Tags
Aesthetics, Billerica, Billerica Blog, Bob Casey, Cell Towers, electromagnetic radiation, Planning Board, Politics, Science vs Crackpots
Crackpots, Click Me And I'll Become Your Oracle
In recent weeks, as reported by the Billerica Minuteman, the Billerica Planning Board rejected permit applications for two cell towers. One would have allowed the placement of a cell tower at Akeson Field and the other on wooded property near the Billerica Country Club. The denials came because the board deemed the towers as “inappropriate” and because they did not meet the letter of the town’s bylaws (which can be waived).
Bob Casey cited several reasons for the denial. “We had concerns about the aesthetic issues, safety, and the appropriateness of putting it in an area used by children (Akeson Field); it’s a very nice little recreation area with scenic views.”
Now, as a long-term resident of Billerica, I have to admit that I nearly fell from my seat when I read the statement about the Planning Board concern for aesthetics. Have they looked at the Town Center? Do they see the giant tin can shaped water tower and the Zombie Mall combination as some sort of abstract art? Are they speaking of harming the aesthetic scenery one encounters along the entire course of Route 3A as it winds through Billerica where one can photograph one half-filled or unkempt property after another to send out as postcards? It’s a sad day when the most attractive building in town is a bank or a Dunkin’ Donuts.
Let’s consider the aesthetics of Akeson Field. It’s not exactly the pastoral scene that might have appeared in Life Magazine decades ago, or in the drawings of Norman Rockwell. It’s certainly not something Thomas Kincaid would consider painting without a lot of creative license to delete objects from his view of what could be as opposed to what really exists.
How many kids do you know who go to any field to play who are equally or more concerned with the scenery as they are with getting on with the business of playing? And just how scenic is that location considering the overall scheme of things? Where was the concern for “scenery” when the Planning Board allowed O’Connor’s to expand. That expansion progressed to the point where their building became only scene to appreciate from the adjacent play area? How many parking spots that used to exist along the play area fence line were lost to the expanded facility?
If aesthetics were a legitimate concern, then why was the Billerica Country Club allowed to sell land to a housing developer, who, in turn, would destroy what used to be fairly well maintained greens and fairways lined with an assortment of floral displays and old trees without first looking for alternatives? What was once a nice piece of property, full of shifting landscapes and open spaces that anyone could enjoy, is now a glorified housing project lacking both aesthetics and soul. Where once you could stand, look around and actually not see any other portion of Billerica, you now get to look at a wall of condos from which the once proud sound of wildlife is drowned out by engines and other noises associated with civilization. Perhaps, the members of the Planning Board need to reexamine the word aesthetics as well as the concept of what constitutes harm.
Is it less awful for one to come across a cell tower rising up from a distant point across an open field after having just passed miles of properties only partially in use, or in a severe state of decay due to abandonment or neglect by owners? If all one needs to find aesthetic beauty is a row of trees dividing a field from one of the ugliest roads in America, then, perhaps, all we need in Billerica to improve are landscape paintings and drawn shades on our window.
Is a cell tower less attractive than the high-tension lines that crisscross Billerica? I find it difficult to imagine how and endless line of high-tension towers are any more aesthetically pleasing than cell towers where electromagnetic fields are less harmful. Yet, we have hundreds, if not thousands of high tension towers crisscrossing Billerica. Somehow, they must be more appealing to the aesthetic sensibilities of Planning Board members because no effort has been made to prohibit them.
I wonder what information the Planning Board has at its fingertips to determine that cell towers are hazardous to average citizens? What full, scientific examination, if any, was used to determine that high tension towers were any less harmful to people than are cell tower functions? Surely some study must have been done, since there are areas in Billerica where homes have been built almost directly underneath them. I would be interested in reading a properly constructed rationale as to how the Planning Board reconciles how the risks of high tension towers and cell towers are unique from each other in terms of being real threats to the health of residents. The fact is that health cannot be considered in the permitting process regarding telecommunications poles.
Does the Planning Board truly believe that people will be shocked by having to look at a cell tower after passing the earthy mound of infamy across the street for Friendly’s at the intersection of Tower Farm Rd and Boston Road? When do they plan on doing something about that monstrosity? Just yards beyond that location is the water tower and then the Zombie Mall. Turning into the Mall one enters a very unattractive, almost moonscape like property that holds a poor man’s version of K-Mart with limited stocks and isles of confusion, Ma’s Dry Cleaners/Tuxedo Rentals, a half open Burlington Coat Factory, a Dollar Store and a Market Basket. Even the town center gazebo is missing railing support bars and is in desperate need of repairs, and yet, it is considered an almost sacred aesthetic town landmark. Pardon me if I miss the soul pleasing value of a glorified traffic Island that serves more as a barrier to both automobile and pedestrian traffic than it does as an eye-catching, iconic work of art.
