The discussion regarding the application by T-Mobile to build a controversial 120-foot tall cell tower monopole at the intersection of Broad Street and Bay Avenue continued at last night’s Bloomfield Zoning Board meeting, with the testimony of the applicant’s expert witness, radio frequency engineer Joseph Mineo.
The monopole, which, if approved, would be erected on the property of Brookside Garden Center at 551 Broad Street, is opposed by a large number of residents from Bloomfield and Glen Ridge. They were out in force last night, filling the Council Chambers.
Mineo testified, through questioning by the applicant’s attorney, James Pryor, that the chosen location for the monopole would mitigate a number of areas of unreliable T-Mobile service in the Bloomfield and Glen Ridge area.
After Mineo’s initial statements were complete, an independent licensed radio frequency engineer hired by the township, Ronald Graiff, peppered Mineo with questions about his testimony. His questioning revealed that some of the maps Mineo presented had been created as long as 4 years ago, and the calculations of the gaps in cell phone coverage were done in the summertime, when leaf coverage was greatest, and thus presented a “worst-case scenario.”
Mineo also admitted that the overlap in coverage in the southeast section of the coverage map would be higher than desirable if the monopole were erected in the proposed location.
There were moments of levity throughout the testimony. When Graiff was questioning Mineo about “search rings” (which are maps showing optimal areas for cell phone tower installation), he said, to laughter from the audience, that the second map should be called a “search irregular polygon,” since it was not a round shape.
The next questioner was John Dusinberre, an attorney hired by the medical center adjacent to the proposed site. He asked several pointed questions about the recently-announced merger of T-Mobile and AT&T. “Where are all the AT&T towers?” he asked. Mineo and Pryor both stated they did not have access to the locations of the towers since T-Mobile and AT&T are two separate companies. Pryor stated they did not know if the merger would go through, or whether there would be conditions imposed that might preclude the use of the AT&T towers even if the merger is approved.
Dusinberre responded that the two companies were “already married,” and should be talking to one another. He added, “It’s relevant for this Board to understand where the AT&T towers go; there should be at least some effort on the part of this applicant to produce the information.” Pryor’s response was that T-Mobile and AT&T are “engaged, not married,” to which Dusinberre retorted, “Oh, so they’re not having sex?”
Zoning Board Chairman Michalski said wryly, “Comedy Central comes to Channel 35,” referring to the local television station videotaping the proceedings, before directing the discussion back to the testimony.
Further discussion centered on the possibility of moving the proposed location to the nearby Glen Ridge Country Club’s golf course. Mineo stated the coverage would likely be equally good at that location as it would be from the proposed spot at Broad Street, but said he had understood that location was unavailable.
Mineo also revealed that the frequency band that T-Mobile broadcasts from is at a much higher frequency (which has a lower range of coverage) than that of Verizon, and therefore needs more cell phone towers to achieve the amount of coverage that Verizon has.
At 10:40, the questioning was opened up to the public. Maria Probst (pictured at right with the sign she brought to the meeting) was the first member of the audience to come to the microphone. She asked whether T-Mobile or the FCC had received complaints from Bloomfield residents about lack of cell phone coverage in the area. Mineo said he did not know of any complaints.
Gerard Claps, of Glen Ridge, suggested the top of Mountainside Hospital might be a better site for the cell phone tower. Mineo explained it was not in the search ring area, so was not considered.
Michael Ser wondered why it would not be preferred to build the tower on a hill, rather than in the valley; Mineo explained that actually, the valley location gives better coverage, comparing it to what you can see from nosebleed seats in a stadium vs. what you could see from the 50-yard line.
The questioning ended at 11 p.m. The Board discussed next steps and determined that, since Mineo was not available for the next regularly scheduled Zoning Board meeting, testimony of a new witness would begin at the next regular meeting on May 12th. Mineo will return at the June 16th meeting and further questions about his testimony can be asked at that time. The Board adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
The next meeting of the Bloomfield Zoning Board will be held next Thursday, April 21, at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. It is a specially-scheduled meeting to consider a revision to a previously approved condominium building to be built behind Watsessing School on Locust Street.
