**MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD**
Just say, "Elsewhere!"
Millstone Valley Scenic/Historic Byway1) Weather permitting, on Saturday, October 17, 2009, from 9:00AM until 12:00PM, a crane test will be performed at 139 Green Avenue in Montgomery, near the Staats Farm Road intersection. Green Road runs one block northwest of River Road.
Please take pictures to document this violation and voice your objections by clicking on "comments" at the bottom of this blog entry! With your permission, we would like to share your photos with the RMVE Blog community.
2) The construction of second tower is also planned for 138 Coppermine Road in historic Griggstown (Franklin Township, Block 11.01, Lot 61.01), adjacent to the beautiful Native Grasslands Preserve.
Once again, please voice your objections to this intrusion upon one of the most beautiful and pristine natural preserves in Central New Jersey by clicking on "comments" at the bottom of this blog entry and submitting your thoughts!
Griggstown Native Grasslands Preserve
With your permission, your objections will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities in Montgomery, Franklin Township, and Trenton. You will be heard! The construction of cell towers in historic and environmentally sensitive areas have been successfully fought without interruption to cell users service as they we constructed in more appropriate areas.
Please take pictures to document this violation and voice your objections by clicking on "comments" at the bottom of this blog entry! With your permission, we would like to share your photos with the RMVE Blog community.
2) The construction of second tower is also planned for 138 Coppermine Road in historic Griggstown (Franklin Township, Block 11.01, Lot 61.01), adjacent to the beautiful Native Grasslands Preserve.
Once again, please voice your objections to this intrusion upon one of the most beautiful and pristine natural preserves in Central New Jersey by clicking on "comments" at the bottom of this blog entry and submitting your thoughts!
Griggstown Native Grasslands PreserveWith your permission, your objections will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities in Montgomery, Franklin Township, and Trenton. You will be heard! The construction of cell towers in historic and environmentally sensitive areas have been successfully fought without interruption to cell users service as they we constructed in more appropriate areas.
-Jan ten Broeke
Posts
To Whom It May Concern
ReplyDeleteWe continue to be outraged at the continued efforts to put cell towers in the historic and preserved areas of NJ. Citizens invest an enormous about of time, energy and tax dollars to preserve and protect our precious open space and historic towns. Why must we continually fight off these repeated efforts by corporate interest to destroy and degrade the few places of beauty, nature and history we have. We will fight these corporate efforts with everything we have and have zero tolerance for the continued disrespect these corporations have for our environment, landscape and health. We continue to grow angry and stronger in our resolve at each attempt.
From the residents of Norseville and Griggstown
This view is not shared by all residents of Griggstown. There are many that would like a least one tower in the area to allow for usage of cellphones in their home. Being tied only to land lines costs upwards of $60 a month. With a tower in our area families can save this amount in these uncertain economic times. Please keep struggling families in mind when you make these comments against cell towers. All you are doing is siding with one large company over another.
ReplyDeleteFrom a resident of Griggstown
PLEASE NOTE: We are not opposed to cell towers, and we appreciate how integral reliable cell service is to many people's lives.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, cell towers can be located in unobtrusive places, and can even enhance historic preservation! An example of this is the cell tower located inside the steeple of the Neshanic Church. Cell towers can also be located in historic farm silos, creating an incentive to the preservation of these beautiful but endangered structures.
These towers can deliver equally effective service from locations that will not conflict with the goals of historic and environmental preservation.
Anonymous-
ReplyDeleteI understand your financial concerns (trust me), but the improvement to your cell service that these towers will provide will not be diminished if they are constructed on less environmentally and historically sensitive sites.
Moreover, you and your fellow Griggstown residents are fortunate to be surrounded by beautiful natural resources that undoubtedly contribute to your property value. Exposed cell towers--like power line--will mar the pristine quality of your surroundings and can detract from your property value.
In fact, the sooner the cell phone companies understand that these sites are inappropriate for these towers and that their construction will be blocked, the sooner they can scout more appropriate locations and the sooner they can improve your cell service without sacrificing your or your neighbors' property values.
The cheapest source of phone connectivity are providers like Vonage or Magic Jack, which are VOIP providers NOT cell providers. Moreover, regarding concerns about impact to families with modest income, please be sensitive to the impact to ALL OF OUR PROPERTY VALUES if cell towers are introduced to our neihgborhoods. It is a shame that some private land owners are willing to sell out all of their neighbors for personal gain and negatively impact all of our property values in the process.
ReplyDeleteThe cheapest source of phone connectivity are the VOIP providers like:
ReplyDeletewww.vonage.com and www.majicjack.com
These VOIP providers have a flat rate and do not charge overage fees like the cell phone providers. With regards to income concerns, we find that most residents are most concerned with negative impact to their property values if cell towers are introduced to our neighborhoods. What keeps the property values stable in this area is the beauty, open space, and historic integrity of our neighborhoods. Once we compromise these major selling points of our homes, there is very little else to stabilize our property values. Additonally, once cell towers are introduced, they are forever. The installation of cell towers is not something we can reverse once we realize our home values have declined. The major component of the average family's income/wealth/net worth is their property value.
Did the tobacco companies every reveal health risks way before it was too late? Please read article below:
ReplyDeleteCell Towers in Residential Areas
by Stuart Lieberman
Universally as well, communities throughout the United States don't want cell towers in their neighborhoods. The cell towers are ugly, and may very well diminish property value. After all, if you had a choice, would you move next to one?
Public rejection of towers is more than a question of cosmetics. There are health fears as well. Yes, the federal government has concluded that these towers are safe. But, haven't we heard that many times before in cases where later that has turned out to be incorrect?
Federal law has done a lot in terms of shoving these towers down our throats. While land-use boards and municipalities have some level of discretion in deciding where to permit these towers, a lot of discretion has been taken away by federal law. If it looks like a municipal law is too restrictive, the cell phone company may be able to go to court and may be able to invalidate the local land-use ordinance which is precluding the erection of the towers.
Furthermore, the experts retained by the cell companies will always correctly testify that health effects are pre-empted by federal law. In other words, a municipality cannot deny a tower application based on health issues.
However, I believe that there are recent studies that have been conducted in Europe that have placed into legitimate question the health and safety effects of both cell phones and cell towers. Personally, I am not reassured, just because the federal government is taking this issue off the table. Indeed, I am even more suspicious than I otherwise would have been by the fact that the federal government has taken this issue off the table.
This is what I recommend.
First, I believe that the carriers need to be more honest about health and safety issues. They need to stop pretending that this is a completely understood area of science. Cell phones have only been around for several decades. I don't believe that anybody really knows what the long-term effects are of these cell phones or cell towers -- if any.
Heaven forbid, if 20 years from now we find out that cell phones and cell antennas are more dangerous than some government regulators have suggested, what are the cell companies going to do? Do you honestly believe that they will voluntarily remove them from the our neighborhoods? You and I both know the answer to that question
Some locations will always be less offensive than others. Meetings before applications are made will provide both sides with an opportunity to try to accommodate each other's legitimate interests, which means that carriers will have to forego their "best" locations sometimes in order to meet local needs.
The public should also be involved in these pre-application hearings. This needs to be a process where the sides work together from the inception. An adversarial atmosphere will not benefit anyone. And to the extent that this process is inconsistent with state or federal laws, the laws need to be changed.
Cell companies need to be sensitive to the real interests of the municipal residents. That means avoiding residential areas and schools as much as possible. In fact, industrial areas are generally preferable from both an aesthetic and, dare I say, heath concern basis. Once again, municipalities need to be realistic and fair about this process as well.