The Deed - Williams Estate Deed and Cell Towers
It has been a little unclear as to how the Williams Estate deed reads as it pertains to the property on which the Bayville Water tower resides and the surrounding property. There has been a lot of talk about it during the recent meetings regarding the cell phone antennas but few have had the opportunity to read it. Here is your opportunity to review it and see how it relates to the cell towers (commercial enterprise) or anything else deemed offensive.
Harrison Williams Deed
Bayville Cell Towers FAQ's
International Association of Firefighter's - Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions
Posted at the request of BRACT
Harrison Williams Deed
Bayville Cell Towers FAQ's
International Association of Firefighter's - Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions
Posted at the request of BRACT
Posted by Admin at Monday, June 09, 2008 11:23 PM and is filed under Microwave Satellite Receivers and Sticks aka -Antennas 
thanks Barry for posting the copy of the deed.whats wrong with our court system ? this should be a slam dunk!!!
Reply to this
Yes, thank you for posting the deed. I love reading those old deeds and seeing how the ownership of properties has changed. I believe it is a slam dunk, but not for the same reasons apparently as BRACT and KM. Here is why.....
Under the covenants and restrictions:
#4. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS, a water tank may be erected.....
In other words, in spite of the previously stated provisions, a water tank may be erected. Since the water tank benefits the community and while hardly what one can consider beautiful, neither emits odor, noise or can be considered obnoxious (conditions from which it is exempt anyway), it would seem that any appurtenances attached to said water tank would also be permitted. Remember, cell phones hadn't been invented when this deed was written.
However, if you want to argue the "obnoxious" clause as the sole basis of your case, might I recommend that the Village in turn argue that the only thing "obnoxious" about the water tower is BRACT.
Reply to this
I wonder how many people have thought of the possible result of getting rid of the cell transmitters from the water tower might be. Most likely Bayville will either lose cell coverage or the phone companies will litter the town with many more cell sites, which will be closer to people and probably expose people to greater levels of radiation.
I saw that 200 people signed against the cell transmitters. That's nothing. And for sure some people signed simply to not damage friendships. I know of one person who was not only pursuaded to sign but also donate money. It was done simply to preserve the 'harmony' of the friendship.
A truer gauge of opinion would be how many poeple in Bayville have cellphones. Cut off their service for a day and see how the village feels about those transmitters. How many people even know of the controversy? Stand at the entrance to Bayville and see how many returning from work honk for your cause.
Reply to this
This was the first time I had the ability to read the deed. It is pretty straight forward in saying "no commercial enterprise" that is deemed obnoxious. The water tower itself does not seem to be BRACTS issue, cell towers are a commercial enterprise.
In reading, it looks like the Williams wanted to preserve the property in its pristine state. The Williams also intended to protect their future neighbors up to a quarter of a mile from the properties borders. Its my belief that they would never have approved of the cell towers in such close proximity to our children's schools. Yes cell towers were not invented yet but it is pretty apparent by the "theme" of the deed that they (the Williams) would consider it obnoxious themselves.
I do use a cell phone, it is for business and an occasion call I feel is necessary but I do not sit on it mindlessly just to chat. I have no reception in my house whatsoever so losing it would not impact me that much. If I came over the bridge and there was no signal, I think I would be able to deal with making the call from home within a minute or two of getting there. Reception in Bayville is limited and even with Verizon I find that I frequently pick up a CT tower anyway.
My own concern is that we really can't be sure of the ill effects. My son will be attending the primary school for the first time this year and only because we do not have the option to send him to private, that would be my first choice but unfortunately I don't hold those cards. So now I am forced "to deal" with the unknown and hope for the best. Yes I can move and it has crossed my mind but my family and I enjoy it here in Bayville and for now I am here for my career and my relatives.