Full disclosure, Baristanet reporter Mimi Michalski is married to Bloomfield Zoning Board Chairman Ed Michalski.
For a little real levity (funnier than “search irregular polygons,” perhaps), check out yesterday’s M’clair Watercooler, in which one group are posting complaints about their AT&T reception, and another group are posting their opposition to the Bay Avenue cell phone tower. Ya can’t have it both ways.
“Further discussion centered on the possibility of moving the proposed location to the nearby Glen Ridge Country Club’s golf course.”
Oh yeah, THAT will happen! Of course it’s “unavailable”…only the peasants in Bloomfield should have to put up with something like this in their backyards!
@huh_wha mthat’s not true there are other locations in the area that don’t butt up to people’s houses and that are township property. One of them is defineately in the search circle. I say let the town make the money off the tower if a tower “needs” to be built.
We will be suggesting them at the next meeting.
I originally just glanced at this one, thought I read the headline as “Bloomfield’s Monoped Controversy Continues.” And I got excited for a second, because “monopeds” were one of the old Penthouse Forum’s most controversial and long-lived topics. (Hint: it’s also covered in the movie “Crash,” the first, fun film with that title, the one directed by David Cronenberg.)
Then I realized it was about a “monopole,” meaning just another antenna for cellphones, basically. Which is not at all exciting.
But shouldn’t “monopole” really just refer to a very small time and scale go-go bar?
Arguably the Glen Ridge Country Club isn’t the best site for a cell tower. Golf courses still add to the ambience of an area, even if you don’t belong to them. Why take the nicest piece of land and put an eyesore on it? Some sort of manifestation of envy, seems like. I don’t belong there BTW.
I’d say somewhere along the parkway makes the most sense, and the way these companies are merging, one would question the need for additional towers anyway.
More interestingly, are you really a peasant Karen? I mean, living in a hovel with farm animals. no shoes, and that sort of thing? Seems kind of rare around here.
lol deadeye. Sometimes that’s exactly how I feel, minus the farm animals.
Sometimes I feel like I’m one of those thin guys with no shirt and one tooth yelling at the cops from the door of his trailer…
I’ve always wondered what you look like, deadeye, so thanks for that!
(Funny guy.)
@deadeye – the Open Space Trust Fund is negotiating to purchase a piece of property on Lionsgate Drive. It’s 5.7 acres and will be made into a passive park and will help alleviate the flooding in the area. The township could purchase the little bit of property that a cell tower would require and lease that area to T-Mobile.
The township administrator suggested that the Monopole be put there and I’m starting to agree with him.
There is enough room to keep the tower away from residences. I’ll have to measure over the weekend but it can probably be sited over 400 feet from all surrounding residences. The terrain is a little higher there so the height of the tower could be reduced. It could have a small driveway and be fenced for security. T-Mobile could be required to landscape around it.
AND IT COULD BRING IN YEARLY INCOME FOR THE TOWN. WOOHOO, what do you all think!
The applicant’s RF engineer said that it was better to have a cell tower in the valley rather than on the hill of the Glen Ridge Country Club. This is in the valley.
Pat, I made the same suggestion to Nick Joanow at last night’s meeting. He seemed open to the idea. It’s only a couple of hundred yards from Broad and Bay site. I posted one of their overlayed maps on my blog. http://bloomfieldgreenways.blogspot.com/
OK…here’s the deal…as this seems to benefit Glen Ridge…we’ll take the pole if you take some low income housing? OK…enough levity. Put the pole at Foley Field…name it after the O’Boyles. Let Peggy take a few bows a la Michael Scott on “The Office” and use all the monthly proceeds for the benefit of paying off the new Foley Field and stands and call it the Peggy O’Boyle Cell Tower. Frankly when the AT&T purchase happens, and it will, there will be NO NEED for it as AT&T has redundancy throughout this area.
T-Mobile spoke about unreliable drive by coverage…I can care less about drive by coverage. They did not provide any evidence that Bloomfield residents in the immediately area were complaining about their T-Mobile coverage….most of the neighborhood uses Verizon or AT&T.
