Cell tower built on city property, deed reveals
Published Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — The cell tower off 10th Avenue and Cowles Street was, in fact, built erroneously on city property, according to a city deed that vests ownership of the Weeks Field Subdivision in city hands.
After a few letters exchanged between the city mayor’s office and Alaska DigiTel, Mayor Terry Strle said she isn’t going to budge on her stance about the cell tower.
“I think it should be removed, seeing as the neighborhood doesn’t want it and cell towers are becoming an issue with the Fairbanks community,” Strle told the council on Monday night.
This was after Wayne D. Haerer Jr. of Alaska DigiTel apologized on behalf of the company in a formal letter.
“It is a most unfortunate circumstance, but it is Alaska DigiTel’s hope and desire that this matter can be re-cast in a positive condition and circumstance for both parties,” the response letter stated.
The letter then asked the city to consider entering a lease agreement regarding the site of the tower.
In the lease agreement, Alaska DigiTel would pay $1,000 a month for the 1,200-square-foot area to maintain the location of the cell tower.
The city declined the offer.
“I think it was mishandled, and I am not going to change my position,” Strle said.
In the response, Haerer explained why the company built a cell tower on city property.
According to his response, the original lease site area was first located on the property belonging to the Arctic Bowl owners.
With the title in hand and a registered survey conducted, everything seemed like a go for Alaska DigiTel.
But that was until the physical survey of the land suggested that the site of the tower be moved northward to allow enough room for emergency vehicles to get in and out between the Arctic Bowl building and the actual tower, according to the Alaska DigiTel letter.
“This relocation was therefore done, staked and the owner as well presumed that it remained on his title property,” the letter stated.
According to the letter, the city had granted the building permit on the officially surveyed land.
But it was brought to Alaska DigiTel’s attention that the cell tower was on city property only after construction of the tower began.
And because of the confusion, no one stopped construction.
“Alaska DigiTel expresses its regret for the unfortunate error and asks the city to give favorable consideration for resolve,” the letter stated in closing.
Still, Strle said she isn’t willing to budge on the matter because of the number of public complaints she has received about cell towers in the city.
In light of the recent issues surrounding the construction of cell towers on Birch Hill and in residential areas, the mayor suggested at Monday’s City Council meeting that more work be done with the Fairbanks North Star Borough to establish regulations about cell towers in the area.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
What about the cell tower in the Birch Hill Cemetary?
When will that one be removed?
OK so the cell tower gets rebuilt a few feet over from where it is now and what? Still there, still sticks up in the air and the city don't get an easy $1,000 a month lease payment. The neighbors are still going to see it on the Arctic Bowl property. Now the borough will be getting hit up to come with conditional use permits or zoning restrictions for cell towers. Probably needed but with less or no more towers what are all those children in school going to do when they can't do text messages under their desk during class? Oh the world is coming to an end!
Sure wish the Mayor would reconsider. She could use the $1,000 a month to fund the local detox van.
why not build a fake pine tree " hidden the cell tower " and look nice than plain pole
Heh, the city should sue them for a big payout or the Digitel better come up with a better offer. At least $10,000 a month would help clean up the city.
thousand bucks a month is generous. The same tower will get disassembled and rebuilt less than a thousand feet away, and the city will get squat, instead of $12,000 a year for free.
While the FCC commissioner was here for digital television hearings, he said the two complaints he heard most were:
A> Poor cellular reception
B> Too many cell towers
Guess what... The towers are inevitable. Mitigation can be undertaken to reduce the visibility and height, but only so much. If towers are height restricted, then there have to be more (shorter) towers to cover the same area.
when I say mitigation, I mean camoflauge. It can be done, but there is no reason to right now. The borough has to step up, and IMMEDIATELY, for anything positive to happen in this respect. As it stands, lower-48 companies that specialize in cell towers are building towers in alaska like crazy. They don't care at all about aesthetics, they just want to lease as many cell companies on each tower as possible. This way the cell companies get to say it's not their tower, they can't control it, blah blah blah.
Sounds like Alaskans are having a tough time with land deeds lately .. Sarah Palin building that huge activity center on property the city did NOT own (still doesn't own) and now this tower being built on property they did not have a right to build on ... where are all the legal eagles looking over contracts BEFORE construction is begun???
What about all the birds that will be killed flying into the towers? I will never stand for it blocking my view of the scenery. Take em all down.. you dont need your silly phone every where you go. Lets have a candle light parade, BAN THE TOWER Man we need something to do this winter...
Sarah built a huge activity center? That's one capable gal. Wife, Mother, Governor and Vice presidential candidate.....AND capable of building construction. "According to the letter, the city had granted the building permit on the officially surveyed land.
