Do you want to see cell towers rising in Connecticut’s state parks and forests? Connecticut’s General Assembly in Hartford is considering a bill that would allow that to happen.
thinks it’s a bad idea.
A provision in a bill now before the General Assembly, An Act Modernizing the State’s Telecommunications Laws (SB 447), would allow communications companies to build towers in state parks and forests, with the approval of the commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
This would fundamentally change the current state practice of not allowing towers on watershed land, state parks or state forests. Passage of the provision would lead to the construction of communications towers that would seriously damage wildlife habitat by causing forest fragmentation; cell towers are also a hazard to migrating birds.
The bill was recently passed by the Energy and Technology Committee, though not without dissent caused by the cell tower provision. It may soon come before the full General Assembly for a vote. You can read more about the proposal and the debate, here.
Let your representatives in Hartford know that this provision is a bad idea. Ask them to strike it from the bill. Tell them, “I am opposed to the provision in SB 447 that would allow cell towers to be built on state parkland.”
You can find your local representatives, and their contact information, on this page: http://www.cga.ct.gov/maps/townlist.asp
Connecticut Audubon Society is following the progress of several other bills in Hartford as well. You can learn more on our new Tracking Legislation webpage, here.
The full text of the bill is here.
Given the financial state of many municipalities, leasing space to wireless carriers in parks would bring in much needed money (hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for a tower accommodating multiple carriers) and shift a portion of the maintenance of the area from the municipality to the carriers, freeing up resources for other priorities.
-- CT Yankee :-
Ask most anyone if they would prefer a cell tower in next to their home (not paying them rent) vs. one in a park. Think we all know this answer.
While it may be the best location, in one community, it may not work at all in another. In some cases, it could possibly be less invasive to the environment to place it in an area in a state park, than clearing a key town-owned wildlife greenway to place the tower. The state should work with individual communities to determine what makes sense and will have the least impact on our environment. It's all about balance.
Most State Parks & Forest actually do already have really good cell coverage, except in the northwest corner. I suspect the reason they want to put towers there is not so that people using the parks have coverage, but to use the height of the land for their tower to improve coverage to nearby houses and businesses. Many of our highest points in the state are parkland. I've hike around a lot of tower on state land. They have a very small footprint and simply are not a big deal. The issue is more how they look from a distance, but even then people do get used to them and they even become landmarks to judge where you are. And I have an environmental background. These towers are no big threat to the environment.
We can not compare today, to 30 years ago. It is a different world.
Maybe you should keep Girl Scouts out of NYC, maybe a building will fall over and crush them. Also, I imagine that a tree will fall over once in a while in a park. Should we keep Girl Scouts out of the parks too?
By the way, I don't think it's cool to mock 9./11.
Cell phones and all the other future devices are here to stay. Deal with it. They are not going away any time soon. Welcome to the 21st Century.
Where in fairfield is it? Does it cost more to convert these type of landmarks into cell towers, such as church steeples, etc. Is this why we don't see more of this type of solution, ...or do we see more of this solution, we just don't know what we are looking at because they are hidden? How many cell towers are hidden in steeples, etc, as opposed to freestanding metal?
Here is a video of it: http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/fairfield_cty/fairfield-bronson-windmill
There is a tall metal sculpture of a heron in the middle of Twin Brooks park pond in Trumbull. If he were a little bit taller, I bet he could work as a cell tower..... Before all the Trumbullites start screaming...I am just kidding!
Thank you for caring about protecting our parks and wildlfe. The only park that should have cell towers would be industrial parks and not within a Neighborhood. We are fighting a proposed cell tower at Ocean Beach Park, New London.. www.nobeachcelltower.com please follow us on facebook..bottom of that site and like us on facebook.
You think a cell site requires 5 acres? That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. I typical cell site uses an area about 50 feet square - and many can take up less than that. The actual tower is not the problem, as long as it is aesthetically concealed. The area of concern is getting power and telephone lines to the tower. If that can be done with little impact (say, along an existing road) then there is really no concern. More importantly, they are no longer considered just commercial uses - but are now considered critical infrastructure by almost all public service and safety providers (fire, police, etc). Like it or not, cell towers are an important part of our safety and communication networks, and are a necessity... some might argue "especially" in remote places such as parks and forests.