Gaithersburg High School is the next Red Zone high school to be up for a cell tower compound.
Here's the message from the Gaithersburg HS PTSA that was forwarded to the Parents' Coalition:
October 15, 2013
AT&T representatives will be presenting their proposal to use GHS as a cell tower site. Come find out the benefits to our cluster and ask questions!
See you at 7 pm in the cafeteria
I was one of the community members in attendance last night, and there was an open discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of a cell tower at this location. Your implications that MCPS is cramming a cell tower down the throat of a poor, uninformed "red zone" school is elitist and offensive. Parents asked a number of questions about the location, height, etc, as well as about the monetary benefits to the local school. It also was emphasized that no decision was being made -- only feedback was solicited last night -- and that additional public meetings would be held. So, I think this "red zone" school will be able to make decisions well enough, without "help" from members outside our community.
ReplyDeleteThe red zone/green zone argument also ignores the population density of the tower locations. Obviously, the public needs adequate bandwidth for the growing demand in wireless services (wireless devices now have a penetration that exceeds 100%, meaning that there are more wireless devices in the country than there are people, with many of us owning two, three or more devices.) It also is obvious that towers need to be located where they can serve those people. As I understand it, a typical cell tower has a range of about one mile. Within a one mile radius of this site is: I-270 at Clopper/Rte 124, Montgomery Co. Fairgrounds, Rte. 355 between Shady Grove Road and Rte 124, Old Towne Gaithersburg, City Hall, and multi-family dwellings such as Archstone and Highland Square. In fact, it would be a pretty stupid goal by the wireless carriers to target locations with poor people -- I think they need paying customers to make money on the tower investment. So, I'm guessing that the wireless carriers want this because they need additional towers in this vicinity and this is a willing landlord. If it's not at this location, additional coverage will be built with another willing landlord -- on top of one of these apartments, office buildings, parking garages or elsewhere in our neighborhood.
Finally, the cell tower is proposed to be an extension of the light pole already installed on the site. So, we already have a "compound" with a 70 foot tower. An extension seems like a minimally intrusive alteration.
Steve Augustino
Yes, it is elitist and offensive for the Board of Education to permit cell towers to go up on Red Zone school playgrounds, but stop their construction on Green Zone playgrounds. Whitman HS, Pyle MS, Wootton HS, Julius West MS all were able to stop cell towers from being built on their playgrounds.
DeleteSchools like Kennedy HS and Daly ES were not able to stop the construction, even though there were objections to the towers. In the Daly ES situation the PTA AND the neighbors voted AGAINST the tower being built. The BOE allowed it to be built anyway. That is the definition of elitist and offensive.
Gaithersburg HS parents are deeply concerned about the placement of a cell tower on that school site. That's why they contacted the Parents' Coalition and alerted us to the meeting and asked for our help.
As you are not a current parent, you may not be aware of the concerns of parents. Especially parents from the Forest Oak Middle School. Those parents are looking at their children attending 7 years of school in the shadow of a cell tower. No where else in Montgomery County would public school students be subjected to 7 years in the shadow of a cell tower except Forest Oak MS and GHS students.
Some current Gaithersburg HS parents do not think their children are up for sale. They do not think that the pennies from the cell tower company are worth the unknown risk to their children.
Those parents who you allege alerted you to the meeting and asked for your help did not attend the meeting, nor did they voice their concerns. If they do have concerns, they should come forward directly, and I encourage them to do so. The school principal and the business manager both told me after the meeting that they are looking for that parent feedback now rather than later.
DeleteAs for your suggestion that because I'm not a current parent, I'm not aware of parent concerns, that is patently inaccurate. As you should know, I have been involved in PTSA activities at Gaithersburg High School continuously since 2006. (I'm a PTSA member; are you?) I continue to have a formal PTA role that includes the Gaithersburg area, my wife is a cluster coordinator (and former PTSA president), we are deeply involved in an Education Foundation for the school, and we are in the building fairly regularly. So, we're pretty well in touch with parents in the community. I think any objective observer would agree that I'm in better touch with the local community than you are.
Finally, the "unknown risk to children" is a red herring. We have literally hundreds of thousands of cell towers nationwide. We also have a statute, Section 332 of the Communications Act, that prohibits municipalities from denying tower siting requests on the basis of health concerns. See T-Mobile Northeast, LLC v. City Council of the City of Newport News, US Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Mar. 26, 2012 ("The Act is equally clear, however, that potential health effects flowing from the grant of a conditional use permit have no place in a decision to deny a permit"). That's what the FCC is for, if Congress ever lets them go back to work.