But it was brought to Alaska DigiTel’s attention that the cell tower was on city property only after construction of the tower began.
And because of the confusion, no one stopped construction". Wow, that's the unbelievable part. "Hey Bill, you sure about this tower"? "Well not really but nobody said to stop building it."
"where are all the legal eagles looking over contracts BEFORE construction is begun???"
They are too worried about the homeless and drunks out there to care about cell phone towers. That is the life those people have chose so let them be.
here is a link that describes the legality of locating cell towers used by many jurisdictions in the US. Seems we don't apply any of these. Just go ahead and build with no need to consult the public.
http://www.celltowerinfo.com/CellTowerSi...
It's the ole "not in my backyard" position. Someone please tell me how this tower has impacted the neighborhood? This is not hillside view property, It's not in the middle of a garden or park. Mayor, don't be silly, take the money or they will move it a few hundred feet and you'll get squat. How is that going to sit with the neighbors?
Build one in my back yard and give me $1000 a month.
Everyone uses cell phones. We all benefit from cell phone towers. City property is the perfect place for the tower. If no city office or employee uses a cell phone for official business, the mayor has a right to complain. Otherwise, shut up, be part of the solution, take the $1000 a month, and be thankful the city is getting a little income from the formerly unproductive property.
I'll take two!
The tower is in my back yard. I'm two houses down from it, and the only house closer than me is vacant. I DON'T CARE THAT THE TOWER IS THERE. I'm not sure why everyone else caress so much. If it isn't bothering me, and I live right next to it, why do the rest of you care so much?
Can I put a windmill and solar panels on it too?
Seems like that particular tower could be moved over to the
commercial area across Airport Rd without much change in
coverage.
I agree that we need them, I think they are much less intrusive
than the miles of above ground power lines we have all over
town. But we need utilities, so we make a few sacrifices.
AKbychoice writes: "Everyone uses cell phones."
Actually, there are a few of us Luddites left who haven't gone down that road yet (in my case, I just don't want to be bothered, has nothing to do with any political crusade). But for those of you who are going down that road, Hang up and drive! I've been nearly creamed by numerous drivers happily yakking away on their phones (this includes one former assembly member who I won't name).
I have no problem with cell phone towers, don't mind the fact that they beam fluoride or whatever at me and will theoretically send me to an early death. I have wireless in my house and haven't died yet. But what will possibly kill me is a cell phone user behind the wheel. They are statistically as dangerous as drunk drivers (subtle hint for those paying attention). Driving while dialing is something that does need to be addressed by our legislators.
If the city granted the building permit...then there is participatory negligence on the part of the city as well. The city needs to accept the generous offer from the tower owner and live with it. Otherwise, that $1,000 will go to a property owner...the tower will still exist in the same neighborhood and there will be ill-will between a communications company and the city. Battles are not important when it could result in a war. Think big picture mayor...
I think we need more cell towers in this city. I'm tired of dropped calls all the time and lousy reception even when I'm downtown. Every so often, I get tempted to rent my back yard to a cell phone company just so I can get some decent reception on my long distance calls. At 1,000 a month, I really should consider it. Then I could afford to stay nice and toasty this winter.
I wouldnt mind having a tower in my backyard, I would have great reception, get paid, and in the summer use it to hold up the other end of clothes line so I dont have to use my dryer. And it might be funny to watch my cat try to climb it..lol
Never bite the hand that feeds the face! $12,000 and be very happy!
Sounds like a lotta BS about nothing. Sounds like the city is gonna pass up an honest 12 Grand for a BS reason. Sounds like the estrogen and testosterone levels are outta whack.
It is stupid for the the mayor to reject the money. She is playing politics with this issue. She is mad that there is a tower at the cemetary so now she can get even with cellphone company. She is letting her political and emotions get in the way of free money($12,000) that could help the city. Don't be crying of budget shortfalls and want to increase taxes when someone is offering you money. This is a bad move by the city to turn down the money.
I just drove by there and you would of thought that belonged to Arctic bowl. If you weren't looking for a cell tower you would drive right by it.
True or false: It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.
I would like to see the Mayor make a point by forcing the cell company to move the tower, OR ask for more money! That is the kind of action that puts people on notice that we have rule of law, we have property rights and restrictions, and people should pay attention. OK, there's $12K per year at stake. Ooooooo! Income!
IF there is some sort of participatory negligence on the part of the city, that would change things. Will we ever know?
The city would accept that money at a price, so to speak. It says folks can do as they please without proper record checks and attention to detail, then say they are sorry, and then negotiate after-the-fact. I don't think that's right.
