Will the Duluth News Tribune Listen?

I had a conversation with a reporter about my tower battle. He saw my email exchanges with City Councilors and wanted to know more about the issue. Our city has approved at least a half dozen towers recently. My battle has expanded from just talking about bird kills at towers. I am asking my City to create a plan to deal with the pressure from the communication industry for more towers in our area. If we're going to have to have them, at least we can plan for them. Decide where we will allow them, and create an ordinance that requires cell companies to pay a third party to prove they need the tower in the first place! There are also ways that Duluth should be getting revenue from the towers.

I'm learning that the communications industry is not exactly honest when selling a tower to a community, surprised? Not me! I've learned that a single cell site will generate an average income of $800,000 per year. And many cell sites are multiples. BIG business! We should be getting something back for our City, and listening to citizens when there are objections, rather than rolling over like dupes when a Cell salesman uses trumped up reasons to sell his wares.

Go to AT&T and search for coverage at 25 N. 78th avenue east Duluth MN 55804 where this tower will be sited,
or use this link:

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&lat=46.85994780861816&lon=-91.97361017956271&sci=11

You will find that they are advertising that there is good coverage in this entire area. If this is the case, why did they tell our City Council that this is an area of poor or no coverage? Who are they being dishonest to? The customer? The City? We should have required that they pay for a third party assessment of need. But no...we forged on and voted yes. And in defiance of the migratory bird treaty, I find this quote from a Fish and Wildlife manuscript published in 2000 very relevant to the argument of finding a balance:
"The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104), in fact, mandates that all television stations be digitized by no later than 2003. By some estimates, this mandate could result in the addition of 1,000 new, 1,000-plus-foot "mega-towers" across the landscape in the United States. However, the MBTA of 1918, as amended -- our "marching orders" for DMBM -- is a strict liability law. The Act does not allow the killing or taking of migratory birds, except by permit, and the Service does not issue incidental take permits. Thus, the incidental killing of even one bird is legally considered a taking under MBTA and is technically a violation of the law. Concerning their mandates, the Telecommunications Act and MBTA may, thus, be directly at odds. Taking these issues into consideration, the Service recommends that communication companies do whatever they can to prevent needless bird deaths."
Shame on the salesman, for ignoring or not understanding the guideline that says that we should NOT site towers in known migration paths. He has some knowledge of the guidelines, he loosely quoted them to our planning commission, but left out the part about migration paths. Convenient huh?