Survey on allowing cell towers by right in neighborhoods

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on April 14, 2008 - 9:17am.

See this survey on the Portland Bureau of Planning's web site. It seeks feedback on whether to allow cell phone transmitters on regular (or higher) utility poles in residential neighborhoods, by right with no public input.

I worked hard on cell tower regulations during my seven years' service on the Planning Commission, and I've heard the current regulations work in most cases. Further,

* I am concerned about potential health hazards of cell phones and transmitters. Federal regulations don't allow consideration of health in this matter, so Zoning Code limitations keeping cell towers out of residential zones may be the only way to protect citizens.

* Many Portland neighbors would like existing wired utilities to be placed underground, with the poles removed. This would reduce loss of service in storms, improve aesthetics, and free more space for pedestrians. Undergroundng existing utilities would be more difficult if we allow new uses on old or higher poles in neighborhoods.

* The survey talks about increasing the allowed height of poles in residential areas, potentially by right with no remonstrance from neighbors.

As a side note, the survey suggests one way to cover new poles would be to plant roses or ivy to grow up them. Ivy??? Um, isn't that a Prohibited Plant in the Portland Plant List?

Submitted by George Seldes on April 14, 2008 - 5:39pm.

It's not totally unreasonable to have questions about cell-tower safety issues, but I gotta say that anyone who uses a cell phone should think much more about the exposure they give themselves yakking on the things right next to their heads. The studies mostly tend to say no rad risk either way, but if you don't buy the studies and still have concerns then you should be avoiding having a source next to your ear especially.

Not to mention, the real safety risk of cell phones is that they lower IQ significantly -- which causes the owner to try using the device while driving, which leads to driving abilities that are about the same as someone who blows 0.08 bac ... significantly slower reactions, significantly reduced attentiveness (and that is regardless of whether you use a hands free model or not). For a supposedly bike-friendly city, Portland has been lax about dealing with this scourge of the roads; whenever I'm in Portland I am stunned at how many people drive while talking on a cell phone.

My hatred for cell phones is not just because of my sense that the drivers are even more likely to kill me or some other bicyclists through sheer inattentiveness because of the damn things--I also miss having a clear sense of rural vs. urban space. I'm an old fart now ... I miss being able to look at a beautiful vista and not see cell towers. That's becoming increasingly rare.

Submitted by MarkDaMan on April 15, 2008 - 5:59pm.

I wouldn't want to live under a cell phone tower. I'm not quiet sure what remonstrance means Amanda, had to look it up, but does this mean that the city could rezone to allow these towers, and impacted neighbors near the tower would have no right to protest the sitting of the tower? In that case, it would seem like this isn't much different than the LNG mess where federal laws would, in theory, allow the building of a LNG terminal against the wishes of the state and community.

I do agree with the beautification of the towers though. They are UGLY, and it would do the community good if the carriers would be forced to build something a little more aesthetically pleasing to the community.

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on April 17, 2008 - 6:20am.

"does this mean that the city could rezone to allow these towers, and impacted neighbors near the tower would have no right to protest the sitting of the tower?"

Yes. That's why participating in the process proposing to change the rules is particularly important.

Submitted by MarkDaMan on April 17, 2008 - 7:14pm.

Well that is pretty darned sick! Now who on the planning bureau is getting paid off by the cell carrier to push this through? This is really unPortland! I don't see why the bureau which proclaims to build livability in Portland, would think this idea deserves even a hearing?