“Drive-by coverage”? Isn’t using a cell phone while driving illegal?
Pat, your suggestion is very reasonable & probably why it won’t get done. There would be no insider profits, the public would benefit. It’s almost a tease (a la cathar’s go-go bar) Does it require a consultant to study the project?
Drive-by coverage is where gangstaz sit their cars and pop caps in our asses.
@bebopgun I would not advocate paying a township consultant to study the project.
T-Mobile has been required to pay for the Zoning Board’s experts (RF Engineer, Engineer, Planner) so the project can be examined at T-Mobile’s expense.
Hopefully, they will also pay for an environmental impact statement. this was suggested by the ZB’s chief consultant in February. He also said verification was needed for T-Mobile’s claim that no part of the site was in a 100 year flood zone. One look at the flimsy — and damaged — retaining wall holding up their main building would give anyone pause.
Anyone can see that the people do not want it. So, those that are seemingly pushing this pole, should push it where the sun don’t shine.
My Dr is also the owner of the immedicenter right next to the garden center. I was there yesterday and he told me that the Glen Ridge CC wanted and still wants the tower. He said that T-Mobile balked at it due to $$$ – shocking no? Anyway in looking out from the immedicenter there is no way this could be safely installed. I can just see the Third River swelling and the 120 foot pole falling into the waiting room.
Bottom line this is all about T-Mobile (my cell carrier for years) $$$ and O’Boyle $$$ and who knows who of our elected officials $$$.
What a mess.
The thing is this. Every person in the area, in which this cell tower might wind up being,has let it be known that it is not wanted there. These folks pay high taxws, have selected Bloomfield to make their home, raise their families, and become part of the community, though involment in town, educating their offspring, shopping wthin, etc and etc. It effects them.
Now others who do not live in that area are wanting to debate it.
I see it as a possible cancer causing item, an eyesore, and most imporant, the people do not want it, especially near them, in a residential neighborhood. Do you blame them ? Would YOU want it near YOU ?
Only lightening might enjoy it!
@hoffmire19 The T-Mobile expert testified that service in the area is “unreliable” but could not say how many T-Mobile customers had complained.
How’s your service in the area?
He also said that the Glen Ridge CC was “unavailable” and that having a cell tower in the valley was better for coverage than one on the hill. Does anyone know what the O’Boyles have been offered and what the Glen Ridge CC wanted that was too much $$$?
I am deeply amused by the nimby knee-jerk around and against new cell towers. I find them subversively attractive, post-modern art utilities. Since they beagn sprouting 25+ years ago I have been fascinated by their ungainly protrusions, these mixed, messy digital juttings into the sky.
Oddly, I am not much enamored of the attempts to disguise them, as they lose the whole disruptive techno-art thang uncleverly disguised as perfectly symmetrical faux pine trees.
Oh – and also utterly incredulous that people fight having them nearby, esp. when claiming some sort of aesthetic pain. AS Randy sez on AI: for me, I dig the awesome reception when they are close — and if I lived in one of those bucolic dead zones in Montclair, e.g. south Watchung and Mt Hebron cemetery-ish, I’d freakin move.
Thom Kennon | @tkennon | bigevidence.blogspot.com
As Derrida should have said, ‘Post modern art is interesting but I wouldn’t want to live near it.’
Good, Thom. Go put one in your if you love them so. Clearly the people who will have to deal with that eyesore don’t feel the same as you do. It’s not a “knee-jerk reaction” – it’s about the little quality of life left in our godforsaken town.
um…that was supposed to read “in your backyard”. Just wanted to clarify!
Hi Thom,
I am never ever been NIMBY or knee-jerk as you well know.
This proposed TOWER is situated on the 100 year flood plain where the river’s retainng wall is crumbling and people adjacent to the property have their sump pumps running 24 x 7.
It is also directly accross from 2 gas stations. The variances that needed to build this monstronsity are enormous, as will be the tower. All housing in the area is 2-2 1/2 stories at most. 120 feet is pretty large -if you’d like to see what it might look like take a gander here
http://bloomfieldgreenways.blogspot.com/2011/03/cell-tower-meeting-rescheduled-for.html
the proposed flaggpole that T-mobile wants will have a 25 x 35 foot flag flying that will be lit all night.
