Cell tower lawsuit

[Jeff Danos]

I had heard this was a moot point whether to have the tower or not before there was ever the lawsuit. I did hear we DO have the right to require it look like a tree or somewhat inconspicuous though.

In many of the articles I found, the provider was at least required to prove that the site in question was the best/only choice. Many towns worked with an outside third party communications advisor to make sure that the celltower company was being thorough, honest and accurate in their site selection.

In our case, I know they floated a balloon - did they provide any other information on the necessity of this *one* site being their only choice?

[celeste]

What is the contract & who is benefiting from it?
The last article Jeff cites states:
Under the tentative lease agreement, TowerOne would pay for the construction of the tower and receive 60 percent of the profits generate from its carriers. Grace Lutheran Church and the township would split the other 40 percent.

[Kim]

Did Smith ever look at alternate locations outside the city limits?

I ask because our neighbor across the street jokingly said (really not joking), "they could put the tower up here."

[celeste]

I know, Kim, I said the same thing here, too, mainly to call the bluff that other sites were not even considered.

[Jeff Danos]

Check out exhibits 9, 10, and 11 on this page - mini-cell technology alternatives:
http://www.cellslayer.com/tech.htm

Or, kill two birds with one stone (and I know I'll get stoned for this!), but if the high school tax vote passes, perhaps we can ask Smith to relocate the cell-tower to the junction of HWY 23-S and HWY 62 and disguise it as a traffic light (exhibit 6 in above link):
http://www.cellslayer.com/6exhb.htm

[Common Sense Cellular]

1. This is NOT a Verizon cell site. Verizon has no plans for any cell sites in the vicinity of the city limits.

2. The speculation as to who is the tenant pushing this construction is a matter of wireless intrigue at this point. Sprint is probably the only one sufficiently hungry to push this hard, although I would not put it past AT&T. T-Mobile and Cricket are worthy of having their names get mentioned, but it seems highly unlikely either one would make the effort when their networks are so sketchy in more populated areas.

[Kim]

In my previous life....

I was part of the problem/solution that brought the first "Internets" to Eureka Springs. Ever. Eureka's first connection to the World Wide Web came in, at one point, via a connection that used to be under Jan's desk. Which is now underneath a TV that fell off a WTFocker truck.

Eureka has difficult terrain when it comes to showering signal down on the populace. I think Cindy Lou's Husband and Common Sense Cellular are most qualified to address this.

The last time I paid attention to possible solutions... which was, granted, years ago now... the proposed solution was to put the necessary receivers on the water tower at Inn of the Ozarks.

Having regular, non-tourism related income is a boon to any business. In my imaginary, fantasy world everyone here would be able to rely on steady income. Regular monthly payments from communication service providers are much...much... more reliable than the vagaries of recession-era tourism.

I don't want to say the Eureka Inn doesn't deserve financial support. I think they do.

And yet....

I'm stuck on the whole overall concept of Eureka Springs.

If you're going to pin all the hopes and dreams of a community on tourism... and if you're going to pin all the hopes and dreams of said tourism on historic nostalgia... can you get by with putting a gazillion-foot communication tower at the entrance to the downtown historic district?

I'm thinking ... no.

If it is true that federal law requires the citizens of Eureka Springs to go along with whatever the big telecomms want... well, OK.

There probably are solutions that would meet the need to do that without wrecking everybody's Wall Street area property values.

Have those solutions been considered?

[Common Sense Cellular]

Did Smith ever look at alternate locations outside the city limits?

I ask because our neighbor across the street jokingly said (really not joking), "they could put the tower up here."

The other site that was considered was behind the trolley depot on W. Van Buren. This was reportedly vetoed by the carrier. Another decent location would be near Pine Mountain.

Wireless signals do not carry like radio or tv signals, their short range and terrain sensitive nature makes finding the best location crucial to their success. A cell site near Lake Lucerne would not be remotely comparable in performance to one near 23 and 62.

[Kim]

Thanks, Common Sense Cellular for your knowledge.

[Wolfman]

That DAMN Bush.......