I haven't sent this...yet. I wrote this draft to City Councilor Jeff Anderson:
Councilor Anderson,
Since you have now replied to my email twice, I feel compelled to bring up a few points.
Your second reply:
Thank you for your e-mail. I am always open to reconsideration if I think my decision - or our decision as a council was flawed. In this instance, I do not believe it was.
Respectfully,
Jeff
Jeff Anderson
Duluth City Councilor
Councilor Anderson,
I have made it clear that live just down the road from where this tower will be built. Therefore I felt that elected representatives should take time to consider my objections, and perhaps look into them. I received an interesting phone call from a neighbor right next to where this tower will go. He was mad that he was not informed. When I went back to the planning commission notes where they talk about who was informed, I found that NO ONE except the developer at White Pines (the new development across the freeway and uphill 600 feet from the site) was informed. The justification was that there are no homes within 350 feet of this site (it's rural...duh) so they felt that they didn't need to contact any adjoining landowners EXCEPT the White Pines Development (600 feet away!) as they bought their lots (for their very expensive homes with a view) before this tower was planned. Well, what about the folks next door who bought their homes years before this tower was planned????? Weird huh? Seems like in this town if you're rich and plan to build a fancy home with a view you might get a voice at the table. I think that might explain why no one in the neighborhood objected!
After receiving the warning letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, do you still think your decision was not flawed?
I sent all Councilors an email, prior to the vote, asking that you read the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Guidelines for Siting Towers. It was sent to the Council on 11/3/09 and you replied to me on 11/11/09 after the vote. Just reading your response to that email leads me to believe that you probably didn’t read the entire email or take my objection seriously. It seems to me that the Councilors who voted yes never heard the alarm bell I was ringing! I’d say it was a flawed decision because the Council chose to disregard, ignore, or not pay attention to a valid issue that was raised by someone in the neighborhood. Why didn't any of the Council bring up my concern in the meeting? Why were there NO questions to the Representative from AT&T regarding the (now verified) FACT that this is a major migration path? Why didn’t any of the Council question AT&T about the USFWS Guidelines? Why wasn’t this item tabled until we could verify that it would not be sited in a migration path? It went onto the agenda late on a Friday after being pulled several weeks prior. Jeff Cox stated “Obviously by filing something on Friday, it increases the chances that the council will have questions and may table the resolution at the council meeting.” But no, this item sailed through. I find that a big flaw, that Councilors are given information that should be taken seriously, blow it off, and continue to ignore what may become a major embarrassment and quite possibly a legal issue with Fish and Wildlife.
Not flawed? The AT&T Representative provided this statement: “The objective of this site is to improve coverage at the junction of Hwy 61 and the scenic bypass.” Go to AT&T’s website and type in 78th avenue east and Superior street. You will see that AT&T advertises good coverage in this area. Who is not being told the truth? Are they lying to the City or their customer?
Not flawed? Do you really believe that they gave compelling evidence that emergency calls are going over to Wisconsin? Read the information they gave a second time. You’ll see the flaws. I am not an expert on cell communications, but it is my understanding that a signal goes to the nearest tower. There are three towers, Moose Mountain, 47th avenue east, and Knife River; that are quite a bit closer. The letters provided by the AT&T Representative as testimony are obviously form letters, and if anyone on the Council would PLEASE go back and read them carefully, you will see that they do not address this specific problem. They speak generally about calls from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Lake County. They DO NOT address calls from this area! I’m wondering how many other City Councils will get the exact same letters as justification for more towers in other areas.
Not flawed? The planning commission could not agree to approve this tower, they actually HAD a discussion about Migration. But, the answers to their questions came from the AT&T Representative, who, according to the minutes, named the wrong regulatory agency (DNR), and practically quoted one of the USFSWS guidelines dealing with tower lights and guy wires, which tells me he had knowledge of them. But conveniently, he never addressed the guideline that states: TOWERS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN KNOWN MIGRATORY FLYWAYS.
Not flawed? The Environmental Advisory Committee never reviewed this proposal because it was taken off the agenda and then put back on before they had another meeting. But the majority of the Council voted to approve it, seemingly basing their decision on information provided by the AT&T Representative, who stands to make quite a bit of money in the end. I know what AT&T’s motivation is for ignoring USFWS Guidelines. I cannot fathom why the Council and the City continues to ignore this issue.
Not flawed? There was not a lot of convincing or compelling evidence given as to the need for this tower. There were people trotted in to give “technical” information that most councilors could not be expected to understand. A decision is flawed when it is based on information that you cannot understand and debate with knowledge.
Not flawed? If the council had expertise in Communication tower siting they would’ve known that it is always prudent to bring in a 3rd party, at the cell company expense, to evaluate need. And they would’ve been aware of the Federal Government’s Guidelines. I’m sorry, but a decision based on inaccurate, possibly misleading, and incomplete information is flawed.
As long as there is no building permit (and I have verified that there is not) we should do everything to stop this from becoming an embarrassment and a legal problem for the City. I know I am, is anyone at the City willing to?
No comments:
Post a Comment