Other properties that are not in the middle of residential neighborhoods have been suggested as have smaller antennas such as those on the Watchung Bookstore.
Embracing the post modern means never having to say I’m sorry.
Thats all we need, some narcissistic, would be, art critic weighing in.
Could be worse, deadeye- could be some narcissistic hedge fund operator weighing in on art critics.
…or even worse, trying to weigh in on Monet.
(which he probably thinks is some kind of expensive champagne)
…or weighing in on Rembrandt
(which he probably thinks is some kind of expensive chocolate he buys for his wife)
Everybody knows, Spiro, that artists are selfish, egotistical, narcissistic a$$holes that live like parasites on the populace, while hedgies provide a valuable service to the economy, bringing on the tide that raises all boats. All hail deadeye.
Indeed, walleroo. That’s why it’s truly outrageous that people from all over the world line up for a Met or MOMA exhibit but rudely walk right by the Stock Exchange without even looking at it. What a bunch of unappreciative jerks.
Spiro & Roo, Pick up a copy of Tom Wolfe’s “From Bauhaus to Our House.” It’s a very thin book, perfect for short attention spans, and provides great insights into the theories and vocabulary necessary to come off sounding like a storied critic yourself. Impress your friends, be the life of the party, and skewer bombastic posters on B’net. Now back to my nefarious activities…
Thank you, deadeye. When it comes to short, superficial books, you’re my go-to guy.
I’ve found a solution.
Build an art museum tall enough to house the ‘the pole’ right behind Brookside Garden. Call it the Fahgeddaboudit Post Modern Art Museum of Baristaville or FPMAMB for short.
The town could charge admission to see modern art at work, the O’Boyle’s get their payday and Baristaville adds another cultural institution to the area.
Come on Roo, lighten up. It’s a good book, never superficial, and worth a read.
You honestly had nothing better to so early on this fine Holy Week-Passover day, Spiro, than to post 3 times? And to so hollow and puny an effect, too.
Hubris might even be defined today as you weighing in on art as if you have something others should hear. Perhaps you yourself even think that Monet used to design cheap costume jewelry?
And walleroo, there are lots of short superficial books out there for that matter. (Just as many long superficial ones, too; we could start with the collected works of Norman Mailer, Jonathan Franzen and David Foster Wallace.) Tom Wolfe’s cited effort, however, stands as a rather witty effort to make sense out of the work of “artists” who assure us their work is above criticism.
Oh well, back to my reading the new Carol Higgins Clark and staring admiringly at my collection of Sister Hummel figurines. Et tu, Spiro?
All right, deadeye. When you drop the condescending tone you’re actually kind of a nice guy. I’m sorry I got my dander up.
And it is a good book, as is The Painted Word, and any of Tom Wolfe’s non-fiction, that bastard.
All true, cathar. I wouldn’t call Wallace superficial, though. Stylistically he was something of a genius.
Just listening to the last gasps of that blustery weather we had a few nights ago, cathar.
..Oh, wait, it’s only you, nattering negatively. Never mind.
Anyway, nice full moon we had last night, wouldn’t you agree, cathar?
..Oh wait, that was just you, once again, bowing away from us with your trousers down.
Well, greetings of the season to you too!
Better to be caught with one’s pants down, Spiro, than with one’s brain ajar. As yours so often is.
Really, the idea of someone like you, who so frequently just serves as a mere stooge to others’ genuine wit and verbal style (as per walleroo, though I only grudgingly admit this), putting himself up as artier-than-thou, it’s just sad.
So no “greetings of the season” for you! (Though I do think of you somewhat fondly when I think of the social nicety known as “crucifixion.”)
Thanks for the reminder about “The Painted Word.” My copies of both of these have apparently gone on permanent loan…
And “style,” walleroo, may be all Wallace had. I long ago tired of fashionable writers whose only message seems to be that in the end they have no message. (Perhaps because of this realization, even, Wallace hastened his own end.)
