Comments on: The Federal Communications Act of 1996 DOES NOT Mandate an Installation on the Water Tower http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/ A Community Fighting to Keep Cell Companies from Transforming Water Towers into Cell Towers Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:57:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Celina http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-153 Celina Sun, 05 Apr 2009 07:51:45 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-153 You made some good points there. I think most people will agree with you, but I'm curous to see if anybody has any dissenting opinions too. You made some good points there. I think most people will agree with you, but I’m curous to see if anybody has any dissenting opinions too.

]]> By: Mike DI Novi http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-106 Mike DI Novi Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:41:54 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-106 As I have read through the posts and listened to the comments from the planning board one comment strikes me as something that makes little sense. The comment as I have heard it is that the planning board is following and upholding the law and therefore no one should object to the decisions made. I believe this logic (I will use the term somewhat loosely here) is seriously flawed from two perspectives. First, our type of government is a representative democracy. This means (unless I forget all of my civics and history schooling) as Abe Lincoln so eloquently put it that "the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people". As I interpret this, the town council should not be arguing with the group concerned over the water tower conversion to a cell tower as in fact the concerned group is part of "the people" who the government is intended to serve. I also recognize there are many constituencies and that the government must work to balance the needs and desires of the constituencies. This means (to me at least) that rather than prepare for a fight over a decision “that supports the law” the town council should be gathering the concerned parties together to work on an effective solution that best represents the will and desires of the people. In this I must agree with many of the posters to this blog that I am disappointed in my town council as they have had to a great extent the exact opposite orientation of position on the matter to what I would expect and to what I would hope it would be. I hope that even with the appeal of the planning board decision pending that everyone can work together to find a "good" and healthy solution to the issue at hand. Second I am struck by the hollowness of saying I am following the law and therefore, no one can argue with me or the decision. There is a great divide and tremendous distinction between what is lawful (meaning it complies with the letter of the law) and what is ethical (or right if you allow me the term). I will use an example to highlight the difference. First, I would like to reference the slogan that Hebrew National hot dogs used at one point (and still may today), which is , "we answer to a higher authority". The meaning of this is clear as the company stated in its advertisements is that even though the law allows for them to add specific ingredients it is not an acceptable practice as it does not produce a "quality" product in their eyes and is deceptive to what the customer expects in the product to begin with. What is important is taking the right actions based on the customer not just complying with the law. In our case the customer is the people as served by the town council and in accordance with the desire to be ethical and not just lawful the town council should be striving to satisfy the desires of the people as much as possible. Second, there are many examples in the country's history of laws that at one time or another allowed practices that we would consider unethical. I will not cite them as many of them are quite inflammatory and I do not want any of those issues confused with what I am discussing here. What It does mean is that no one should not use lawful as an excuse to end discourse or debate as the law does not align to ethical at all times. Rather we should work and strive to find the ethical (right) answer for our community and if necessary change the law (in this case the ordinance) so that the law more closely aligns to the ethical standard. We need to as a community in Hopewell Township have a debate as to where we wish to place cell antennas. Some may have very strong opinions and others may not see it as a big issue at all. But through that debate we can find what we as a community find acceptable. The answer cannot be dictated nor can it be prescribed simply by following “the law”. My hope is that our town council will enter into and have a real and honest debate around the best sighting for the antennas based on the needs of the entire community. To not do so because we hide behind the law would be disgraceful and in the end will perform a disservice to our community that we all hold dear. As I have read through the posts and listened to the comments from the planning board one comment strikes me as something that makes little sense. The comment as I have heard it is that the planning board is following and upholding the law and therefore no one should object to the decisions made. I believe this logic (I will use the term somewhat loosely here) is seriously flawed from two perspectives.
First, our type of government is a representative democracy. This means (unless I forget all of my civics and history schooling) as Abe Lincoln so eloquently put it that “the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people”. As I interpret this, the town council should not be arguing with the group concerned over the water tower conversion to a cell tower as in fact the concerned group is part of “the people” who the government is intended to serve. I also recognize there are many constituencies and that the government must work to balance the needs and desires of the constituencies. This means (to me at least) that rather than prepare for a fight over a decision “that supports the law” the town council should be gathering the concerned parties together to work on an effective solution that best represents the will and desires of the people. In this I must agree with many of the posters to this blog that I am disappointed in my town council as they have had to a great extent the exact opposite orientation of position on the matter to what I would expect and to what I would hope it would be. I hope that even with the appeal of the planning board decision pending that everyone can work together to find a “good” and healthy solution to the issue at hand.
Second I am struck by the hollowness of saying I am following the law and therefore, no one can argue with me or the decision. There is a great divide and tremendous distinction between what is lawful (meaning it complies with the letter of the law) and what is ethical (or right if you allow me the term). I will use an example to highlight the difference. First, I would like to reference the slogan that Hebrew National hot dogs used at one point (and still may today), which is , “we answer to a higher authority”. The meaning of this is clear as the company stated in its advertisements is that even though the law allows for them to add specific ingredients it is not an acceptable practice as it does not produce a “quality” product in their eyes and is deceptive to what the customer expects in the product to begin with. What is important is taking the right actions based on the customer not just complying with the law. In our case the customer is the people as served by the town council and in accordance with the desire to be ethical and not just lawful the town council should be striving to satisfy the desires of the people as much as possible. Second, there are many examples in the country’s history of laws that at one time or another allowed practices that we would consider unethical. I will not cite them as many of them are quite inflammatory and I do not want any of those issues confused with what I am discussing here. What It does mean is that no one should not use lawful as an excuse to end discourse or debate as the law does not align to ethical at all times. Rather we should work and strive to find the ethical (right) answer for our community and if necessary change the law (in this case the ordinance) so that the law more closely aligns to the ethical standard.
We need to as a community in Hopewell Township have a debate as to where we wish to place cell antennas. Some may have very strong opinions and others may not see it as a big issue at all. But through that debate we can find what we as a community find acceptable. The answer cannot be dictated nor can it be prescribed simply by following “the law”. My hope is that our town council will enter into and have a real and honest debate around the best sighting for the antennas based on the needs of the entire community. To not do so because we hide behind the law would be disgraceful and in the end will perform a disservice to our community that we all hold dear.

