TARGETED INDIVIDUALS, COUNTRIES, BY MICROWAVE WARFARE - BARRIE TROWER INTERVIEW

MICROWAVE WARFARE / KILLINGS - BARRIE TROWER INTERVIEW

TARGETED INDIVIDUALS AND COUNTRIES BY MICROWAVE KILLING TECHNOLOGY

A REALITY SINCE 1970'S

_____________________________________________________________________________________

T-Mobile's Cell Towers Are For Sale To Highest Bidder?

By Jane Celltower - July 29, 2012

(Reference News Report Released by Bloomberg.com/news)

T-Mobile USA, Inc., headquarted in Bellevue, Washington, (back in 1994 the company was titled, "VoiceStream Wireless", has got a cell tower sale going on, in an effort to to raise cash. Deutsche Telekom appointed the New York Bank TAP Advisiors LLC to search for a tower buyer. Deutsche Telekom AG (DTE), owns about 7,000 antenna towers in the U.S., has received bids from private equaity firms according to an undisclosed party.

Deutsche Telekom set to sell T-Mobile USA towers after a failed takeover of the carrier by AT&T Inc. last year. The merger would have created the largest wireless carrier in the U.S., with nearly 130 million customers (wikpedia). The deal fell through after significant regulatory and legal problems, and heavy risitance from the U.S. government. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson announed the bid withdrawal, agreeing to pay T-Mobile a $4 billion breakup fee. Selling Cell Towers would help T-Mobile raise money for wireless spectrum and network enhancements, while allowing T-Mobile to rent back antenna space on the towers. The new tower owner could then use the assests to provide service to other carriers as well.

_____________________________________________________________________________

GOOGLE EYEGLASSES BRING REALITY FULL FACE

By Jane Celltower

February 24, 2012

Google is said to be developing electronic glasses that can steam information in real time directly to the user's eyes via a pair of eye glasses. Built with low resolution and a built in camera the glassess "will be able to monitor the world in real time and overlay information about locations, surrounding buildings and friends who might be nearby, " according to a New York Times report.

"The glasses are not designed for constant wear, which reads like a disclaimer to me,:" stated Jane Celltower. What happens if the glasses are worn too long? The glasses are to be integrated with other Google products, such as Google maps, latitude location. The example was given that a person looking at a landmark could see detailed historical information and comments about it left by friends. The glasses might also be used for virtual reality games that use the real world as the playground.

The price? Was said to range between $250.00 to $600.00, and will be Android based, and include a display the will sit inches from the wearer's eye, streaming realtime info about his surroudings, fetched throught a 3G/4G connection, and have GPS. According to the New York Times article, Google did not confirm whether the high tech glasses were in development.

_______________________________________________________________

GET THE CELL OUT - T-MOBILE'S DECEPTION CONTINUES ON...

November 19. 2010 - Leslie Y. emailed Jane Celltower about their residential property battle with T-Mobile, she confirms, " T-Mobile behaved in a deceptive manner by knowing they failed to inform residents who would have objected to the installation."

Petition Message:

TO:
Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, City of Los Angeles
Councilman Paul Krekorian, City Council District 2, Los Angeles City Council
Councilman Paul Koretz, City Council District 5, Los Angeles City Council
Councilwoman Janice Hahn, City Council District 15, Los Angeles City Council
Jill Banks Barad, President, Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council
Ron Ziff, Committee Chair, Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council Land Use Committee
Wendy Greuel, City Controller
Michael LoGrande, Chief Zoning Administrator, City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning
Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles
et al.

RE: (CITY REFERRENCE NO.: 2009007394)
PETITION TO OPPOSE A T-MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 52 FOOT POLE, ANTENNA ARRAY, AND POWER METER PEDESTAL LOCATED BETWEEN BEVIS AVE. AND WILLIS AVE. IN SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91411.

I, as a resident of the Sherman Oaks community in the City of Los Angeles, vehemently oppose the installation of the T-Mobile facility referenced above, and ask that construction of the facility immediately cease to allow for additional time to investigate T-Mobile’s permits, conduct and general scheme to impose its will on unsuspecting, and in uninformed, residents of the city.

Said wireless facility will contain several antennae, is mounted on a 52 foot electric pole and will have a frequency radius of 3 miles. It is situated in a completely residential (R1) neighborhood and in close proximity to Kester Elementary and Van Nuys Middle School.

