Thursday, June 24, 2021

A Response to the Planning Board Decision

Last night, with a vote of 5 to 2, the Planning Board granted site plan approval, with a number of extensively discussed and considered conditions, to Verizon to install wireless communications equipment of the roof of 199 Columbia Street, Providence Hall.

Today, Gossips received a "letter to the editor" from Michael Colberg and Alexandra Semchenko. on behalf of the Faulty Towers Response Group, commenting on that decision. The text of that letter follows:
Dear Gossips of Rivertown, 
Last October, a tenant at Providence Hall posted the following on the Planning Board site:
"I have lived at Providence Hall over 13 years. It is a decent place to live, having grown comfortable here. I will say without being overly sentimental that I hope to live out my life here. However, I was very disturbed to find out only recently about Verizon's proposal to build a 5G cellular tower on the roof of the building which I have called home for so long. I live on the top floor herethe 5th floor. To think that this monstrosity will be a scant 10 feet above my home causes me a great deal of anxiety and concern." (10/27/20)
This is one tenant. Thirty-four tenants in Providence Hall have documented their opposition to this proposal. All tenant opposition ceased when Arbor Management, the owners of the building, began "suggesting" that tenants refrain from speaking out. This is in addition to the 30 additional No Consent forms posted, the 8 additional letters sent [to] the Planning Board, and the 163 residents who signed an online petition.
Hudson, its mayor and his administration, its legal team, most members of the Planning Board have played active roles in this process. They abrogated their duty to care for Hudson residents who most need their protection. Arbor Management has failed in its obligation to keep safe its Section 8 residents and furthermore has failed in its obligation to request and receive permission from HUD to rent out its roof to Verizon. HUD is understaffed, and so the outcome of this arrogant omission remains unknown.
We live in a city where many residents spend a lot of time cloaking themselves in the verbiage (but not the actions) of progressive ideology. Some hide behind names like Social Democrats and Working Families Party; the new Planning Board chair even styles himself as an activist interested in social justice. What we are witnessing here is a dichotomy between what is said and what is done. Actions in fact do speak louder than words. That members of this Planning Board remain unconscious about the consequences of treating its most vulnerable residents in such a disdainful and a dismissive way does not mitigate the damage done.
Some of us took a significant amount of time to educate ourselves about electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation technology and the law. It was a steep learning curve. We did it because it was in front of us and we felt that if we were going to participate, we needed to do it with actual knowledge and not rely upon other people's opinions. Time will tell if we understand things accurately.
Regardless of opinion, there are things that are simply the truth. They often take time to make themselves known. Until then, the honest conclusion is: we do not know enough about EMF radiation to expose residents so vulnerable that they seek out a building with a heightened responsibility of care. This fact has been overlooked, because it takes it lot of courage to sit with "I do not know." We have witnessed little courage during this process.
We must acknowledge the efforts made by Laura Margolis and Theresa Joyner, two Planning Board members who took the time to educate themselves, who asked probing questions, and who were aware and principled enough to vote no to this application. The Planning Board's decision is something that each member will bear in his or her life. The members will also, whether consciously or not, carry within themselves all the pain they have caused by their actions.
The quote below is one that can offer ongoing guidance as we move forward:
"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."    John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address at St. Andrew's (1867)
Respectfully yours,
Michael Colberg and Alexandra Semchenko on behalf of the Faulty Towers Response Group

25 comments:

  1. In the end, the Democratic Socialists want the money from the towers and the tenants be damned.

    the cell towers should not be on that building. it a cheap solution for Verizon and unhealthy one for those living beneath it.

    But who really cares on the Council ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So now it's "socialists" siding with corporations against the poor old folks? The same anti-business "socialists" who banned B&Bs, are trying to expand public housing and give money allocated to promote tourism to the youth department and other projects? Interesting theory, but highly unlikely. More likely a business made a deal with the owner of a building, approved with modifications after a lengthy period of public comment.

      Delete
    2. THE POINT -- democratic socialists and the "good ole boys" both act exactly the same !! they make bad decisions. in the end they are all the same.



      Delete
  2. It is an outrage that this equipment will be sited there. I agree with Colbert and Semchenko.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's also a bit of an outrage, is when a business follows the rules and the process, and after accommodations are made, and a vote taken according to correct democratic procedure, the losers try to mobilized to force their opinion by reversing a vote and overturning the democratic process. Maybe we should just keep voting on things over and over until the disgruntled folks with the loudest mouths get their way. That's democracy in action!

      Delete
    2. I totally agree with you. Totally.

      However if I understand what you are trying to say, the point you are trying to make is not supported by what actually happened. Quite the reverse.

      I suggest you go to the Planning Board site, read the documents, look at or read the transcripts and then form an opinion rather than sharing an uninformed opinion.

      If you do not want to bother with all that but want a taste of it, look at the May 2021 Planning Board meeting where Craig Haigh the Code Enforcement officer made a clear statement about the failure of the Verizon application to meet the Zoning requirements.

      After that, the "losers" did mobilize to force their opinion in ways that were at best - questionable. If you research all that went on you may find tht we were taken on a journey that swerved away from any relationship to a democratic process.

      Take the time, it is all there on the site.

      Delete
  3. “We need high speed bandwidth” — just don’t make us pay for it. “We want good mobile service” — just so long as we don’t have to see the infrastructure. Gimme gimme gimme. But don’t ask me to pay.