In between those stores that remain active in the Zombie Mall is open space housed under ceilings with broken and hanging ceiling tiles, some conically shaped by plastic to direct and catch water leaking from the roof (near Ma’s). Most of the building has no ceiling tiles at all, allowing the curious traveler free to enjoy the aesthetics of a framed metal monstrosity rarely seen anywhere in the United States of America. This is Billerica’s version of the Mall of America – a real hot tourist trap – yep, one can sense the town’s strong aesthetic taste in that building.
Equally absurd was the Planning Board’s argument about Billerica’s concern for public safety. Have you driven on a Billerica road lately? Most all are dotted with wheel eating, axle bending, frame destroying pot holes along roads decades past due for total resurfacing and fresh line painting. How long has Billerica been enduring accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, at the intersection similar to that found at Gray Street and Salem Road, where lives are all to frequently lost or altered due to poor design regarding angle, sight lines, and a lack of a blinking red/yellow light system or other traffic light format to mitigate the limited ability to sight merging vehicles before they suddenly pop out of overgrown, long neglected, and basically unneeded vegetation? I’m not a traffic engineer, but I know that intersection is lacking and dangerous. I’d say it lacks curb appeal as well, but there are no sidewalks in that entire area at all, and without sidewalks there is no reason for curbs.
If by safety concerns, the Planning Board means radio-frequency transmissions, then they are only demonstrating how ignorant they are about the science behind this technology. Cell towers are built well above the height of all buildings in Billerica, even well above Churches and the new Parker Elementary School. Radio wave propagation moves out horizontally from the transmitters at the top of the tower and the point of least contact with radio-frequency waves is directly under the tower itself. It is at a distance where the waves have no only diverged outward but have also lost strength as they traveled that they would contact people. They do not reach down and strike nearby buildings or people. If you use your imagination, you can see a cell tower and picture how the Eiffel Tower was constructed. What does one visualize mentally after seeing a canned corn shaped water tower – no matter what color it it painted?
As far as radio wave propagation and harm goes, the American Cancer Society is adamant that cell towers do not cause cancers or other biological harm to humans. You are more likely to get a cancer from a single chest X-Ray than you are from cell tower transmissions. You are thousands of times more likely to get a cancer or chromosomal damage from a CAT scan than you are a simple chest X-Ray. Should we reject all Planning Board applications in Billerica for those medical centers and dental offices that plan to use of X electromagnetic radiation?
Finally, as to a tower falling and striking a child playing in a field, the odds of that happening are less than the odds of a stowaway in the wheel well of a jetliner falling out before landing and striking a child.
T-Mobile and MetroPCS have 20 days to appeal the Planning Board decision. It will not take much for the cell company lawyers to make the Board and their decision rationale look foolish, and to prove that it is no sounder than any other anti-science rationale used by any other group of crackpots to ban any other technological advancement or usage. Members of the Planning Board have already done the hard work of proving that theorem.
Robert Casey said:
A few comments on Rick’s questionable assertions after reading his recent rant (12/20/11 on another blog.
1. Why waive by-laws without a good , very good reason,
2. You quoted my comments at the meeting, Refer to the Planning Board decision for the basis.
3. Don’t hold me and the 2011 Planning Board esponsible for 40 years of prior bad decsions. That’s idiotic. I got elected to the PB with the goal of changing business as usual.
4. Following your logic, since poor decisions were made in the past, poor decisions must be made in the present.
5. You are not so foolish to hold the 2011 PB responsible for the rezoning and development of the site of O’Connor Plaza…Give O’Connor credit for rescuing the site from Purity Supreme and making better of a disastrous circa.1990 decision.
6.Somenone as informed as yourself should know Town Meeting authorized a Townhouse overlay at the Billerica CC…I don’t personally think that was a bad decison, but erecting a cell tower there violates the by-law.
7. Again, your illogical argument is if the landscape in billerica already sucks, we should allow further deterioration.
8. Idiotic to hold the PB responsible for high tension wires or to suggest that since we have high tension wires we might as well aggravate the landscape with cell towers in recreation spaces.
9. The PB decision does not cite health hazards from cell towers as a reason for denial. Read the PB decision again if you missed that point.
10. Stupid comment as the harmful effects of high tension wires versus cell towers is not relevant to the matter.
11. Again read the PB decision until you grasp what it says. Health is not cited!!
12. As one who has taken an active role to promote mixed use development in the center and to stop the ill advised Home Depot plan, you are off base in criticizing the PB which denied the plan.
13. We agree the mall is a disgrace and embarrassment…but we part ways in that you would vitiate a perfectly nice recreation area on a riverbank with a cell tower.
14. Rick, no, you are not a traffic engineer nor are you a student of logic. Again because the town’s roads may not be safe (not within PB jurisdiction) is no reason to support a cell tower in a play area, which does pose some safety issues.
14. Again, ill informed as PB does not handle such applications for x=ray machines in dental offices etc.
15. While you are not concerned with fall zones, the town-by law is clear and Akeson flunks this aspect of the by-law.
.
16. If you had done your homework, you would know that the wireless provider would not have had grounds for a lawsuit had the Town Manager not signed the RFP in violations of its terms.