I contend the following:

From the inception of this project, T-Mobile and its hired subcontractors did not adhere to transparency in building this facility. They knew that the residents of this community would object to a cell site, given that T-Mobile unsuccessfully tried 3 times in 4 years to install an AGF cell tower in this area.
T-Mobile failed to inform the residents of the project and at times grossly misrepresented the scope of this project. I contend that they have not acted in accordance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code and failed to adhere to local and regulatory requirements.
T-Mobile and its subcontractors have carried out this installation in a sloppy and hazardous manner, with reckless disregard for the safety of residents as well as children walking to and from school. The construction site poses a safety liability for not only T-Mobile, but the City as well.
The presence of this cellular tower will systematically and thoroughly deplete property values in the area, costing the City millions of dollars in property tax revenue.
The cellular tower will also contribute to urban blight, as it is over 20 feet higher than normal electrical poles, and five times the height of most of the homes in the area. If the City allows this construction of this cell tower to be completed, the charm and safety of my neighborhood will be destroyed.

I demand that this construction project cease immediately to allow the Los Angeles, City Council, the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works - Bureau of Engineering and any and all government and regulatory agencies, and affected area residents, adequate time to investigate the legality and procedural requirements of erecting this facility. I also request a hearing before any and all city officials to allow opposition to this construction to be properly heard and considered to the fullest extent of my legal and residential rights.

For more information go to: www.GetTheCellOut.com | Also follow us: www.facebook.com/GetTheCellOut | www.Twitter.com/GetTheCellOut

__________________________________________________________________________________________

MAIL CONFIRM'S CELLTOWER FIGHT'S - MOM'S OF MERRICK WEIGH IN!

By Jane Celltower

June 25, 2010

From my mail box: www.dontcellout.com It's A Tough Battle!

From the don't cell out website:

DID YOU KNOW that MetroPCS phone company and NextG are putting radiation emitting cell antennas on top of Verizon Telephone Poles right here in our town? They sit only footsteps away from the playgrounds at BIRCH, LAKESIDE, CHATTERTON, and FAYETTE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AS WELL AS CALHOUN HIGH SCHOOL? So far, homeowners and outraged parents have been unable to have them removed despite over 400 letters, protests, and fears over health concerns.

Others were placed in front of homes overnight. They emit radiation 800 feet in every direction. According to our town zoning regulations, more can be placed on any pole at any time without notice or permission from homeowners. In fact, more are on their way to the 298,000 LIPA poles in Nassau County!

Did you know that in Bayville, Long Island, there is a Water Tower near the elementary school with multiple cell antennas on it? There is a lawsuit to have them removed. 30% of the staff and children are sick. Many have CANCER and 3 children have died.

Jane Celltower's Note:

You are all in my prayers.

___________________________________________________________________________________

G20 SECURITY TO JAM CELLPHONE SIGNALS FOR SECURITY PLANS

By Jane Celltower

June 10, 2010

Resource: The Canadian Press, thestar.com

Signals may be jammed during the G8 and G20 summits, according to Wireless companies. The G8 summit is in Ontario cottage country, and the G20 is in the heart of downtown Toronto. The widespread shutdown of cell phone networks could cause major havoc on businesses already preparing to take a hit from secuirty precautions in place for the meetings. The technology is said to be used only to create a moving bubble of electronic silence around motorcades.

No commit was given by the Integrated Security Unit responsible for the summits, regarding security plans. In order to jam the signals, the RCMP has to apply for an exemption from the Radiocommuncations Act, which usually forbids interfering with the airwaves. Approvals for such interfering regulations are usually published after the fact. But the RCMP exemption was for the 2002 G8 Summit in Kannanaskis, Alta.

According to Marc Choma, director of communications for the Canadian Wiresless Telecommincations Association, stated the industry itself usually does not receive advance notice. With the interference rarely lasting long. "The thing with jamming technologies, because a lot of law enforcement themselves, their communications, are wiresless as well, you'd have to try and specify what kind of frequencies that you were trying to jam," Choma said. Even when such technology is used to jam signals, it may appear as a dropped call. Cellphone relay, interface is usually very site-to-site directional, the article confirmed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

CONNECTICUT CELL TOWER SITING COUNCIL BEING REINED IN BY LEGISLATORS

By Jane Celltower

April 29, 2010

The Connecticut House of Representatives gave unanimous approval of a bill which would put new restrictions on the Connecticut Siting Council's ablility to approve new cell tower locations. The bill was approved in the House on Tuesday night, and would penalize telecommunications companies that submit deceptive applications, said state Rep. Lonnie Reed, who introduced the new bill along with state Reps. Pat Widlitz and Deb Heinrich. Reed states, "A unanimous, bipartisan vote sends a powerful wakeup call to the Connecticut Siting Council that has benn approving more than 90 percent of the applications for cell towers. We must ensure a fair process and give much more consideration to new technologies that minimize impacts to neighhorhoods, the environment and to scenic treasures such as Long Island Sound."

