up how to do the math on line make sure you are doing power calculations not voltage. Power is log20 not log10.
I will ad this I stopped worrying about cottons math at the last meeting. The engineer that did most of the talking (from bell labs) said he double-checked the math. Bell labs is one of the top engineering places around. Ill put it to you this way I have an IQ over 140 and I drought bell labs would even give me an interview.
Reply to this
Was away for a few days.
I didn't look online to "do the math".
I have a friend in the biz of antennae design. Maybe he over-simplified the calculation for us dumb people.
Bell Labs was hired by Motorola, right?
So what is the effective radiated power of a one 100 watt antenna with a gain of 6.5dBd or 8dBd? The short answer for those of us in the 130's IQ range, please.
Thanks
Chris
Reply to this
Sorry I missed a point. I don’t think its 4 antennas. Its one antenna with 4 parts. Am I right?
Reply to this
Not according to pictures.
Reply to this
An interesting letter from the Jericho Water District to its 58,000 plus customers defending its position on saying NO to Nassau County.
Note the section outlining the money Nassau County has allocated for site aquisition (it is towards the end of the letter.)
This letter was printed in the local papers as well as sent to individual customers homes.
The link is:
http://www.antonnews.com/syossetjerichotribune/2007/02/23/opinion/
Reply to this
thanks margaret for linking that.
i found it most interesting that jericho cites 'public perception' as a compelling enough reason to avoid placing cell towers near schools and libraries.
meanwhile, our water tower is near both a school and a library and our board seems blindly to be believing the assurances of Motorola paid hired guns that it is SO SAFE.
Reply to this
Edie wrote: "meanwhile, our water tower is near both a school and a library and our board seems blindly to be believing the assurances of Motorola paid hired guns that it is SO SAFE."
Has a final decision been made in Bayville on this matter?
Reply to this
AM
A final decision has not been made on this matter to my knowledge.
As far as the vote, which will be made by the MAyor and the trustees, I check the Village web site frequently. There is no mention of when they will have the vote. According to the last meeting, the vote meeting will be a meeting to only hold the vote, no public comment, so I do not think it will be held during a routine monthly meeting.
I think it is great that the Village has updated their website and made a lot more information available. They have posted reading material regarding this issue. The material they offer on this matter has clearly been given to them from Motorola and strongly supports one point of view.
What is interesting in the Jericho WD letter is this is and has always been there policy. Bayville has 52 antennas up there already. SO even though these additional antennas have not been placed, there are already ones on that site. Therefore, explaining Edie's comment
What I found most interesting about the letter is that Motorola is recieving 46 million for the project. The county also allocated 12 million for site aquisition. Why would they need 12 Million when Everyone from Souzzi to the police to the village heads (not just ours) have repeatedly said there is no money involved AND all the 24 sites are either County owned or pre-existing sites that where chosen for their height???
If we are getting money what is Bayville going to do with it? I vote for a community pool
Reply to this
I had no idea that Motorola was receiving 46 Million for this contract, why wasn't this mentioned at the hearings? How would Motorola's speakers every be deemed as impartial experts? Why hasn't the village posted any of the valid documentation opposed to antennas? I agree with Ede our officials do seem to be for the proposal. WHO gets the 12 million for site aquisition?
Reply to this
Debbie,
Did you think those nice folks at Motorola were doing this project for the NCPD out of the goodness of their hearts?
Ok, sarcasm over. Of course they are getting paid, and paid well.
Additionally, Dr. Cotten (the village selected "expert") was paid for his services by Motorola! Not that i would have loved the idea of my village tax dollars paying for an expert to investigate this, but i would trust what he said much more if his expertise was not paid for by the very company that stands to gain so much.
just saying.
Reply to this
Are they voting at tonights board meeting?
Reply to this
Update
No vote at meeting tonight.
No date has been set for voteing meeting.
Good news skating rink is open!