--Rick said:
1. The by-laws are required to comply with superseding authority, i.e., federal law. Failure to comply makes the by-law useless in court and a clear reason to overturn a ruling by a local board, or for the town to opt to settle a case because of error on the part of a local board citing a non-compliant by-law.
2. I already have referred to it; see below.
3. The only position I have with respect to the current planning board is that it, like those that preceded it, have an obligation to perform due diligence and periodically review the by-laws used by the planning board to render fair, impartial and legally correct decisions and to compare those by-laws with superseding authority regulations such as those prescribed by the Congress, issued and enforced by the FCC and the courts to ensure compliance so that when appeals or lawsuits are filed that the town is both in good standing and its assets are protected. Comparing them, reading your responses to issues of safety, environment, aesthetics, property values, etc. it is obvious that you have either not done the obligatory comparison to ensure compliance or that you don’t care about being compliant; only about getting what you want in the end.
4. Following my logic, periodic reviews of by-laws are essential because things change, e.g. the new regulations to provide power back up to all RF transmitters regardless of their location and in opposition to what may be conflicting local by-laws. Following your logic, it would seem that because previous generations of planning board members failed to perform due diligence; it is correct procedure for follow on generations to do the same. This is precisely the same attitude that allowed 15 years to go by without reviewing the building fees and 20 years or so to go by without reviewing water and sewer rates.
5. I have no problem with the O’Connor site as it initially was laid out. However when it was allowed to expand outward toward the playground and closer to the entry way gate, the safety of those entering and exiting became more vulnerable because traffic was allowed to drive closer to the fence, where previously, there had been parked cars that acted as a barrier of sorts between traffic and the fence. Overall, I think the move was a good thing, but part of the approval could have included O’Connors putting in a new gate away from the in and out flow of cars and barriers protecting the entrance way. A minor point.
6. And the by-law is compliant with federal law in terms of what factors may or may not be used to justify denying a permit? On what basis are both the local by-law and the federal regulations regarding disqualification compliant? Environmental? Health and Safety? Aesthetics? Property Values? Historic Value? Wildlife?…which of these concerns as addressed by the FCC regulations which have been Congressionally approved match our local telecommunications zoning by-laws that would allow you as a board to write a proper justification that the FCC would approve and would, therefore, stand up in court?
Your continuous assertion that a local by-law is sufficient to violate federal regulations and requirements needed to justify rejecting applications in an era where the federal government is pushing wireless technology with the same fervor it once exhibited in pushing the railroad the federal highway system or rural electrification is astounding in its lack of foresight regarding potential costly consequences. The first priority of any government official is to protect and preserve the assets of the community being served; not to set that community up for a financial give away. Why do you suppose the judge ruled against the planning board decision if the town manager and the board of selectmen were wrong in precipitating this fiasco? Was the opinion of the Planning Board’s reluctance to approve the application not made clear to the arbitration judge? Did town counsil hide your opposition when presenting his rationale for arriving at a settlement? Did the opposition not present your rationale to the judge in support of the settlement? Did the opinion of the PB just vaporize in a haze of confused legal jargon?
7. I don’t think Billerica sucks; I am convinced that the way it is being mismanaged at all levels of government sucks and that we as a town should deserve better. But, I’m also convinced that you get what you pay for and if the majority of citizens in Billerica aren’t willing to pay 5 minutes out of their lives to vote; then, maybe, as a town we are getting precisely what we deserve…lousy, lazy, reckless and stodgy government that works to build little empires of power rather than an entire town of prosperity.
8. I point out high tension wires for several reasons. First, there is no way to stop the advance of wireless technology. As it becomes more capable of performing more functions it increases in value to those who want the services it provides. It’s pure economics in that it is a resource that can be used in many ways and those that show little demand will eventually fall away in price or demand and those where the demand for access is high will grow and become more costly to match the demand. Catastrophes like Katrina, the recent tornadic activity in New England and the October snows show that wired communication is unreliable at best. In an instant, people were suddenly reliant upon wireless technology to communicate needs or to respond to pleas for help. The federal government learned that the media, and consequently, the voters can be hard at the polls when communications are lost and a disaster grows in scope. It is not going to slow down its demand for greater coverage and redundant wireless telecommunications systems.
As I’ve mentioned on several occasions, it would seem smart policy to hire experts in this rapidly changing field to perform an assessment of the needs of the town, now and in the future, to meet the federal compliance standards while we are in control and under no pressure to have these towers put up one by one as each case presents itself. This is what leads to helter skelter placement of poles, because in the end, we have no better alternative on record and with time, fewer options to reject such projects are available to towns because as activist groups bring new challenges, the FCC develops new guidelines to mute them.