Heinrich gave comment, "Around the state, cell tower construction is ramping up and we are seeing more of them being approved by the Siting Council in residential areas." Widlitz gave report to the New Haven Register, "I believe that the Siting Council may have lost its way. This bill represents a responsible and effective response to a problem that only grows bigger as time goes on." The bill requires the Siting Council to consider alternative technologies instead of cell towers before approving an application. It also provides the Siting Council with legal power to punish telecommications companies that submit deceptive applications and to give that money to opponents to pay legal fees.

Also addressed by comment concerning cell tower siting was the assault on towns, degrading some of the most valuable, ecologically sensitive and scenic property in the State. The bill bans placement of towers within 750 feet of schools or day care centers unless no other safe site is avaliable, and requires the Connecticut Siting Council to consider public health and safety issues and give priority to regional plans suggested by towns.

TIMES ARE CHANGING....AND SO IS THE LAW. LOOKING BACK ON THE 2003 STORY OF THE "NIGHTMARE ON BURR STREET"

NIGHTMARE ON BURR STREET

Is this story really so strange?

According to the New York Times Article, "Neighbors on Cell Tower Plan: Not in Your Backyard, Either," by Alison Leigh Cowan, Easton, Conn., October 27, 2003, a celltower going up within a resident's backyards is a worrisome sursprise, but it does happen. The Connecticut Siting Council in Harford can stop a tower, and recent news reported the Council has increased efforts to do so, as I reported on our News Page. However, a cell phone tower that is about 10 stories high is difficult to miss. In nearby Westport, where the state law was most recently tested and upheld, Verizon bought a vacant house at 2 Sunny Lane to sit a 130 foot tower. The town sued, and help poured in from the Connecticut Council of Municipalities and the state attorney general, to no avail. Lorcan O'Conner bought the house next door two months before Verizon won the court case. O'Conner is quoted as asking, "How do you throw up a cell phone tower in someone's backyard? This is a residential area."

In Easton, Jane DeCourt woke up to find Sprint PCS planning to put up a 150 foot tower across the street in Ronald and Karen Kowalski's backyard. To which the Kowalskis declined to comment about in the for Cowan's New York Time's article. DeCourt summed up the entire story well, using four words, "Nightmare on Burr Street."

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TIM JANOWIAK OF SOUTHBEND, IN. AND THE CELL "HELL TOWER" NEXT TO HIS HOME

By Jane Celltower

Friday, March 12, 2010

Email Interview

Idyllic tranquility, could best describe the land Tim Janowiak grew up on, camping out at his grandparents farm. That land is now Knollwood subdivisions, and the view nor the tranquility remains since Hayes Inc. erected a 120-foot cell phone tower next to Janowiak's home. Against all odds of mass opposition, and an unfavorable recommendation from area planners, Charles S. Hayes Inc., on December 2006, won county approval for the cell phone tower which Janowiak and neighbor's Harold and Rita Hooton named "The Hell Tower."

GRANGER CELL TOWER TRIGGERS LAWSUIT - NEIGHBOR'S FEAR HEALTH EFFECTS, AND REDUCED HOME VALUES" BY JEFF PARROTT - TRIBUNE WRITER

Jeff Parrott, Sept. 14, 2008, Tribune Staff Writer confirmed in his article about Janowiak and Hooton's ordeal, "Council memebers said they approved it partly because it would enhance communications for police, fire and emergency medical personnel in the area, but the two wireless carriers that served those agencies, Nextel and Verizon, have not placed antennae on the tower. Now that the tower has been built, he and his next-door neighbors, Harold and Rita Hooton, say their fears have been realized. ...In a St. Joseph County Circuit Court lawsuit they filed against Hayes and his company, Janowiak and the Hootons claim the tower has essentially ruined their homes, the biggest investment of their lives."

COMPLAINTS ARE STILL ON-GOING AS OF MARCH 11, 2010...