Tom Wolfe once wrote of Norman Mailer that he should just shut up about the books he’s going to write and just instead read James M. Cain for the novels he only wishes he could have written. That applies as easily to Wallace (and Bret Easton Ellis and Jay McInerney and so very many others) as well.
Here’s a Holy Week mood lightener: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0
cathar, it’s always a pleasure knowing that you continue to be the self-proclaimed poster boy on behalf of the benefits of religion while seemingly possessed of a soul that barely learned the lessons therein. Not that I mind.
Please stay around, we need to be reminded of the bankruptcy of these failed belief systems (and yours in particular) several times a year, if not more.
Next year in Jerusalem, (as the Jews say – while opting for Boca instead – not a bad swap) where, once again, we can grab a couple of hookahs and argue about whether or not the streets were running with blood when the Crusaders dropped by for a quick visit.
I agree with you about Ellis and McInerney, but I don’t think Wallace belongs in that category. Angels whispered in his ear.
And it’s a bit silly to suggest Wallace killed himself upon realizing he didn’t have substance to match his style. By that logic those of us who lack both substance and style should have expired long ago. And yet here I am!
Appreciate the acknowledgment, clenched teeth notwithstanding. Back atcha.
And all of this is somehow related to the huge monopole that T-Mobile wants to erect in Bloomfield. The question is HOW does it all relate?
Rumors are circulating that T-Mobile has withdrawn their application. We have checked with the ZONING BOARD and this is blatantly untrue T-Mobile HAS NOT WITHDRAWN THEIR APPLICATION. – THE FIGHT CONTINUES – TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT 7:30 PM – Show Up and speak against the O’Boyle Cell Tower!
Obviously, pat, you’ve never read David Foster Wallace’s masterpiece, The Monopole of Hell.
@ deadeye thanks my reading list has been expanded, I’m putting down my latest Mary Higgins Clark (her daughter Carol is way to hard to take) and adding to my Ipad.
Oh and Spiro I’d much rather walk the canyons downtown and breath in deeply while admiring it’s architecture than laugh my way around MOMA.
How exactly will this affect anyone’s quality of life? Because it looks ugly? There are plenty of houses in my neighborhood that are ugly, you don’t see me protesting the neighbors because their houses are affecting my quality of life.
I think some people are just bored and are willing to fight anything just for some excitement.
I’m just finishing up Woodrow Wilson: A Biography by John Milton Cooper, and am ready to devour the new books by the Higgins Clarks (need something light after 599 pages of Woody).
DagT, I agree about Carol…I have really enjoyed some of her books, but others have been hard to take. I hope “Mobbed” is one of the better ones.
johnny5…”How exactly will this affect anyone’s quality of life?” Are you kidding me? 120 ft tower, the telephone poles in the area are 39ft..you do the math…in a flood zone…2 gas stations across the street…homes less then 90 ft away…kids playing across the street at Brookside Park…the International Fireman’s Assoc. has adivsed their members against cell towers placed on or near their fire houses because of the health risks http://www.iaff.org/HS/Resi/CellTowerFinal.htm
Dag, I love good architecture too. Of course the quality of a building’s facade often tells very little about whether noble or contemptible things are going on inside.
But, with regard to MOMA, I guess you’re talking about the more modern stuff. I’d have to agree. My wife and I go for Impressionists and surrealism. But for an extremely surreal time, visit cathar on an one of his grouchier days.
Thanks walleroo. I don’t need to read it I’m living it.
Just think about the huge flag flapping in the wind all night long and the night long illumination that it will require.
nobroad, I repeat, how exactly will this affect anyone’s quality of life?
“120 ft tower, the telephone poles in the area are 39ft..you do the math…” OK, it’s an 81 foot difference. I think some mountains that you can see are that big, maybe we should level those?
“in a flood zone…” That’s legitimate, point taken. But only after we know how these cell towers are built to withstand weather and possible flooding. Can you inform me of the specifics?
“2 gas stations across the street…” My ignorance here, what does it matter that there are 2 gas stations nearby?
“homes less then 90 ft away…” Is your concern here what happens if the pole were to somehow fall? What if the cell tower on the GSP fell, what if a tree falls in a backyard, what if Chicken Little is right?