What is needed is a comprehensive master plan based upon existing conditions and how they relate to the desired level of overlapping coverage not just for one provider, but for all providers – it is illegal to deny competitors tower siting locations because some other company is already transmitting in a desired location. This sort of coverage has specifications that can be used to a town’s advantage. If we can demonstrate equality in coverage, including overlap standards, by presenting a master plan that considers the town as a whole and works with existing site locations to project future demand for placement that included minimum overlap requirements, we can best plan future siting in advance. By doing that sort of planning, the town is in a better position to protect assets like Akeson and to direct construction to more remote locations which the town is more willing to sacrifice. This march of telecommunications will not stop. It will not only increase in scope, but it will increase in pace as well. To not prepare for such a state of affairs is not only foolish, but irresponsible. For instance, if one were to look at the full scope of desired cell tower coverage including the desired zones of overlap between each tower, we could, then, structure a plan where as many towers as possible could be put up within the areas of land already occupied by high tension wires, or such other non-aesthetic wastelands where they would not only not be as noticeable but would have little chance of infringing upon existing housing developments?
There are many other benefits as well that you can discover for yourself if you ever choose to read the sources I’ve linked you to here, on Jeff Parenti’s website and through private e-mail correspondence. Unlike you and many others on various boards, committees and in leadership positions, I take the subject of government seriously – not as a game to be won or lost by one side or another. Facts are facts and if one digs deep enough to mine the facts and finds a way to communicate them effectively to an audience that is willing to listen and use the intellectual capacity they were born with as opposed to their parents politics, that should suffice in convincing people to do the right thing. When deliberate distractions, distortions and half-truths become the tools of the righteous, then, I see little point in participating, which most likely explains why most people simply drop out of the process. Principle matters and in Billerica, principle seems to be sorely lacking from my perspective.
9. The decision cites the safety of children. How is safety unrelated to health?
10. The comments regarding the adverse “health effects” of high tension wires serves to highlight the lack of science behind the adverse “health effects” of RF transmitters. It wasn’t that long ago that we were spending nearly $20 million dollars a year to prove a negative – that leukemia, brain cancers and other catastrophic conditions were not linked to low level EMFs and over the decades have invested billions to allay the fears of a minority of pseudo-scientist/civilians; most of whom will harbor fears no matter the evidence. Cell towers also work off of EMFs using the radio wave spectrum – so, there is a correlation from a scientific point of view – your failure to understand that is a good indicator that the town needs the assistance of a professional team to restructure and organize the town’s Telecommunications by-laws. The other good, solid and more current indication that more needs to be done in this area is that your opinion lost in the judicial system and we as a town are now some amount of money less wealthy than we were before that judgment. It would be nice if the town knew the terms of that settlement.
11. See above. Duh!
12. Opinions vary and obviously, my opinion varies from yours. My view was upheld by the judiciary; your’s was not. Prima facie evidence is generally considered pretty reliable in winning an argument.
13. Again, you missed the entire point of my “diatribe” or “rant” as you call it. I would also have liked Akeson to remain unspoiled. However, I knew that it stood no chance of doing so in court because our by-laws are not conforming to federal law and our telecommunications master plan is inadequate, inaccurate and reflects a dream world rather than the world in which reality lives. The federal government, one would think one would know this instinctively, is a real entity with real power and a real willingness to use that power to its maximum in order to get what it wants. It is also a real bureaucracy; so, it doesn’t care about right or wrong, ugly or pretty, extenuating circumstances, the desires of the land owner(s), etc…it only cares that it gets what it wants. But as a member of a bureaucratic board, you are already familiar with that attitude as demonstrated by your unwillingness to do what is necessary and to ensure that Billerica is protected by being compliant. I guess I could have left this response out, but it didn’t “feel” right to do so and we all know how well collectives appreciate “feelings” over concrete laws or unalienable rights, don’t we?
14. Actually, I received a 4.0 in my logic and philosophy classes. What grade did you receive?
The remark, again, is related to the overall disrespect the town has for individual rights and for governing objectively instead of by “feeling”; such as “I feel that the tower is going to spoil the landscape and the experience of the park”. Do people come to the park to experience watching or playing a game, or do they come there to observe cell towers? Feelings are not evidence. Feelings do not prove cause. Feelings lead to things like lynchings, sanctuary cities, immigrant harassment, poor voter choices and all sorts of other bad things. Objectivity in government means that no one person or entity has more standing or preference than any other. It means making a determination by facts; not by finances, not by popularity, not by the political flavor or whim of the week, but by fact and fact alone. The fact in Billerica is that most deals are done by “feel” or “opinion” and many are contrary to law and common sense. To illustrate that bit of logic, I offer the following [although it has nothing to do with telecommunications, it does have a lot to do with logic, ethics, the law and how abuses can occur by removing objectivity in place of "feelings":
A most recent example is a citizen in North Billerica who made a plea for a speed limit sign and increased traffic monitoring on a high volume road where, surprise, there are no sidewalks and most vehicles traveling that road break the speed limit for a "densely populated" area - 30 MPH. This story was carried by the Lowell Sun, but is no longer available on line without paying for retrieval from archives, but you can certainly pay to verify my veracity.