Tim Janowiak is a concerned American citizen, who "just want's to make sure no one else has to go through this thing." He emailed me explaining his on-going cell phone monotower problems:

"3 yrs. ago I had a supposed mono-pine tower erected about 100' from my house. It has been total hell with plastic pine needles, 160' cranes and construction crews from 10 pm- 4am., loud a/c units, workers urinating and deficating in plain view and other loud maintenance. The tower was originally planned 1/4 mile down the road but was rejected by the St. Joseph County, In. county council because it was in view of a well to do housing project so it was placed near the people who have lived here many years. There also was a petition signed by all in the area opposing the tower and even offering another site with no homes within 500' which made no difference. ... the council president also told me that pressure from a higher up pushed the tower through. The tower builder, Charles S. Hayes inc. has been involved in other controversial placements in the South Bend, In. area in the past. their side also told the council many lies about the height of fences, things falling in yards, verizon being on the tower and other things. There is now a lawsuit pending..."

Parrott's article stated, "Because of the tower's proximity, their property values have declined by at least 25 percent, according to their properties' March 2008 tax reassessment, they allege, and their homes have been rendered "almost unmarketable." Also cited were health concerns due to microwave electromagnetic radiation emitted by the tower. Nobody wants to live next to a cell phone tower, with adverse health effects being a possible "probable" problem. In 2001, four local households, making arguments similar to Janowiak and the Hootons, sued Hayes over his towers in River Park, Roseland and Oscelola. The parties settled out of court, reaching a confidentiality agreement prohibiting them from discussing the case.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

CELL TOWER TO GO UP OVER DEAD BODIES

By Jane Celltower

February 10, 2010

T-Mobile plans to put up a new cell tower in an old church cememtery. In an article in the Boston Globe by Erica Noonan and Manny Veiga (Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent/ May 7, 2008), Farmingham, write the shocking story concerning T-Mobile's choice of land for a new cell tower site, to be an the St. George Cemetery. Anne Collins buried her 6 month old son in 1861, and then buried her 26 year old husband at the St. George Cemetery, just a few months latter. This is but one example of the many people, who like Patrick Murphy, buried their loved one's at the St. George Cemetery.

These cell phone tower companies have no shame. Margaret Sleczkowskie states, "This is a sacred place, the dead depend on us to protect them." Sleczkowskie has lived in a chaming cottage next to the cemetery for 38 years. Shedding tears she laments about the prospect of maintenance trucks driving past the hundreds of old gravestones on the property's only access road to the woods. The Boston Archdiocese maintains that the proposed tower is disrespectful. Terrence Donilon, a spokesman for the archdiocese stated, "We would never do anything to desecreate a cemetery, we are responsible for the perpetual care of the loved ones who are in our cemeteries. Under no circumstances would we tolerate, nor would we act in a way that would break that bond of commitment that we have."

Why would T-Moblie want to desecrate the dead? T-Mobile executives said the graveyard tower is needed to imporve what are commonly known as dead spots - which is an irony Noonan and Veiga write, "may or may not have occurred to them. The "monopole" would sit on a 24 square foot base shielded from view by heavy woods in an undeveloped section of the cemetery, about 40 yards away from marked gravesites. Many Framingham neighbors who own homes very close to the site said they worry about possible health effects from living so close to a large tower. According to town officials, T-Mobile was said to have entered into a $20,000 per year agreement with the town of Littleton to plant a flagpole-style tower in a municipal cemetery there. Big deals, big money, big problems for the American people.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

AT&T USERS, AND iPHONE JUNKIES WILL GET A BOAST OF POWER

By Jane Celltower

February 9, 2010

Want a boast to your AT&T service quality? Now you can. It will cost you just a wee bit more, but the boast of power to your iPhone will bring satisfaction. AT&T herald a website for MicroCell 3G, which according to their website, the date when customers can actually get their much desired signal-boasting device is in question. The MicroCell isn't something brand new to the technology market, as competitors Sprint and Verizon offer similar devices. However the pricing is something that is causing heads to turn. Official pricing is going to costyou $19.99 a month for unlimited use unless you've got Internet or landline service with them. Then it is noted to set you back $9.99. Unless you have both Internet and Landline accounts with AT&T, then it is free.

Source: Jane McEntegart, September 21, 2009, and Tome's Hardware US, Keywords: Eg, microcell, iphone, tower.

CITIZEN'S PROTEST CELL MONOPOLE TOWER IN HENRY COUNTY, GA.