“kids playing across the street at Brookside Park…” What’s going to happen to the kids playing across the street? And better yet, if something’s going to happen to the kids, what about the adults?
“the International Fireman’s Assoc. has adivsed their members against cell towers placed on or near their fire houses because of the health risks” This is bordering on a legitimate point, but have they cited studies that support this claim? Any long term studies on the effects of cell towers to nearby residents? And if so, how to companies get away with putting cell antennas on office buildings? What about the people who work in those buildings, especially those who probably have an office within 20 feet of the antenna?
I’m being open-minded about this, if there are facts behind the claims above that’s great, I’ll join you at the next protest. I just can’t believe any of them because I see cell towers all over the place, with residential areas nearby.
Oops, my bad on that last point about the health studies, I clicked on your link after I posted.
@Johnny- there is supposed to be a “fall zone” for cell towers. There’s a reason for this.
Mountains are natural occureces, Cell Towers are not.
If your neighbor wanted to build a 120 foot garage or flagpole on his property without the necessary setbacks would you be concerned?
If you would like to hear the specifics come to the next Zoning Board meeting on may 12th at &;30. T-Mobile’s Planner and Site Engineer will be testifying.
What protests are you talking about? There have been no protests to date. There have been 2 Zoning Board meetings that over 80 people have attended (each time).
that should have said 7:30pm
Raising money for Foley after the track and field team hasn’t been able to use it for 20 years…no one cares let’s create more debt.
A cell tower that benefits everyone in town with a cell phone and one neighbor makes money – oh me oh my let us all rush right out and get involved.
If any of the protesters still have a cell phone then someone please smack it out of their hands. Better yet take it and we’ll sell them to help pay the foley field debt.
This pole has become a real lightning rod in the community.
hhrpg, The tower does NOT benefit all cell users in town. just the potential T-Mobile users within 1/8th mile or so of the tower. All other providers are providing excellent reception at Bay and Broad area.
hrhppg …The Bloomfield Board of Education decided not to pursue the possibility of putting a Verizon cell phone tower on Foley Field after hearing a presentation from a representative at the Oct. 13, 2009 meeting.
http://www.bloomfieldnavigator.com/profiles/blogs/verizon-tower-at-foley-is
Who says no one cares about Foley Field. We all can’t work on just one project. There are a whole group of people working on Foley
http://foleyfield1.blogspot.com/
Another site near Broad and Bay that is NOT right up on residences and has the proper setbacks and is on TOWN PROPERTY has been suggested. Let’s let the town collect the $$$ and put it on property that doesn’t adversely affect people’s property values and their health!
@pat – Do you have any stats about the number of cell towers in the world and the percent that have fallen over?
A 120 foot garage is slightly different from a cell tower. If my neighbor wanted to put a 120 foot flagpole on his property, more power to him.
I’ll throw out a stupid question here: if this cell tower isn’t meeting zoning standards or won’t get the needed permits, how can it go up in the first place? I can only assume that since it is being discussed by the Zoning Board that it is meeting all the necessary requirements.
Frankly I’ll skip the meeting and just wait for the Baristanet article giving me the details.
“I can only assume that since it is being discussed by the Zoning Board that it is meeting all the necessary requirements.”
You can assume, and you would be wrong. That tower meets none of the requirements which is why it needs so many variances in order for it to be built.
@johnny If your neighbor put in a 120ft flagpole it would be against the law. The T=Mobile application does not meet with township code which is why they have applied for a whole host of variances.
No I am not a cell tower statistician but I do have some visuals for you:
http://www.firefighternation.com/video/nj-cell-phone-tower-fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cT5cXuyiYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrVHk97C2Og
http://www.janecelltower.com/gpage35.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN_KU4lmgO0&NR=1
If you’d like to see more I can do some research…
Look my only point is that if they’re getting variances approved legally, there’s not really anything you can do. If my neighbor wanted to build that 120 ft flagpole and got the appropriate variances for it, so be it. Sucks to look at but it’s not my property so he’s free to do what he wants within the legal limits.