At any rate, the town rejected his plea and someone stated that posting the sign made no difference as having it not posted. That may be statistically true, but it is factually false when it comes to traffic law enforcement. With a posted speed limit, the monitoring officer merely has to record the speed as in excess of 30 MPH and he is justified in writing the ticket. However, when the area has an non-posted speed limit, as the complained about area does, the observing officer must document 1. that the person is beyond the 30 MPH limit and 2. that the person traveled at least 1/8th of a mile before being stopped for a speeding violation. This means the difference between going to court or not going to court in many cases, again, tying up essential resources over a relatively easy to solve problem. But the town goes even further in showing it's preference for "feelings" over the objective use of law. From the town's website:
What Effect Do Posted Speed Limits Have on Actual Speeds
Before and after studies consistently demonstrate that there are not significant changes in traffic speeds following the posting of new or revised speed limits. There is a common belief that the mere posting of speed limit signs will cause drivers to react accordingly. This is not true and is why posted speed limits must be realistic to receive compliance. Unrealistically low speed limits will invite violation by responsible drivers and the enforcement of such unreasonably low limits sets up the so-called “speed trap”, resulting in public antagonism toward police and poor public relations for the community.
Speaking of logic, if a speed limit is "unrealistically low" then why is it a law to go that slow. If true, then the law is also "unrealistic" by definition, is it not? If it is unrealistic, then any appeal should win in court because the law cannot expect any individual to perform what cannot realistically be accomplished and still call itself unbiased and objective where all who appear before it are equal, can it? The sign does not, contrary to what is written in the town's own traffic website, state, "You are invited to speed in this area because the speed limit we've set is unrealistic and if you choose to disobey it, you will be excused - just don't hit or kill anyone - because, then, for purely political reasons we will prosecute you for more then simple speeding, although that will be one of the charges filed irrespective of our invitation to do so. How stupid that that sound...and yet, there it is on the town's very own website. So, if you ever get caught speeding in a heavily populated or densely populated zone, or a school zone where the lights flash, be sure to point this out to the officer who stops you as your excuse for not being ticketed. What do you suppose your chances are that the ticket book will be put away with the same amount of tickets in it after the stop as before?
There is a requirement for the DPW to ensure brush is cut back throughout the town throughout the year, not just around traffic signs, but on all town property. Most of it is put off because someone feels money could be spent more effectively elsewhere [just not on speed limit signs, or reduced speed ahead warnings which actually function to overcome the sense of a speed trap that the above paragraph seems concerned about in expressing its convenient altruistic viewpoint.]. This points out why most people feel there is no such thing as an honest politician – there generally is no such thing as an honest politician, at least from an intellectual or principled point of view.
14. I understand your red herring re: X-Ray machines…clearly the PB does not and that was not the purpose of mentioning them. The purpose was illustrative of a deeper problem and you know that.
15. I never said that I was unconcerned; what I said was that it would not prove to be a sufficient reason to prevail in court…and guess what? You didn’t prevail in court.
Bottom line is that I am not upset with what you’ve done; I am upset with what you have not done and still refuse to do and that is to ensure Billerica is compliant with federal statutes and work to ensure it has a strong telecommunications strategy or plan that protects us from the very helter skelter placement and litigation that you rail against. The stronger our plan and the more compliant it is with federal authority, the less likely it is that companies will sue. Even evil corporations don’t like pissing away money in a fight they know they won’t win. When was the last time you asked the town to pay for a consultant in this matter, or attempted to contact one for basic information? Care to answer?
Robert Casey said:
Hello Rick…I posted my comments on this old post after seeing your remarks on Jeff’s website and the link to this article….I figured it would be good to have a succinct rebuttal should anyone have visited,,,and it was a good exercise for me….
I’m surprised you don’t know we have a consultant who reviews each wireless application and, notwithstanding your commentary, he has never suggested our by-law is inadequate. I believe, however, it will undergo updating, but it’s pretty solid. We tread carefully in our decisions so as not to cite concerns that are disallowed in federal court. That’s why health concerns are off the table in our decisions, despite your suggestions otherwise.
I consulted with an attorney re: the ‘akeson decision’ last summer. She has expertise in these areas and assured me the PB was well conceived and applied the by-law. Which is only to say, that it was worthy of defense, if you think the tower in the park is ill=advised.
Finally, I don’t know how many different ways to explain to you that there should not have been a lawsuit had the Manager followed the terms of the RFP. The RFP stated no lease agreements until the plan had PB approval…he and the selectmen put the town and PB on the hook for a lawsuit…..though they quickly settled the suit, clearing the way for the tower and the revenue stream into the town coffers.
I don’t know where you got that 4.0 in logic, but you do run far afield and off track in making your case against the PB.
--Rick said:
I got my 4.0 at George Washington University and I think I’ve learned enough about how you form perspectives and act on them in recent months to know precisely why you’ve posted here, and that’s fine. I love challenges. As to the length of my replies, I try to base the specifics of my commentary on the average reader’s ability to “get it” by presenting as many points of view as I can. Not all people who read my blog are pompous, arrogant and self-loving narcissists with a singular frame of mind. I’ll try harder to please in your case. If you would like shorter answers to fit your attention span, ask fewer questions or make less inaccurate assertions.