ABOUT THE T-MOBILE CELL TOWER SITING, ALVIS BROWN STATES, "IF I HAD KNOWN BEFORE I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY ( IN HENRY COUNTY, GA.), ...I NEVER WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT"

Jane Celltower

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Henry County, Georgia has a problem within their zoning and building codes, allowing cell phone towers to literally be built in residential property areas, in backyard views. Avies Brown is a Henry County, Georga resident, who states concerning a T-Mobile celltower to be built at 79 Chafin Drive in McDonough, "If I had known before I bought the property this was going to happen, I never would have bought it." Brown is a resident of the Lost Forest subdivision, "I open my front door, and if they erect it, I could see it," she said. Brown is not alone, as many area resident's complained and voice their opinion's as well. An appeal before the Henry County, Board of commissioners was presented by Tami Hoover, who stated, "I am against the tower because I feel it violates the zoning code that was in effect at the time that application was made." Albert Navarro lives in Wedgefield Plantation subdivision, gave comment, "In order for me to get to my subdivision, I have to drive down Chafin Drive, ...the presence of the T-Mobile tower in a neighborhood would devalue my property."

I attended the commissioners meeting the night Tami Hoover gave her logical, and educated appeal. Hoover has stated, and I agree, that the proposed tower being 153 feet tall, and weighing 3,100 pounds, being 256 feet from her property, is a safety issue, because in high winds the structure could fall. The commissioners postponed the issue until their March 16, 2010, meeting. A decision is expected to be made then, county officials said. Frank Romeo, was a representative from Patrick Marshall & Associates, a Roswell located, consulting firm, was also in attendance. It was Romeo who made request for the cell tower to the board of commissioners, who according to news reports, represents T-Mobile. District V County Commissioner Johnny Basler voiced concern over the number of cell phone towers in the county, and where they are placed. He asked the T-Mobile representative, "Are we going to need a cell tower every mile?" The T-Mobile rep answered, "...every mile and a-half."

MyFox Atlanta's Justin Gray reported in his article dated Tuesday, February 9, 2010, "Henry County Zoning rules have changed because the tower is so close to the neighborhood, but it might be too late for the families who live there. Even though Henry County has passed new tougher standards for cell towers, the proposed McDonough tower is grandfathered in under the old regulations." Under Henry County's new rules, the cell tower planned for this neighborhood would not be allowed because of tougher setback requirements. I have personally reviewed the new Henry County codes, and they are still very, very lax in many areas reqarding notification, safety, and building regulations.

One example is the lack of neccessity regarding cell tower access roads not being lit. Georgia has issued a Model Guidance Code concerning the building of cell towers, and their required access roads, which states the road be lit. This is logical in approach, in order to detour crime. Henry County Georiga's new cell tower building and zoning codes, still has gaps that affect the home owner. People do not want to move to a county or city where the local governing board and official's do not protect and serve tax-paying citizens. And Henry County real estate sales will continue to drop, due to the lack of controlled and well-stuctured building and zoning regulations.

At least McDonough residents knew they had 30 days to appeal their cell tower case before the Henry County Board of Commissioners. Jane Celltower interviewed Tami Hoover, who admitted she did not know about her legal rights and facts about the cell monopole tower siting, or her legal right to appeal the tower if her neighbor planning to sit the tower on her land (leased land lot to T-Mobile) had not told her about the details. Hoover confirmed the notification required by Henry County, Georgia, was deceptive and fraudulent. That is too bad and too sad for the many homeowner - residents in other Henry County, Georgia, residential areas and subdivisioins, that didn't know they had the 30 day legal right to appeal the Cell Tower.

Henry County, Georgia, Chairwoman, Elizabeth B.J. Mathis, stated in the My Fox Atlanta report concerning McDonough residents, " ... they realized there was an issue and immediately enacted a moratorium. Under Henry County's new rules, the cell tower planned for this neighorhood would not be allowed because of tougher setback requirements. Those setbacks would be one and half times the actual height of the tower so that pushes those back much further than homes." There was no comment made from Chairperson Mathis or Henry County Commissioners about the lack of Henry County, Georgia's, homeowner/ notification letter requirements being Constitutionally inadequate.

Follow up report:

HENRY COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S VOTE TO DENY T-MOBILE'S REQUEST FOR THE TOWER ON CHAFIN DRIVE IN McDONOUGH, GEORGIA

By Jane Celltower

Henry County Commissioners voted 3 to 2 to deny the T-Mobile celltower to have been located on 79 Chafin Drive in McDonough, Ga. During the commissioner's meeting on March 16, 2010, the commissioner's vote and denial was addressed by Chairperson Elizabeth "B.J." Mathis, "This is the first time we have had an appeal of a cell tower. The controversy is really over whether or not cell towers have the authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to locate anywhere they want, even at the detriment of residents affected by the tower."