What I find obnoxious is that I pay a lot of money in school taxes and the LVCSD is not more involved in fighting the long term, low dosage exposure to the children attending their schools and their employees (even greater exposure). Maybe if LVSCD waived my school taxes due to my beliefs I would have the ability to send my child to private school; that would be a fair compromise in my mind. Will they and the village be negligent if and when it is deemed unsafe when they knew that the towers were potentially unsafe at such close proximity?
I hope and pray that the FCC is right, I have strong doubts. Cigarettes "were safe" too. Will the government get out of this one day by mandating that stickers be put on our phones saying that the Surgeon General recommends....". You know the rest.
Jeff Silver
Reply to this
Jeff:
Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion:
"Yes cell towers were not invented yet but it is pretty apparent by the "theme" of the deed that they (the Williams) would consider it obnoxious themselves."
Even if you can project your feelings that invisible RF's would be considered "obnoxious" by the Williams family, the water tower is clearly exempt from those previously stated deed restrictions.
LVCSD crossed the line by issuing the letter to the Mayor. They won't do it again. There are probably more RFs being emitted INSIDE the BP than there are outside coming from the water tower. You can either live with it or have your kid grow up in a bubble. Never visit NYC where everyone is walking down the street talking into a cell phone and where you are bombarded by wifi and everything else. Fear of the invisible is a powerful thing, but you can;t let it control your life.
Reply to this
Jeff,
Good post to read. thank you. I know of a total of NINE children who are to be attending the BP and are not, due to worries over the Cell tower. It would be nice if this kind of behavior on the part of residents served as a heads up to the district or the village but sadly it seems not to at all.
Reply to this
Edie, I'm sure the children aren't worried about it. How many parents are there of those NINE children?
Reply to this
Lisa,
when all else fails, you nitpick on semantics, right?
Got the TIP mailing today, it looks like you missed a few typos and word usage errors. Better luck next time.
Reply to this
Lisa- That was in response to your mention "Remember, cell phones hadn't been invented when this deed was written"
Just becauce the water tower was ok'd to be erected (which is not the issue at all)doesnt mean that anything that sits on it is "off the property".
Rf is not invisible, just depends on what instrument you use to see/measure it. What you dont see can still have the potential to harm you.
Jeff
Reply to this
Jeff,
You mention having a cell phone and a child. Your child probably receives more radiation from your cell phone than they will ever receive from the tower across from the school.
Have a microwave? What about that radiation? Have WiFi? What about that? In line with that, where are all the sick children from exposure to the cell tower and to cell phones? There are none.
Sure you can get rid of all this risks just in case, but there are costs to doing so, including substantial financial costs. For that matter, what are any of you doing living in Bayville? Much of the town was flooded out once before and the town is still surrounded by water. Your more likely to drown in Bayville than anything else.
"I know of a total of NINE children who are to be attending the BP and are not, due to worries over the Cell tower."
You mean that you know parents of nine children who are not sending their children to BP. The only reason a child would refuse to go would be of an irrational fear, instilled by parents or introduced by parents. I initially refused to move with my parents to Bayville when I was 4 (back in 1975) because of a fear of hurricanes because I heard of a hurricane hitting Bayville because my uncle was living there at the time. It was such a problem that I ended up living with my grandparents for a couple days.
As for considering the cell tower offensive under the deed, that might be a tall order to confirm, given that it is in the shadow of the water tower and wit cell structures seen as part of water towers these days, you'll have to prove that the radiation of the towers is a danger in court. What are the chances of that? Reading the deed, it sounds like the intent was at least in part to provide Bayville with land for erecting a water tower.
Reply to this
I think the cell towers are offensive but even worse is the UGLY sheds housing the repeaters and other hazardous equipment. And don't forget if the Police equipment goes up there will be another shed type building to house that additional equipment. And according to the deed shouldn't be approved. But I'm sure the blind followers will have an answer for that!
Reply to this
Hey Edie,
I'm out of town, I don't even know what TIP mailing you're talking about so in all likelihood, I didn't type it!