How often has this “consultant” reviewed the telecommunications act and when was the last time he did so in tandem with our by-laws, because it is obvious to any non-expert who can read that the by-laws and master plan for telecommunications do not reflect federal standards on critical issues pertaining to denial of applications. Can you scan and send a copy of his “findings”, “opinions”, or what have you for me to put up and make available for everyone to read? Or does his consultations take place in a non-written format? Where does our by-law bible discuss the need for providing back up power sources/types, and what to do in the event that this requirement conflicts with local by-laws already in existence? The ruling was published in 2007 – 4 years ago. Some consultant! To read the impact of this 4 year old amendment, here is New Jersey’s take on the law.
If he is responsible for what we have on record, in my view, he is grossly overpaid [even if working for free] judging the many discrepancies that jump out of the by-laws. You can see them for yourself. I put a link to the FCCs Telecommunication Act of 1996 with all current amendments in place on Jeff’s website, Can’t Get There From Here, for any and all to review and judge for themselves as I am confident that Billerica is not in compliance and is an easy mark for any applicant because it is so ill prepared to deal with this issue within the regulatory statutes.
I’ve also spoken with an attorney on this matter who sees it quite differently than yours. But, again, the entire law is available for viewing and comparison with town by-laws and master plans if you are so inclined. That should eliminate the need for I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. While you are at it, you may want the plaintiffs to read this statute along with their lawyers, if they have one, and with a bit of luck; they just might find a way to win in court. I’m sure they can find a lawyer on contingency if the town’s regulations are as solid as you claim. I doubt they will find a contingency lawyer based on what I’ve read, but I will sincerely hope that they do and that they can prevail in court. After such a review, they may have a better sense at which direction to toss their anger.
For those people adversely affected, here are the town by-laws relating to telecommunication: http://goo.gl/dSYGe When you get to the town’s website, click download to download and read the by-laws. To find the telecommunications section, click on Edit, Find and enter Telecommunications into the search box and wherever that word is used you will be able to read how it is used and to what purpose. To go directly to the by-laws, scroll down to page 5-54, Section 5.G. “Wireless Communication Facilities”. To read the town’s list of disqualifiers for permits, go to the end of that section, page 5-63 and compare that to federal guidelines to see how all inclusive, accurate and up to date our by-laws are, then decide what to do or to whom you should express your anger. Don’t omit reading the entire by-law; there are items of importance that you may or may not find helpful or defining.
I don’t know how many ways to explain to you that safety equals health [read the requirement to put gasoline, acids or worse on school rooftops if there is no other way to provide back up generator energy supply sources to wireless communication devices]. Your rebuttal did specify safety concerns as did your correspondence with me re: the towers base power supply cabinets and other essential electronics that are generally enclosed by a fence, which you and some other spoke about as recorded in the minutes of the meetings re: this subject as possible reasons to deny the permit.
Speaking of the minutes, anyone objectively reading them [the PBs minutes on cell tower applicants] will get the sense that the board was actually looking for a way to reject that application as opposed to its statutory duty to objectively review it and apply the law. You really need to get that cleaned up. It’s gotten worse since Pat became a board member.
Just listen to her speak out about the oversized garage by-law change proposal. She never once cited what the by-laws were, but what they ought to be. Blind justice? Jurisprudence and a full and fair hearing. Application review without prejudice? I think not. And before you state the obvious, I know the PB is not a court of law; apparently it is much less ethical and that is saying a lot these days.
We even had a discussion about the new ways to disguise these cabinets that are a source of safety concerns for some, by using faux rock and other camouflage techniques including photographs such as this one. They require no fencing and are safe to play on as well as an aesthetic improvement over the old method of installation. So, you know precisely what I am speaking of when I mention safety or health, but I do love a game of semantics; so, don’t let me dissuade you from playing.
Again, I am not making a case against the PB. The case I am making is that all elements of town government could benefit with an overall review of obligations and procedures, including the planning board. Doing so only strengthens the town’s position because if the review is properly conducted and by-laws, policies and procedures are brought up to current standards, regulations and laws, then the town is in a much stronger defensive position than if it tries a defense based on by-laws that are non-compliant with current standards of practice or the policy prescribed by higher authority.
Imagine the flack that would arise if a principal directed anyone who was late for school without an excuse be held over for an extra hour of instruction (as opposed to detention) and some lower level teacher or department head decided that his or her policy of making a written entry into the student’s record was sufficient enough to ignore the principle’s directive. How long do you suppose that teacher’s policy/judgment would hold up on review?
I am more interested in what went on in the executive session in which, according to news reports, the PB participated in on at least 2 occasions with the final outcome being to resolve the issue via settlement vs. fighting the lawsuit. If the PB judgment was so well executed and within the framework of their allowed powers, why settle? Why would any ethical attorney recommend a settlement with such solid evidence of compliance with the TCA of 1996?