SA
Clearly you are out of touch with the GHS parents. Obviously, I wouldn't have been at the meeting if current parents hadn't alerted the Parents' Coalition. The one and only notification to parents that this cell tower was even being considered only went out on the PTSA listserve a few hours before the meeting.
DeleteYou really want to know who has concerns, don't you? You've got the sign in sheet so you can grill everyone that came, right? That's exactly what parents aren't interested in. They don't have any interest in their school administrators targeting them for their concerns.
The Principal made HER position extremely clear. She wants MONEY. Doesn't care how much, just wants the cash. Parents are put in an impossible position.
Since your children will never attend GHS with a cell tower, it's really not your issue. For parents that have children there now and in the future it IS THEIR ISSUE. You have no right to speak for parents that have legitimate concerns. In fact, this month legislation is being introduced in Anne Arundel County to prohibit cell towers from public school sites. Parents in Anne Arundel are concerned and their legislators are addressing their issues.
Gaithersburg High School parents that are concerned about this tower have plenty of parents in Maryland and across the USA that agree with them.
I like this. It's not my issue because I'm not a current parent -- just a deeply involved member of the Gaithersburg community who has devoted countless hours to the school, been recognized by the City and the Board of Education for contributions to public education and who is currently involved in a 501(c)(3) non-profit for the benefit of GHS students. But you can speak for GHS parents even though you've never been a part of this community, your children attended other schools and you don't live in the feeder area, because at least one parent allegedly called you and you're willing to imply that the principal would bully that parent (with no evidence to support that)? Got it. I'll make you a deal -- if it is THEIR ISSUE, let's both stay out of it and let only the current parents decide. OK?
ReplyDeleteUm, deeply involved? You bet. Apparently you forgot to disclose how deeply involved. Thanks to the alert reader of this blog who did a little research. See below.
DeleteFunds received by a school from a cell tower lease go into the school's Independent Activity Fund (IAF). The principal then decides how to spend the money.
ReplyDeleteHow did the GHS principal spend IAF money in the past? Did the money go toward enhancements for the students? The most recent IAF audit report says this: "We found that you exceeded your amount allowed for staff refreshment for fiscal year 2012 and that you used student funds to support staff development."
If GHS gets a cell tower, what will the principal do with the revenue? More staff parties! More spending without approval! Is that what GHS parents want?
Read the entire report here:
http://apps.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/IndependentActivityFund/uploads/gaithersburghs/20121129_gaithersburghs.pdf
When I read Mr. Augustino’s post (October 16, 2013 at 7:31 AM), the first thing that came to mind is, “Me thinks thou doth protests too much.” Then I Googled Mr. Augustino, or should I say Mr. Augustino, Esquire. It seems that Mr. Augustino may have other dogs in this fight as he is a Partner at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm representing several Fortune 500 corporations. On the Kelly-Drye web site, Mr. Augustino’s CV reads: “Steve Augustino is a partner in the firm's Washington, D.C. office. He focuses his practice on TELECOMMUNICATIONS and enforcement matters.” See: “Attorneys & Professionals -
ReplyDeleteSteven A. Augustino” http://www.kelleydrye.com/attorneys/steven_augustino
Kelly-Drye employs several telecommunications attorneys and has provided counsel and guidance to many large telecommunications concerns over the years. See article: “The FCC Aims to Remove Barriers for Expanding Wireless Infrastructure” http://www.kelleydrye.com/publications/client_advisories/0847
Another news article posted on the Kelly-Drye web site reads, “Partner Steven A. Augustino Quoted in The Wall Street Journal on AT&T Purchase of Wireless Licenses”
http://www.kelleydrye.com/news/in_the_media/0846
It couldn’t be that one of Mr. Augustino’s clients, (AT&T?), and the revenues they generate for his firm, are more important than the health of our children? Of course not!
CONFIRMED: Steven Augustino is an attorney retained by AT&T (AT&T is company petitioning to build the GHS cell tower)
ReplyDelete"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:The Application for Permission to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Michael J. Henry, Martha M. Ross-Bain, Steven A. Augustino, and William Lee Magness, attorneys for AT&T, is granted.
FROM: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gDBQW-0kN8EJ:www.state.tn.us/tra/orders/2003/0300526lf.pdf+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
No doubt that I am a telecommunications attorney. I don't represent AT&T in this or in any other matter. (In fact, I'm adverse to AT&T on several current cases). For those who wish to fight over the 2004 TRA case: In 2004, "AT&T" was the long distance company, not the wireless or local telephone company. Those were combined when SBC bought the old AT&T in November 2005. I was part of a coalition arguing for "hot cuts" when someone wanted to switch service from the local telco. Nothing to do with wireless services.
DeleteSA