Reply to this
Internationally acknowledged experts in the field of RF research have shown that RF of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals, and people in laboratories and have also found epidemiological evidence (studies of communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the intensity of the radiation was too low to cause heating. They have found:
Increased cell growth of brain cancer cells(4)
A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice(5)
Changes in tumor growth in rats(6)
An increased number of tumors in rats(7)
Increased breaks in double and single stranded DNA, our genetic material(8)
2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF(9)
More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF(10)
Changes in sleep patterns and REM type sleep(11)
Headaches caused by RF exposure(12)
Neurologic changes(13) including
Changes in the blood-brain-barrier(14)
Changes in cellular morphology (including cell death)(15)
Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG)(16)
Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception)(17)
Metabolic changes (of calcium ions, for instance)(18)
Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheimer's, neurodegenerative diseases)(19)
Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction time in school children(20)
Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory"(21)
Increased blood pressure in healthy men(22)
Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications(23)
Many national and international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF exposure, calling for intensive scientific investigation to answer the open questions. These include:
The World Health Organization, noting reports of "cancer, reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children."(24)
The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)(25)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)(26)
The Swedish Work Environmental Fund(27)
The National Cancer Institute (NCI)(28)
The European Commission (EC)(29)
New Zealand's Ministry of Health(30)
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia(31)
Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO)(32)
Non-thermal effects are recognized by experts on RF and health to be potential health hazards. Safe levels of RF exposure for these low intensity, non-thermal effects have not yet been established.
The FDA has explicitly rejected claims that cellular phones are "safe."(33)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected the current (ANSI/IEEE) safety standards because they are based on thermal effects alone.(34)
Many scientists and physicians question the safety of exposure to RF.
Reply to this
Allen,
What do the numbers in parentheses' represent?
Reply to this
Bayville Resident Should be concerned!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027699/14-die-cancer-seven-years-living-phone-mast-highest-radiation-levels-UK.html
14 die of cancer in seven years living next to phone mast with highest radiation levels in UK
By Rebecca Camber
Last updated at 1:47 AM on 20th June 2008
Fourteen people living within a mile of a mobile phone mast that emits one of the highest levels of radiation in the country have died of cancer.
Four of the deaths have been in a cul-de-sac yards from the site.
A further 20 residents have developed tumours in the last seven years, although they have survived.
Those living in the shadow of the mast have begun a campaign for its removal, claiming that it has caused a cancer hotspot. The Health Protection Agency is investigating.
Worried parents are refusing to take their children to the playing fields where the mast is sited for fear of damaging their health.
The mast was erected in 1995 on a disused water tower on the High Acres estate in Kingswinford, near Dudley, West Midlands.
But campaigners claim health problems started among the 700 residents of the estate when more antennae and dishes were added in 2001.
It serves four mobile phone operators.
Experts from the communications watchdog Ofcom, who carried out tests on the mast, say it has the highest radiation level of any phone mast site surveyed in England this year.
However, the radiation was still within UK safety guidelines.
Wendy Baggott, 52, who leads a protest group against the mast, which is only 200 yards from her home, said: 'It feels like a threatening presence looming all over the neighbourhood.
'Over the last seven years there have been 14 cancer deaths in the area. Four of those happened in this road. The wellbeing of the whole community is being affected.'
The retired NHS clinical auditor, whose husband Clive has twice contracted skin cancer, said: 'It is a massive concern to us that there is a children's play area so near to it.
'Parents and grandparents around here won't let their children go there because they are terrified they could get cancer.'
One resident, Michael Morris, died from a brain tumour in 2003 aged 57.
His widow Pamela, 61, said: 'There have been so many people in the neighbourhood who have died of these cancers.
'Michael used to take the dogs for walks up there by the tower and I wonder if it might have been that.
When these masts came I think it was when he started to go downhill.'
The 14 deaths have included Betty Genner, who was killed by ovarian cancer in 2003 aged 68, and Dorothy Day, 69, who died two years later from cancer.
Six months ago another woman succumbed to a brain tumour. All of them lived within a mile of the mast.
The Government insists mobile phone masts pose no threat to the public.
But some campaigners believe the radiation from masts could be powerful enough to change the composi....
Reply to this