Are you saying that town counsil is only hired to represent the Board of Selectmen and not any other entity of town government? If so, why has this not been an issue during election/reelection campaigns where everyone is looking for a peg up and for their opponents to take a peg down the ladder? Did someone forget to invite your telecommunications specialist to the meeting to help the PB defend it’s position of compliance and proper judgment based on the TCA of 1996 requirements? Surely it couldn’t be just the cost of a trial that brought about the cut and run decision. Were that the case why have a planning board. Every applicant would just threaten lawsuits knowing the town won’t challenge and get what they want.
There is more behind this decision than just that or the Town Manager illegally negotiating a contract. If a contract is illegally negotiated it may be binding, but it is still an illegal contract, and at the very least should have resulted in the Town Manager’s firing. Why does he still hold his job? I can see the conspiracy theories sprouting from the minds of the minions all over town…it’s a Chinese plot to take over Billerica and Mr. Curran is a Manchurian candidate.
Can you supply documentation of the settlement now that it is apparently resolved, or is how the town spends the taxpayer’s money in situations like this reserved to only those with a need to know. Of course as is the custom, those who pay the money to settle or defend such a case generally have no need to know; while, those who spend the money but do not necessarily contribute to the tax pool; like the Town Manager or Town Counsil, for instance, do have a need to know – even though, as you allege but have yet to prove, their actions and decisions were corrupt. I presume that will be your answer.
So much for checks and balances. Perhaps, we should put up a sign inviting “Unnamed Sources” to move here so that the newspaper can get such details. After all, they are great at releasing war plans, troop deployment, money tracking and all sorts of other treasonous information.
Here in Billerica, it’s impossible to find out which member of the BOS farted during a meeting, let alone who is acting unethically with any substantive information that points to proof. Can you provide supporting documentation and not just inuendo that the Town Manager in concert with Town Counsil acted improperly or unethically based on the evidence, I’d be happy to support you if you can give me something close to concrete in terms of detailed information as opposed to a cement block to hold underwater as I ponder your non-answer answer. Your persistence in making this personal only raises more questions than it answers.
In the meantime, I need to rest. I’ve had a tough day following cardiac rehab and now I need to find a way to get the smoke out of my ass that somehow got blown in.
Robert Casey said:
First, I’m not trying to personalize this, but when I re-read your rant from last spring and then again onJeff’s blog, I decided to respond. I can’t or actually don’t wish to keep repeating myself as I don’t think you hear what you don’t want to hear.
I stay away from words like corrupt in discussing the actions of manager curran and counsel, though I have little confidence in them.
“If the PB judgment was so well executed and within the framework of their allowed powers, why settle? Why would any ethical attorney recommend a settlement with such solid evidence of compliance with the TCA of 1996? ”
PB did not settle…BOS overruled PB. Yes, you’re right it does lead one to question why have a PB?
“Can you provide supporting documentation and not just inuendo that the Town Manager in concert with Town Counsil acted improperly or unethically based on the evidence, I’d be happy to support you if you can give me something close to concrete in terms of detailed information as opposed to a cement block to hold underwater as I ponder your non-answer answer.”
Go to the Planning Board office and get a copy of the RFP for Akeson and also a copy of the lease Curran signed 8 weeks prior to the completion of the PB hearing and vote. Perhaps if you read them yourself, you will understand. Had the lease between the town and Independent towers not been signed, independent would have had no standing to appeal. it is that simple…ask the atty representing independent.
BTW, I’m not seeking your support, but I would like you to use correct information when you criticize.
“If a contract is illegally negotiated it may be binding, but it is still an illegal contract, and at the very least should have resulted in the Town Manager’s firing. Why does he still hold his job?”
I think the simple answer, though it is conjecture, is that Curran and BOS wanted Akeson cell for the revenue, and Curran was not about to let the PB get in the way. But, you might ask Selectmen Gagliardi (whom I think you supported) or any of the other gentlepersons on that Board.
The PB released executive session minutes from our own discussions with how to respond to the BOS settling the Akeson case over our unanimous objection and not providing us with counsel. The PB wrote, ex parte, to the federal judge to object to the proposed settlement.
You might check with BOS office to get minutes of the joint exec sessions where PB was over=ruled and settlement approved. Though, I hear a rumor that there are no minutes which I think is in violation of MGL…but I can’t confirm.
All of the consultants reports are available in the PB office.
--Rick said:
Again, I’ve read the RFP and I’m far from convinced that it was the only problem with the application being contested. I think the independent’s counsel may have acted on it because it was so obvious [and stupid on the Town Manager's part if he acted alone, initially]. What I am looking for is the rationale that town counsil used to judge that overriding the planning board was the legally and ethically correct thing to do.
Unlike you, I call a spade a spade. If someone illegally and knowingly negotiated a contract, then that someone broke the law, and if it was done knowingly, then by definition; it was a corrupt act. Corrupt acts aren’t generally committed by people who respect the ethic of honesty. I see no harm in properly using the language to describe an act or philosophy reflected by poor, willful behavior. Considering he received the unequivocal and unanimous support of the BOS, what views do you hold on that body regarding this kerfuffle?
