Saturday, February 13, 2010
Hopefully, a Victory of Sorts
After Anna Peterson and I spoke to the City Council on Monday night, Tony Cuneo (one of the Councilors who voted for the tower) spoke up and thanked us for our presentations. He said that it was obvious that we were not going to give up and that we shouldn't. He also said that, had he known what he knows now, he would've voted no. He went on to say that this has brought awareness to the issue of towers in our community and that they will likely look at future proposals with a greater degree of scrutiny. YAY!! I really feel that we scored one on that note. If from this point forward our Council and Administration spend more time than picking up a rubber stamp, great! I would have loved to see one of the councilors grow a backbone and bring this back up, but I was pretty sure that wouldn't happen. After the meeting we met with a local activist who was attending for another issue. He told us about the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Statute 116b. This one is very interesting, and we are feverishly researching case law and the statute. Stay tuned...we might take some legal action soon!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Words for the Council
This is my speech:
Good Evening Councilors,
My name is Kelly Boedigheimer. I live down the road from the planned cell tower at 78th avenue east. I've owned my home for 33 years and each fall I witness an extraordinary migration. Millions of songbirds and raptors fly south, directly over my home. This fall I watched thousands of Nighthawks fly over at approximately 20 to 30 feet above the treetops. Nighthawks are listed as one of 26 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. These are birds who are identified as being rare, declining, or vulnerable in Minnesota. All 26 species on the list migrate through this corridor.
Clearly, the council has approved an inappropriate site and should take action to fix the problem.
The Council cannot claim that they did not have notice that this was in a major migration path. And it is shameful that one Councilor has chosen to misrepresent this fact on a News Tribune blog, in an attempt to justify his vote.
On November 3rd I sent an email to the Council, explaining that this is a major migration area. I included the Guidelines from U.S. Fish and Wildlife which clearly state:
“TOWERS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN KNOWN MIGRATORY FLYWAYS.”
The council did not discuss migration during the November 9th meeting.
On November 10th I received a phone call from Robert Russell with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Division of Migratory Birds. He confirmed that this is one of the greatest migration paths in the western great lakes and a terrible place for a tower.
This tower was not approved by the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Council had questions that went unanswered. The proposal was pulled by AT&T from the October agenda. Notice was made on Friday, November 6th at 3:45 that it was back on the agenda for the following Monday. This gave citizens no time to organize.
Because this item went onto the agenda on Friday, it is likely that Councilors didn’t even have the tower proposal in front of them at the meeting.
Several Councilors who voted to approve this tower told me that it was because AT&T convinced them they needed coverage for 911 calls.
On February 1st I received a letter from Andy Sackreiter, Radio Access Director for AT&T. I had asked why they need this tower. NOWHERE in his two page letter, are 911 or emergency calls mentioned.
AT&T gives this reason, “The planned cell tower will be equipped to provide 3G wireless broadband services.” Seems it’s not really about emergencies after all. And if Verizon and Sprint have 3G in our area, why can't AT&T locate on or near those towers?
The City has received an official warning about this tower from US Fish and Wildlife. The council and administration have taken NO action on it. This leaves the City vulnerable to even further penalty when birds die at this tower
Duluthians, watch for a tower coming to your backyard soon. Our leaders granted the wishes of AT&T while ignoring citizen input and the warning of a federal agency. In the future we must distinguish what the company actually NEEDS from what they WANT. And for a city our size they are going to want a LOT more towers.
I have given many reasons why this tower should be reevaluated. AT&T should have to prove that this is the ONLY solution. Third party evaluations at tower company expense should be mandatory for all future proposals.
Good Evening Councilors,
My name is Kelly Boedigheimer. I live down the road from the planned cell tower at 78th avenue east. I've owned my home for 33 years and each fall I witness an extraordinary migration. Millions of songbirds and raptors fly south, directly over my home. This fall I watched thousands of Nighthawks fly over at approximately 20 to 30 feet above the treetops. Nighthawks are listed as one of 26 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. These are birds who are identified as being rare, declining, or vulnerable in Minnesota. All 26 species on the list migrate through this corridor.
Clearly, the council has approved an inappropriate site and should take action to fix the problem.
The Council cannot claim that they did not have notice that this was in a major migration path. And it is shameful that one Councilor has chosen to misrepresent this fact on a News Tribune blog, in an attempt to justify his vote.
On November 3rd I sent an email to the Council, explaining that this is a major migration area. I included the Guidelines from U.S. Fish and Wildlife which clearly state:
“TOWERS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN KNOWN MIGRATORY FLYWAYS.”
The council did not discuss migration during the November 9th meeting.
On November 10th I received a phone call from Robert Russell with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Division of Migratory Birds. He confirmed that this is one of the greatest migration paths in the western great lakes and a terrible place for a tower.
This tower was not approved by the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Council had questions that went unanswered. The proposal was pulled by AT&T from the October agenda. Notice was made on Friday, November 6th at 3:45 that it was back on the agenda for the following Monday. This gave citizens no time to organize.
Because this item went onto the agenda on Friday, it is likely that Councilors didn’t even have the tower proposal in front of them at the meeting.
Several Councilors who voted to approve this tower told me that it was because AT&T convinced them they needed coverage for 911 calls.
On February 1st I received a letter from Andy Sackreiter, Radio Access Director for AT&T. I had asked why they need this tower. NOWHERE in his two page letter, are 911 or emergency calls mentioned.
AT&T gives this reason, “The planned cell tower will be equipped to provide 3G wireless broadband services.” Seems it’s not really about emergencies after all. And if Verizon and Sprint have 3G in our area, why can't AT&T locate on or near those towers?
The City has received an official warning about this tower from US Fish and Wildlife. The council and administration have taken NO action on it. This leaves the City vulnerable to even further penalty when birds die at this tower
Duluthians, watch for a tower coming to your backyard soon. Our leaders granted the wishes of AT&T while ignoring citizen input and the warning of a federal agency. In the future we must distinguish what the company actually NEEDS from what they WANT. And for a city our size they are going to want a LOT more towers.
I have given many reasons why this tower should be reevaluated. AT&T should have to prove that this is the ONLY solution. Third party evaluations at tower company expense should be mandatory for all future proposals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)