In the resolution, Valerie Baldowski of the Henry Herald reported Mathis wrote, "While the Federal Telecommunications Act prohibits local goverments from discriminating against telecommunications providers, it does not prevent the authority of local governments to regulate the location, construction and modification of wireless telecommunications facilities, such as the one at hand." Having spoken by email with Tami Hoover personally, she was very happy with the final result of her effort and appeal.

* Read the state of Georgia's Model for Cell Tower Siting, Zoning and Building, by clicking the hyperlink: Georgia's Model 4 Cell Towers.

THE CITY OF DAVIS, CALIFORNIA - RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CELL TOWER TAKE-OVER NEWS

CELL TOWER TAKE-OVER IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF DAVIS

The City Of Davis Cell Tower Controversy and Focus, is Squarely on the Community Development Director

Location : The City Of Davis

Reporter Source: David Greenwald - www.davisvanguard.org - The People's Vanguard of Davis - Investigative Eye. Date: Monday, 14, December 2009 - 6:24

By Jane Celltower

NewPath Networks permitting issues that nearly came down to the wire, concerning cell towers being placed on private residential property. The City issued a stop work notice effective on November 30, and a notice of recession of encrachment permits on December 5, 2009. "The City Attorney...conducted an initial evaluation of plans and specs associated with the specific site proposals and found there was enough evidence to determine that specific site permits may be inconsistent with the City's Telecommunication ordinance. Based on this evaluation, the City Manager sent NewPath Networks correspondence..." Greenwald's investigative report goes onto confirm, the staff report never really accounts for why this occurred only suggesting that they "continue to evaluate how the process evolved to the point that permits were issued."

Addressed is the question, "How did the city of Davis issue 37 permits for telecommunications installations, including structures as tall as 41-foot-tall-towers, on residential front yards without the knowledge of our city manager or a single Davis City Council member?" As most residential property cell tower chaos situations, the fault is blamed on city building and zoning department heads. Greenwald's news article confirms, "We are left unfortunately with a culprit here--the Community Development Department and therefore their director Katherine Hess who apparently had to authorize this without consulting the city manager or city council. The City Manager in particular was left with egg on his face two weeks ago as he sheepishly acknowledged the city dropping the ball on this one." The City Council and City manager initiated a new process, in keeping citizens' participation and reference to the City of Davis's existing telecommunications policy. Nice to know area citizen's found out before the cell tower was built.

T-MOBILE GIVES TO GET - CENTRAL JERSEY NEWS - NJ.COM

CENTRAL JERSEY - MERCER COUNTY NEWS, AS HOPEWELL T-MOBILE TOWER DISPUTE ENDS

By Jane Celltower

It was April, 29, 2009, in the Township of Hopewell (Mercer County - Central Jersey), that broke the news of a cell tower dispute that lasted more than two years. Anthony Coleman, (NJ.Com) writes, "A graceful comprimise yesterday as former combatants in the Brandon Farms cell tower dispute met with smiles and warmth to celebrate construction of a cell tower - far from their densely packed neighborhood. The former Twin Pines Airport, a grassy strip of earth once used by bussing Cessna pleanes and now the future home of soccer fields, was chosen as the site for hte T-Mobile cell antenna that Brandon Farms residents did not want."

COUNTER TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CLAIMS OF SAFE OPERATIONS...

Counter to Federal Government claims of safe operation, Brandon Farms people gave note the cell equipment to be mounted on a water tower would have harmed the health their health with its transmissions. Lisa Hayden stated, "I'm grateful to the major and deputy major and township engineer but my greatest gratitude goes to the people of my community." Hayden feared the cell tower being so close would adversely affect the health of her three children, Caitlin, 14, Joseph, 12, and Gracie, 8, as well as her neighbors. The compromise moved T-Mobile's transmission antenna to a wooded area at the former Twin Pines Airport. With Hayden given credit for prompting the compromise, along with T-Mobile's Asa Aarons, zoning and regulatory compliance manger, Kerri Strike, market director, Patrick Lamb, senior development manager, and Jane Builder, T-Mobile's senior manager for external affairs. Compromise and a win-win situation, always plants a good ground and deed by which to do business.