Fred Fry,
Thank you for agreeing with my "nitpicking" regarding Edie's statement.
Reply to this
Hi Fred,
For clarification- I clearly mentioned that I do have a cell phone and child, however they are not under the same plan. The cell DOES NOT work in the house and I only use it in an emergency and occasionally for business. I DO NOT sit on the phone in the car with my child and more often than not I let my calls go to message first before I answer them. As far as the microwave, yes I do use it for a quick reheat from time to time but I can assure you that my son does not sit in front of it for 8 hrs a day and I’m pretty confident in saying he is usually out of the kitchen in the remote chance it is used. Its used more as a bread box than anything else.
You mention: "I know of a total of NINE children who are to be attending the BP and are not, due to worries over the Cell tower."
Please look back at the comments and you’ll see that was not my reference, please redirect.
You know, it was once considered heresy if you mentioned that the world was round. You also cannot see radiation but it can burn you (i.e. sunburn). I can assure you we are not raising a child that lives in fear as many that know him will confirm. I would rather err on the side of safety especially when my only child is concerned. Please don’t make me into a lunatic living in fear by mentioning things like floods, hurricanes and such. I have been a volunteer firefighter for over 14 yrs and can assure that little rattles my cage and from what I can see my son is constructed with the same DNA
At a minimum the village should install a moratorium on any future placement of additional cellular services. All “special permits” should not be renewed on the basis of the deed, which is clearly identified in the current permit that is up for renewal. It (the permit renewal) can be declined on those stipulations of the deed at anytime. I did not write this stuff, this was put together by the village attorneys and agreed and signed by the cellular companies, the most recent being Sprint/Omnipoint.
Just my thoughts and with all due respect.
Jeff Silver
Reply to this
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for the clarification.
Do keep in mind that even though the cell phone is not in touch with a network it is still transmitting. In fact, if it cannot get a connection or worse, if the connection is bad, most phones will actually increase output to make a connection to the network. So as long as you have your phone one, even though 'it doesn't work at home' it is transmitting. That goes also for when it rings and you don't answer. A phone is constantly in two-way connection with the network.
That said, the present-day cell network is much better than from years past. I went to school with an antenna design engineer for Nokia. We talked at depth about phone entennas and the migration of the antenna into the phone. The power levels today are much less and by moving the antenna inside, you are less likely to grab the antenna and for a spike in transmission power. Did they do this because of concern of radiation? I have no idea, but the excuse to do so was to increase battery life. So remember, each person with a mobile phone is a mini cellphone tower, whether they are suing the phone or not.
I am sure you are not a lunitic. I bet most of the people involved in this on both sides are increadibly bright. However, this does not mean that either side is correct. In fact, determined groups, such as BRACT tend to magnify the irrational aspects as those with the strongest beliefs tend to squash any sort of intelligent analysis of the issue.
Also, as I said earlier, stopping for the sake of taking a time out is a cost. As many complain, cell coverage in Bayville is not the best. Taking a delay only prolongs the problem by preventing the companies from improving service. Anyway, who is to say that these towers won't be taken down from the tower, only to pop up above village hall and other parts of Bayville.
Reply to this
Interesting video.
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4969270/
Reply to this
anonymous,
re: that linked video holy cow!!!!!!!!!!!!! we r going to try that, will keep all posted
Reply to this
That video (which shows cell phones popping corn) was shown all over cable news yesterday. The people who posted it have admitted it is a fake and it was supposed to be taken down from YouTube.
Reply to this
I wish popcorn would pop that reliably/easily! I can't believe that anyone would actually believe that video, especially anyone who has popped corn in a microwave. I guess lots of people have no clue why popcorn pops, just like people have no clue about cellphone 'radiation'.
Sadly, this video plays upon that stupidity and even if the creaters have admitted that it is face, the rest of us will still be confronted with it for years to come as one of those 'it could be true' (fake but accurate) and we should take it into account anyway.....
