Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2011 at 10:37 am
I'll agree with you Paul. Amazing that Palo Alto, the epicenter of the Silicon Valley and the home of Stanford, has residents that display such ignorance when it comes to cell phone towers. We have people talking about health risks, decreased property values and other scare tactics in an attempt to prevent progress in the city. Let's face it, there are some people that want Palo Alto to remain the quaint little town it was 50 years ago--not going to happen.
We have people pitching hissy fits and convincing non-profits to cut off internet access to the city because they do not want a cell tower across the street from them--talk about NIMBYism!!!
Posted by just_the_facts_maam, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Some of the NO CELL TOWER signs you saw were posted on homes of folks who had attended a meeting with the "fake tree antenna" representative submitting the plan for the little league park, and when we were shown an actual photo of the current concealed antenna, the opponents (as well as the supporters who just want to have a usable cell phone) agreed that the appearance was greatly improved over current models or what we believed was going to be installed, and certainly not the freeway-side unsightly cell antenna on the flyers circulated by an opponent (and on the facebook page for the NO CELL TOWER opponents), both of which images grossly misrepresent what is proposed at the ball park. So even after agreeing that the proposed installation was of modest visual impact and that the RF radiation was significantly less than that emitted by appliances and WiFi equipment in the home, the NO CELL TOWER signs are up in the front yards of folks leaving that meeting expressing agreement that the visual impact was minimal. I am starting to think this is one of those "debates" where facts and accurate information is actually irrelevant compared to the pre-decided outcome.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2011 at 8:07 am
I love my cell phone, but I will not give up my land line. I do not like talking on my cell phone for anything other than a 30 second conversation for information. I do not like getting calls at inconvenient times in inconvenient places. I do not carry my cell phone around the house with me. I like being able to call home and speak to whoever is there to check if we need something while I am at the grocery store. I also see no need to give my cell number as an alternate for many times I need to leave a phone number.
It is possible that one day land lines will go away, but I will be one of the last.
I do think that cell etiquette should be promoted. Most people do not realise how rude, confusing and often dangerous it can be to use their cell phones as they turn off to reality while using them.
Posted by Residents, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2011 at 8:21 am
Thanks Paul for using the word NIMBY. Not in my backyard. I hope our Palo Alto leaders stop using this word. The word is disparaging to People entitled to opinions about what they want in their community and near their property. And meant to discourage real opinion. Most everyone wouldn't want the negative impacts a cell tower provides. Name calling sends the message that those voicing an adverse opinion should feel bad about about a position - that most residents living away from the Towers wouldn't want in their backyard either. Let's stop the name calling message and consider the different positions instead.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2011 at 11:41 am
Last I looked most people seek property located near pools and beautiful parks, not a 50-foot-tall cell tower and nine antennas at St. Albert the Great Church on Channing Avenue Palo Alto.
The signs I see on Middlefield Road expressing disapproval of a cell tower is a great revelation. As people become politically active in the South Palo - they will create a strong policital voice as demonstrated. Great the area is expressing what they want or don't want located nearby. I like seeing those signs displayed. It seems some people don't want others to organize and express what they don't want in their neighborhood - thus the name calling.
No issue with Palo Alto placing cell towers in appropriate venues. Using words like hysterical and nimby really are disparaging words and don't add to this conversation.
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2011 at 11:50 am
" Using words like hysterical and nimby really are disparaging words and don't add to this conversation."
Making claims about radiation and cell towers without knowing the facts and going against established findings is hysterical. Claiming that your property will lose it's value without providing any proof is hysterical. Not being aware of the facts and making outrageous claims in an attempt to bully the city are hysterical.
Sorry--that is what it is.
"No issue with Palo Alto placing cell towers in appropriate venues"
Posted by Jim_H, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2011 at 7:15 pm
While we're at it, let's just ban sunlight in Palo Alto. I can document numbers of people who have exprerienced basal cell carcinoma (I'm one - successfully treated with surgery) and malignant melanomas. I don't know anyone who has experienced cancer through "cell-phone" radiation.
Ban the sun from Palo Alto. Who cares if we all freeze together as long as we don't have to experience the horror of invisible "radiation".