@Johnny They are in the process of asking that the variances be approved. There is plenty that we can do. We can and are pointing out that their maps of cell coverage showing the “outage’ are old. That the variances that they are asking for are way out of line. That there are health threats posed by cell towers. That the property is in the flood plain and there’s a risk in building the tower where they want it.
Your neighbor has to notify all of his neighbors within 200 feet if he wants a variance. That’s so that the neighbosr can come to Zoning Board meetings and question the applicant or the applicants’ experts.
That’s what we’re doing. All legal. All within OUR rights. There is no need to sit back and take it when you neighbor wants to build something that is a hazard, or effects your property value negatively, or affects your health.
That’s why there is a Zoning Board- they uphold the law.
“The boom of the tarp sounds bad down below, though. The boom rattles Ronald Graiff, who’s kneeling in the little passage right behind the Monopole, holding P. Gilleran’s head as Gilleran down on one knee is sick into a tall white plastic bucket. Graiff has to haul Gilleran slightly back as Mineo’s outline bulges for a moment into the billowing tarp and threatens to knock Gilleran over, plus maybe the bucket, which would be a bad scene…”
from MONOPOLE OF HELL, by David Foster Wallace
Art. Life. What’s the difference?
@pat, that’s fine, I’m glad you are exercising your rights. Good luck to you and others who oppose it.
I’m not included in that group that’s opposing it, that’s all. If the variances are approved, good for them. And if my neighbor ever does put up that 120 ft flagpole, as long as there’s a Verizon cell antenna on top I’m good with it.
@Johnny you’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine. I just don’t understand why you keep calling it a done deal and say that “there’s not really anything you can do”.
There’s due process and that’s what we’re doing
aah walleroo, the difference is that I don’t get seasick. I suggest that you substitute an O’Boyle for a Gilleran in your tome.
Alas, pat, the author died a while ago. Perhaps we could take it up with him at the next seance?
I’m sure he’s floating around over the CVS.
walleroo,
Have you spoken to him lately? If he’s dead is he writing about me from the grave? How weird!
Video of the Bloomfield Cell Tower Zoning Board Meeting of April 14th.
View the video http://www.wbmatv.com/media-center
Listed Under Categories – Zoning Board Meetings
roo- perhaps it should be called “Infinite Tower” and 2011 could be the year of T-Mobile
Police Chief Christopher Goul & Fire Chief Joseph McCarthy – Best of their knowledge, T-Mobile never contacted their respective departments about communication coverage gaps.
http://www.bloomfieldnavigator.com/profiles/blogs/owner-of-cell-tower-site-sees
Here are exerpts from the story not visibile on the online version of the story.
“We were approached by T-Mobile,” he said.(O’Boyle) “They said the police and fire departments needed this cell tower for their communications.”
From speaking to police officers, O’Boyle said he knew computers in patrol cars became inoperable in the vicinity of his garden center. “The police officers were also concerned.” he said. “This is what sold us on it. It’s definitely not the money; it’s not worth the aggravation.”
On Tuesday, when asked about any loss of communications in the general area of the gardening center, Police Chief Christopher Goul said, “What we are expierencing is a loss of the Verizon connection with our Mobile Data Terminals which is a cordless laptop.” He said the problem would probably be solved if a tower in the area provided Verizon transmissions.” “The car radios aren’t an issue,” Gould said. “It’s Verizon connection; it’s spotty in that area. It has nothing to do with the car radio transmissions.”
Fire Chief Joseph McCarthy said Tuesday his department had no issue with cellular connections in the area of the gardening center. Both Chiefs said that the best of their knowledge, T-Mobile never contacted their respective departments about communication coverage gaps.
At the April 14th Zoning Board Meeting – T-Mobile RF Expert Mr. Meneo never gave any testimony about communications problems for the Police or Fire Dept.
Based on that, can we quote O’boyle saying “its not the money, its not worth the aggrevation”??
The farce continues. It’s not about money, it’s about public safety.
It takes a real stretch of faith to believe public safety is imperiled by not having a cell tower at the garden center.
Is the idea to scare people into believing that without this cell tower the good honest working Americans in the area will be at risk of increased crime or maybe even terrorism.