Normally, I’d jump with joy over an admission that a PB is useless and creates more problems than it solves, but in this case, a well equipped and educated PB is needed as a break wall to hold back the rising tide of federal regulation that will flood and overwhelm towns which do not make the proper investigation into the TCA and take appropriate steps to protect itself from foreseeable consequences. My new found reaction is derived by the overwhelming flow of regulation that now requires even more regulation to stem the harmful effects of the original. Therein lies my bitch in its entirety. You have yet to convince me that Billerica has done all that it could through its by-laws, and that it is as well protected as it can be. Curran and Co. may have precipitated the grief felt by the local residents near Akeson, but a lack of attention to detail and regularly scheduled periodic reviews of by-laws are equally responsible, in my opinion, which is based on my own comparative analysis of pertinent documents. I’ve made both available to interested readers to review and judge for themselves. I welcome any feedback from such readers, good or bad, with the hope that the good will be acted on soon and Billerica will be the better for it.
As to information that I’ve provided, my information, in my view, is correct. I have no Ox to gore or a committee/board to protect/defend. I encourage everyone to read both the town by-laws and the federal rules and judge for themselves wherein the problems now rests waiting to spring upon once more. I live in East Billerica and use Verizon; so, the tower doesn’t affect me or my life. My cell reception still sucks and most likely, always will. It took over 20 years to get sewer, so what are the odds that we’ll get proper tower coverage in this location? What does affect me is bad decision making and lost tax money due to ineffectual, non-compliant and overly cumbersome zoning by-laws and ineffective leadership that can’t organize themselves to work together to prevent such unnecessary losses. What pisses me off is the propensity for alleged leaders to point fingers and to never admit they might be wrong or responsible for developments such as this that affect real people.
I’ll act on your request and check with the town regarding the executive session minutes. If they don’t exist, I’ll check on the possibility that a MGL violation may have occurred by calling the AG’s office directly and asking if recording and producing minutes for executive session meetings is a requirement or not, or if they have a special dispensation until all legal proceedings have been exhausted. If the AG determines that a violation has possibly been committed, I’ll file an official complaint as may be required, and I’ll ask that AG Leone look into the matter for possible sanctions and to get the truth out before the next election. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t have already done so as a public official with a vested interest that is opposite of the outcome provided; especially, if you believe the rumor and by the nature of your service must of necessity be aware of public meeting law and have more than a reasonable suspicion. That causes me to question your sincerity, but don’t bother yourself over my view; I’ll handle it.
Setting that aside for the moment, because at this point there is nothing else to say on the matter, wasn’t the PB in executive session with town counsel, the BOS and Curran as the newspaper columnist states, and if so, how is it possible that the PB, as a member participant, was not given a copy of minutes taken? Did you or any other member of the PB see anyone functioning as a recorder or using a recording system. Did no one on the PB who attended these executive sessions take notes or notice anything…blood oath to never tell…anything at all?
Gagliardi is living proof that I am far from infallible as Paul Marasco was the election prior and in my opinion would have been a mistake this time around; and this sentence is living proof that I can and do admit my mistakes. I’ll ask Gagliardi and some others who I know that may have insight into that proceeding. I’ll let you know their response, although, only one selectman responded to my e-mail regarding the lack of preparedness through what should have been a year long tree branch and brush removal, either by the town or by the utility, for the October storm. In either case, it’s the town’s responsibility to assure public safety; not NSTAR. To view it any other way would be the equivalent of holding the town’s most successful baker responsible for every case of food poisoning in town instead of the Board of Health inspectors and the actual culprit.
I just read the town’s telecommunications by-laws again, 4th time I believe, and I still see nothing regarding how the town plans to deal with the 4-year-old requirement for redundant power supplies to back up systems where primary equipment fails. There is also nothing written regarding the need of local planning boards and towns to address how this mandate affects existing zoning by-laws that violate the federal mandate. Again, that law was issued 4 years ago; so, when was the last time your consultant was used for research and updating purposes? (I only see authorization for a general engineering consultant under the by-laws for PB consultants; not a specialized telecommunications engineer, lawyer or other appropriate sub-specialty). When was the last time you or anyone on the PB did an actual comparison? I see notes that someone intended to update the telecommunications by-laws [again, reading objectively, with the express purpose of making approvals harder as opposed to fair] back in July. So far as I know, nothing further in this regard has been started, let alone accomplished. Am I mistaken? I would bet that the settlement cost would have covered such a specialized consultation with periodic reviews; yet, here we sit with the money gone and a proper review still needed (the key word being need also used in your July minutes among others but as I said, still not acted on). Can you at least tell us the amount the town settled for? 30 pieces of silver or a bit more?
C’est la vie, I’ve wasted enough time on this topic. I’ll do the phone calling and email sending I promised, and as promised, I’ll also provide an update on what I find out. In the interim, I’ve provided sufficient information as to who is responsible for what through source documents, which agency must conform to which other agency, and who ultimately bears the responsibility for failures to properly organize and build appropriate defenses to counter conditions derived from proximate causes.
“The chief qualification of a mass leader has become unending infallibility; he can never admit an error.” ~ Hannah Arendt