Have to agree with the poster who says "Hang up and drive!" A truck hit a school bus someplace in the Lower 48, killing one child and injuring others. The truck driver was on his freaking phone. Recent train wreck, numerous deaths, dozens of serious injuries. The train's conductor is alleged to have been texting.
Oh give it up already it's there take the free money and run.
Oh and tell me how to get in touch with Digitel I'd like one of those in my back yard for 1000.00 a month.
Yup lets charge cell phone drivers of DWT( Driving while talking ) Its as bad as driving drunk.Don't know how meny times i've come close to being hit or seen a cell phone driver almost hit some one else.
Hang'em up and drive!Quick lawmakers make it illegal to drive and talk on the phone.For every ones safty please!!!!!!
And take the money and run!
Alaskaphil...the participatory negligence comes from the CITY giving the company a construction permit. Once they have done that, they accept partial liability.
Ak Phil has got it right as it's true that asking forgiveness is easier than getting permission. It's an Alaskan tradition. Unauthorized use or trespass is everywhere you look on public land. At least this company is willing to pay.
Good point. BUT, and I really do not know here, does the city care whose land is involved as long as the permitting fees are paid? I can see where the city as an entity would arguably be participatory, depending on who knew what and when they knew it. But does the right hand know or care what the left hand is doing? If you or I applied for a permit, for instance, would we be asked who owns the land? Is that the city's role when approving a construction permit? Or is the city's role simply to approve the nature and safety of the project? Put another way, under what criteria does the city award a construction permit? I would need to know that before affirming the city had participatory negligence. Thanks for the response, oldak ...
Regardless of what criteria was used...if the city signed off on the construction permit, they are equally responsible for the proper documentation being submitted before the permit was issued. Both the submitting agent and the permitting office are responsible for getting us to this point. Was the permit issued with all required documentation properly submitted? Probably, but a good question. Did the city use the correct plat when determining property lines? Apparently not...so another good question. No matter what responsibility the builder had...IF the city accepted the documentation as complete...then they share in the problem. But here is the sticking point. If the builder intentionally mis-led the permitting office by falsifying documentation...then all of the information above is moot. Did that happen...probably not, but another good question.
How can I get a cell tower put in my back yard?
It seems to me like the building permits were based off the original survey, but when the site was relocated, the permitting had already been finished, so the City was left out of the process. The City, therefore, has zero liability here.
It seems like free money, but there's a big catch: Now anyone who "mistakenly" builds on public lands can buy forgiveness for $12,000 a year. That is not much money for opening Pandora's Box.
The aspect regarding cell towers gaining least attention is the technology’s long-term effects on health. The visible presence of the tower is a minor issue compared to the damage it propagates. While many people are seemingly unaffected, there are many others who find exposure to cell tower radiation toxic. It incapacitates them and limits normal activities.
In Europe, government health officials are advising parents to curtail cell phone use by children. Schools and other public facilities are removing WIFI and replacing it with fiber optic systems. Health agencies are advising that cell phones be used only in cases of emergency. In dozens of communities across Europe and the UK, people are banding together to remove cell towers and block new ones.
European resistance to cell technology is supported by accumulating scientific data indicating its radiation promotes chronic and acute health problems. Europeans find that independent science (not sponsored by industry) validates distrust of the telecommunication industry’s no-harm claims.
In America we are less likely to know about or support science, unless it’s connected with making money. We are easily persuaded by the telecom’s repetitive advertising, leading us to equate immediate connection (gratification) with a higher good. Long-term consequences are not a priority.
Raising this issue is not popular; people tend to shoot the messenger rather than examine the message. It’s similar, no doubt, to the response received by physicians in the 1920s when they opposed the tobacco industry’s mass marketing of cigarettes. Those early medical pioneers were vilified and discounted for standing in the way of personal freedom. Later, many of them saw their error and became pitchmen for big tobacco’s media campaign. The extra income apparently soothed ethical irritations.
People who see further into the future than others say cell phones are the cigarettes of the 21st century. Do you enjoy roulette?
In an op/ed published here on Sept. 8, I wrote extensively about the health effects that can be expected to accrue from cell technology. You may dismiss my concerns, but discounting the science is more difficult. You may choose not to read the science; there’s little money to be made once the knowledge is part of your mental inventory. However, if you value the space between your ears, you may want to engage its capacity to think about the implications of brain cancer, for a start.
Additional resources:
http://tinyurl.com/4tcjlk
http://tinyurl.com/4yzphg
http://tinyurl.com/39kf88
http://www.safewireless.org/
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
Douglas Yates: I remember your editorial. It was provocative then and it is relevant now. It does not address this particular issue, but I still turn on my phone only occasionally and as needed! Thanks for offering the science!
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.