Reply to this
Forget about what is wrong with our court system; courts are for resolving thorny legal issues. The real question is what is wrong with our Village leaders and the attorneys that advise them? The courts will go back to the root cause of the dispute -- that will prove to be inept legal counsel and brazen Village leaders.
Reply to this
and THAT is how the Mayor KNEW she could get away with it by carefully wording the Boards approval --- what was it?? something like "upon reccomendation of counsel???" such BS
Reply to this
God damn it, I'm a professor!! Listen to me, what about the children!! What about the children!!
Reply to this
The Leader has an article regarding the court decision that has been handed down:
http://www.theleaderonline.com/2008/DecisioninBayvilleBattleOver.htm
Barry
Reply to this
I'm happy to see that this matter now has been officially and LEGALLY put to rest. I hope now that BRACT will go around town and remove all of the signs begging people to donate money to their now defunct cause. And now all that is left is for the taxpayers of this town to foot the legal bills. Thanks BRACT.
Reply to this
What a shame, what is the point of having a NYS law that is invalid. The article did not address the deed question, anyone know the courts response to that? BTW legally an appeal can be filed right, so it's not technically put to rest. Thank you BRACT for taking a stand against a VERY POOR decision by our Village.
Reply to this
The deed question may be addressed in the ruling; the newspaper article is only a summary. I would imagine that the complete ruling will be available from the village. If you subscribe to Nexus Lexus you could probably find the ruling online.
Appeals are expensive.
Reply to this
I just read the 7 page decision. The Leader article was too kind to BRACT by stating:
>>>>>>>> " The court dismissed much of the claim against the village citing the Supremacy Clause which states that any state law that interferes with, or is contrary to, a federal law is invalid.">>>>>>>>>>>
The Court dismissed ALL of BRACT'S claims, it was a slam dunk for the Village, and the judge was stern and thorough in his ruling.
Enough is Enough:
I do believe the County is picking up the tab for the Village's legal bill. Either way, it is still the taxpayers who end up footing the bill for BRACT's frivolous lawsuit.
Reply to this
Wow!!!!! Lisa McLoughlin admits that the LEADER aint always accurate.
Reply to this
Actually, on a re-read, I suppose one could interpret the sentence as meaning that the Supremacy Clause was the basis cited for MUCH of the claim.
I never said The Leader was perfect. But it's our only Locust Valley paper and it has been around for over 60 years. It's former owner was instrumental in stopping the Bayville-Rye bridge with her editorials. And it seems to me that some people are awfully afraid of what The Leader prints to go to some of the extreme "bashing" measures that have been undertaken over the years. Will The Leader win a Pulitzer? Uh, not very likely. But surely you realize that print newspapers are not exactly a gold mine industry in this day and age.
Anyway, why buy The Leader when you can read everything in such accurate and scintillating detail on the Bayville Blog? [snark, snark]
Reply to this
Dear Enough is enough, Who are you? Why don't you identify yourself, or call BRACT at 628-3997 so that I may correct all of your misconceptions. This case is far from over, how could we ever abandon the fight to protect our children's and resident's health and safety. Most sincerely, Jo-Tina DiGennaro
Reply to this
"This case is far from over" ~Jo-Tina
You collected enough money begging at IGA to finance a lawsuit against the Federal Government? Wow, I wonder if I can set up a table and beg for money to pay for my child's college tuition!
Reply to this
Dear Lisa, Although I could never appreciate your deep sarcasm, I have to respect the fact that no matter what comment you make you sign your name to it. That is brutal honesty (I little too brutal for my taste--but it is honest). I would be happy to sit down with you and show you why that cell tower must be moved away from the children. You can call BRACT at any time--628-3997 and I would be happy to discuss this most serious matter that no one should make light of. Jo-Tina DiGennaro
Reply to this
Dear Jo-Tina,
I appreciate and respect your passion for what you believe to be a noble cause, in addition to being willing to put yourself on the line for what you believe in. I have come to my own conclusions regarding the alleged safety issues concerning the cell tower and, based on the reports, the court decision, federal law and my own residency being within a stone's throw of the tower, do not find any evidence to convince me that it is something to fear, fight or flee. Good of you to try, but I'm sure you must know by now, once I've made up my mind about something after hearing both sides (and I have), there is nothing short of an epiphany that is going to make me change it.