]]> By: Lisa Hayden http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-72 Lisa Hayden Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:08:55 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-72 Bravo for the BFPOA! This is another strong stand that our community can be grateful for. Bravo for the BFPOA! This is another strong stand that our community can be grateful for.

]]> By: Bob Giangrasso http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-71 Bob Giangrasso Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:52:32 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-71 Th following Position Paper was passed unanimously in open session and memorialized at this past Thursday night's Brandon Farms POA Meeting: POSITION PAPER The Brandon Farms Property Owners Association Board of Trustees are strongly opposed to the installation of cell phone antennas and the accompanying battery packs and cables on the Trenton Water Works Water Tower which is located at the edge of our community. Further, the Trustees oppose any such installation within the boundaries of our community or any properties abutting any and all Brandon Farms properties and strongly urge the Township of Hopewell and T-Mobile to consider locating this installation outside the boundaries of the Brandon Farms Community. The original was signed by all BFPOA Trustees and dropped off so it can be presented at tonight's Hopewell Township Committee meeting. Hopefully the Hopewell Township Committee will get actively involved in relocating the cell antennas outside of the Brandon Farms community. Th following Position Paper was passed unanimously in open session and memorialized at this past Thursday night’s Brandon Farms POA Meeting:

POSITION PAPER

The Brandon Farms Property Owners Association Board of Trustees are strongly opposed to the installation of cell phone antennas and the accompanying battery packs and cables on the Trenton Water Works Water Tower which is located at the edge of our community. Further, the Trustees oppose any such installation within the boundaries of our community or any properties abutting any and all Brandon Farms properties and strongly urge the Township of Hopewell and T-Mobile to consider locating this installation outside the boundaries of the Brandon Farms Community.

The original was signed by all BFPOA Trustees and dropped off so it can be presented at tonight’s Hopewell Township Committee meeting.

Hopefully the Hopewell Township Committee will get actively involved in relocating the cell antennas outside of the Brandon Farms community.

]]> By: Shoban http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-69 Shoban Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:33:07 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-69 I am in complete agreement with the above post. The elected committee officials need to take a more active part here …not just take an easy way out. I urge the officials to work with the community and for the community to resolve this issue. I am in complete agreement with the above post. The elected committee officials need to take a more active part here …not just take an easy way out. I urge the officials to work with the community and for the community to resolve this issue.

]]> By: Liz Gambino http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-63 Liz Gambino Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:26:06 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-63 Hopewell Township residents have truly been subjected to a detrimental situation due to the inadequacies of the ordinance written by the Hopewell Township Committee. It is quite disturbing that the Committee now prefers to lead the public to believe their hands are tied by government allowance rather than taking the necessary steps to right the wrong created by the language of their ordinance. We need the Township Committee to take an active part in supporting local constituents on preventing the installation of cellular transmitters on the Brandon Farms Water Tower and also to do what is necessary now to implement a stricter ordinance. We should all prepare to attend the Township Committee Meeting, Monday, January 14 at 7:00 at the Municipal Building. Our community needs to stand together! Hopewell Township residents have truly been subjected to a detrimental situation due to the inadequacies of the ordinance written by the Hopewell Township Committee. It is quite disturbing that the Committee now prefers to lead the public to believe their hands are tied by government allowance rather than taking the necessary steps to right the wrong created by the language of their ordinance. We need the Township Committee to take an active part in supporting local constituents on preventing the installation of cellular transmitters on the Brandon Farms Water Tower and also to do what is necessary now to implement a stricter ordinance. We should all prepare to attend the Township Committee Meeting, Monday, January 14 at 7:00 at the Municipal Building. Our community needs to stand together!