    If you all are so upset and outraged I imagine you’ll be retiring your mobile devices in protest. Right? I didn’t think so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John - you make it sound as if Verizon had no other option than to install their equipment on the roof of a low-income/no-income apartment building. (Of course, you don't live there, do you?) C'mon man. Is that really what the residents of Providence Hall were demanding -- "high speed internet?" And demanding that it be put over their heads? Your argument is laughable, and coming from a lawyer it's embarrassing (and a few other things I won't mention). Or, at least you should be embarrassed by it. Bill Huston

      Delete
    2. No, I don't live there. I live between a water treatment plant and a state prison. On a truck route. Everybody bears some of the burden of infrastructure. While I do use water, I don't use prison -- so I have a large community of felons on my front doorstep. Sometimes I think you whine for the sake of whining. This is one of those times.

      Delete
    3. Boo Hoo, Mr. Friedman, who's the whiner now? You CHOSE to live between a water treatment plant and a state prison along a truck route, didn't you John? Have you been complaining about the location of your house since the day you bought it? The people of Providence Hall did not choose to live beneath a potentially dangerous piece of technology {from a large private corporation with a spotty record), the effects of which we know too little about. How dare you equate having "a large community of felons on your doorstep" (talk about whiny hyperbole) to cel towers on a low income building that most people who are able to or even bother to speak up about it don't want. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.
      You seem like a smart guy, John, but with an enormous ego that is not flattering.

      Delete
    4. Take a deep breath, Bill. You seem like a hyperbolic guy who instinctively hates things.

      Delete
  4. Hi John, As even their project manager reluctantly acknowledged on camera John - were thatbuilding not to exist they would come up with an alternative solution. This emerged out of expediency not necessity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does it say they have to site based on necessity and not what works best for them? I believe the law only requires that they use demonstrably safe technologies and, when they do, and follow local zoning codes, they have what amounts to a statutory right to site where they believe suits their needs best. You're imputing on Verizon an obligation that the law does not. Don't like the law, change it. But don't fault a rational player for following the rules.

      Delete
    2. that was exactly the point and was made very clear in one of the meetings. It is the owner's disregard for the tenants' wishes that is the real issue here. They were not compelled to enter into an agreement with Verizon

      Delete
  5. What I don't understand is why Verizon gets to do this. Shouldn't something like this be for the good of the commons? We are not all Verizon customers and some of us do our best to avoid giving them one penny. We don't all benefit from this.
    So are T-Mobile, AT&T, and all the other carriers going to be petitioning the Planning Board with their ideas for cel towers all over Hudson to keep EVERYONE happy with 5G or whatever the latest soon-to-be-obsolete technology is? B HUSTON

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They didn't put it on a public building Bill. They made a deal with the owner. If a tenant in an apartment building doesn't want solar on the roof, but the owner does, guess what?

      Delete
  6. Hoping that Gossips will follow up with the specifics of the Verizon decision. They included various constraints and time frames. Would like to hear the details...

    ReplyDelete
  7. As a 2nd Ward County Supervisor, I am personally worried if it's going be a health issue for the senior brothers and sisters who reside in 119 Columbia St. They are already suffering from lot of health problems. I spoke with lot of the residents and they are worried about it. Previously, I did email the Chairman of the planning board to notify this issue. I am requesting all of them, this plan should be revisited after doing proper research on the harmful effects of 5G EMF radiations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there isn't a lot of evidence to support this idea. Still, more research is needed to be sure." https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get out of here with those facts and science. We prefer to cloak ourselves in socialism and paranoia in this town

      Delete
  9. Maybe the tenants wouldn’t be so up in arms if people with bad information would stop scaring them.

    To no small degree, the blossoming anxiety over the professed health risks of 5G technology can be traced to a single scientist and a single chart.

    Except that Dr. Curry and his graph got it wrong.

    According to experts on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, radio waves become safer at higher frequencies, not more dangerous. (Extremely high-frequency energies, such as X-rays, behave differently and do pose a health risk.)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree regarding the scare mongering. However, it is still an issue that the residents were not listened to. If they had been heard at the outset, it might have been possible to reassure them.

      Delete
  10. In addition to the very valid points raised by The Faulty Towers group, I would like to add that it’s very disturbing to force this upon residents who are deeply opposed to it, but by virtue of being renters have no real power in the process. It is not a good look for Hudson to disregard the clearly, and passionately stated will of the people most directly affected, and to underscore marginalization because they are not owners, just the long term, lifelong tenants. I’m disappointed that this has happened.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think it's scare mongering. If the health risks of 5G haven't been conclusively studied, which they haven't, and the health risks of 3G and 4G have, and have shown correlations with different types of brain tumors, leukemia, etc., should not the precautionary principle be applied?

    That NY Times article had way too much industry spin for me--no surprise, since the FCC, which regulates cell towers and the like, is mostly composed of industry lackeys and includes no one with any medical expertise at all. It was the FCC that inserted a clause in the 1996 Telecom Act that local governments could not object to towers for environmental or health concerns. Outrageous.

    The Times doesn't always get it right, anyway. In 1952 they dutifully reported that deaths worldwide were down thanks to DDT use, for just one example.

    ReplyDelete