Reply to this
Wow comparing your childs college tuition to the BRACT fight, has to be one of the most asinine analogies I"ve ever heard .Heres all I know :you can get people to debate both sides of any subject. With regards to the cell towers no one can say with 100% certainty what the long term effects are .Why take a chance ?
Reply to this
KM:
Hmmm, you seemed to have missed my point which was regarding the act of begging at our local market to offset a financial need for something that cannot be considered an official "charity".
>>>>>>> With regards to the cell towers no one can say with 100% certainty what the long term effects are .Why take a chance ?>>>>>>>>>>>
Why get out of bed in the morning? You might step on the cat and fall down the stairs. Why drive a car? You might get into an accident. Why should you take a vacation? The plane might crash.
I use a cell phone. The cell tower provides service. As iffy as it is, I want that service. And I'll say it again, BRACT has NOT suggested or proposed an alternative site. Without an alternative site to place the tower on, it's simply a stupid argument. You can't turn back the clock and go back to the days of the horse and buggie.
Reply to this
It should not be the responsiblity of the BRACT to find a alternative site. Through poor planning, the village selected the wrong site from the beginning. Who the hell would allow that next to a school?
If done properly from the beginning, there would be no lawsuits or arguments, and to blame BRACT for the cost of the lawsuits is ridiculous. Since the village is making 225,000 a year on these radiation beacons, they can take the money from ther to cover their POOR PLANNING.
Reply to this
AA:
I must say, yours is a very strange attitude. If people believe there is a problem, whatever it may be, it would seem to me that in order to resolve it, there have to be alternatives, solutions and compromises that everyone can live with. The only "solution" BRACT has proposed is removal of the cell tower. That is neither an alternative, nor a compromise. It is clearly not a "solution" as many do not even view the BRACT issue as a problem in the first place.
IF BRACT had been involved from the beginning (1992) when the first cell towers were installed, there would be no lawsuits, arguments, or cost to the taxpayers for a frivolous lawsuit which was a decade late and a dollar short.
Reply to this
according to the Biological standards for wireless, the cindy sage video, her group believed 1 microwatt/cm2 was a safe standard for chronic exposure (a year or more constant) in 2000 (outside the school highest level last measured less is than that). recently 2007 she changes her personal safety level to 1 nanowatt/cm2 (1000 times less than 1 microwatt/cm2) for chronic exposure (a year or more constant).
is this even possible? anywhere? even without the antenna in bayville?
the lowest government standards in the world are based on the precautionary principle which allows placement near hospitals, schools, and residential areas with a max of 10 microwatts/cm2 (10,000 times higher than 1 nanowatt/cm2).
a poor plan might be to kick said "dangerous antenna" of the highest structure on the highest region in bayville and force the same government you already don't trust with the difficult task of finding a safer spot on lower ground. very difficult, possibly impossible.
i hope we are all aware its not the antenna that are dangerous or cause cancer. it is the actual level of RF that we should be concerned with. so if we place the antenna elsewhere away from homes and school but actually increase the RF at other or same homes and possibly the same school did we actually solve the problem?
Reply to this
Not a popular stand:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so if we place the antenna elsewhere away from homes and school but actually increase the RF at other or same homes and possibly the same school did we actually solve the problem?>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good point, and no, that would not solve the "problem". I was thinking more in terms of an alternative tower down at the beach or offshore, but to the best of my knowledge, that is not something that was proposed or considered, nor does it address the issue of the Federal Teleommunications Act of 1996.
Reply to this
beds,cats,cars and planes brilliant just brilliant.
Reply to this