]]> By: Karen http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-61 Karen Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:02:25 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-61 Diane - How wonderful of you - you lived with what we worry about most, the health of our children - and you offer to help us in this fight. Bless you. Diane - How wonderful of you - you lived with what we worry about most, the health of our children - and you offer to help us in this fight. Bless you.

]]> By: Lisa Hayden http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-58 Lisa Hayden Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:14:03 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-58 Wow Diane, thank you so much for your post. I am sad to hear about your experience and I appreciate you sharing it with all of us. It inspires me that even though you live way up in the front of the nieghborhood and you have a lot on your plate you are willing to join us in this fight! I know I speak for everybody involved when I say "Welcome Aboard" and look out T-Mobile we've got Diane Titus on board! Thanks, Lisa Wow Diane, thank you so much for your post. I am sad to hear about your experience and I appreciate you sharing it with all of us. It inspires me that even though you live way up in the front of the nieghborhood and you have a lot on your plate you are willing to join us in this fight! I know I speak for everybody involved when I say “Welcome Aboard” and look out T-Mobile we’ve got Diane Titus on board!
Thanks,
Lisa

]]> By: Diane G. Titus http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-54 Diane G. Titus Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:25:44 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-54 I fully support your mission. I am a mother of a child (now an adult living in a group home in Hamilton) diagnosed with infantile autism. Not to recite my life story, I'll just say that I sincerely feel his disability is the result of environmental factors -- in particular, carcinogens in the water supply dating back to my son's grandparents residences in Hawthorne, NJ. I have researched studies by those "professionals in the field" that continually discount the fact that these factors (in some cases very clear evidence of association) have caused such severe disabilities in our offspring. The only thing changing the minds of the powers that can affect change is the fact that people of notoriety (within the government, media) are having children diagnosed with this lifelong, heartbreaking disability. It seems that until it hits home, people turn a blind eye. I don't believe a word T-Mobile says as to its cell tower safety and, not only my own health and wellbeing, I fear for the impact on our offspring and future generations. I will earnestly try to be part of this fight. I am not intimidated by political officials or members of the government, be it local, state, federal. I have fought for the past 25 years for my son's needs (in court in a 4-day trial and several times against school distrists) with success. Please count me in. I reside on Tuxford Court and even though it is not immediately surrounding the cell tower, I endorse stronger local legislation prohibiting the placement of these towers within our community. March on!! I fully support your mission. I am a mother of a child (now an adult living in a group home in Hamilton) diagnosed with infantile autism. Not to recite my life story, I’ll just say that I sincerely feel his disability is the result of environmental factors — in particular, carcinogens in the water supply dating back to my son’s grandparents residences in Hawthorne, NJ. I have researched studies by those “professionals in the field” that continually discount the fact that these factors (in some cases very clear evidence of association) have caused such severe disabilities in our offspring. The only thing changing the minds of the powers that can affect change is the fact that people of notoriety (within the government, media) are having children diagnosed with this lifelong, heartbreaking disability. It seems that until it hits home, people turn a blind eye. I don’t believe a word T-Mobile says as to its cell tower safety and, not only my own health and wellbeing, I fear for the impact on our offspring and future generations. I will earnestly try to be part of this fight. I am not intimidated by political officials or members of the government, be it local, state, federal. I have fought for the past 25 years for my son’s needs (in court in a 4-day trial and several times against school distrists) with success. Please count me in. I reside on Tuxford Court and even though it is not immediately surrounding the cell tower, I endorse stronger local legislation prohibiting the placement of these towers within our community. March on!!

]]> By: Lisa Hayden http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-50 Lisa Hayden Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:46:34 +0000 http://brandonfarmswatertower.com/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-federal-communications-act-of-1996-does-not-mandate-an-installation-on-the-water-tower/#comment-50 That's my guy! This is key information for us to go before the Hopwell Township Committee on Monday, January 14th with. We should have the same protection as the people in New Providence. I believe there are people on our committee willing to make the ordinance stronger. We just have to convince all of them. This change will protect all families in Hopewell from potential health consequences as will as property value decline, not just the ones in Brandon Farms. That’s my guy! This is key information for us to go before the Hopwell Township Committee on Monday, January 14th with. We should have the same protection as the people in New Providence. I believe there are people on our committee willing to make the ordinance stronger. We just have to convince all of them. This change will protect all families in Hopewell from potential health consequences as will as property value decline, not just the ones in Brandon Farms.

]]>