Sections

Cell no! Ridge board wants to cut the phone cord

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:

A Bay Ridge group that has long fought against the proliferation of cellphone towers is calling on the city — and the federal government — to cut the cord on the controversial antennas.

Community Board 10 voted nearly unanimously on April 20 to demand that limits be placed on the number and location of cellular towers, citing a concern about their danger and their aesthetics.

“People became worked up when these huge structures started going up,” said Josephine Beckmann, district manager of the board, which drafted a letter to the Department of City Planning insisting that the agency develop a zoning text amendment regulating the installation of wireless transmitters in residential areas.

The board also signed onto a petition seeking federal action to prevent the spread of cellular antennas — which have gone widely unchecked since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 limited state and local governmental power over the installation of such equipment.

Cellular providers have repeatedly insisted that the antennas are entirely harmless — and entirely necessary in order to carry the borough’s calls.

Ridgites have fought against cell towers since 2006, when protestors thwarted the construction of a Sprint/Nextel tower near St. Anselm’s School on 83rd Street. In 2007, 81st Street residents protested against cell towers installed atop an apartment building, and last year, parents from Ridge Boulevard’s PS 185 rebelled against antennas rising across the street from their school.

One PS 185 activist celebrated the board’s backing.

“Something must be done – whether it’s restricting where they can be put, or doing something to limit how many one neighborhood can have,” said Tressa Kabbez, whose group eventually won its battle against Verizon when the cellular giant agreed to move the antennas — though the transmitters were later reinstalled on Shore Road.

Updated 5:12 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:


Reasonable discourse

Realitycheck from Bay Ridge says:
“Something must be done – whether it’s restricting where they can be put, or doing something to limit how many one neighborhood can have."
Sensible questions:
- By comparison, how many of them do *other* neighborhoods have? Because Bay Ridge isn't the sole or major antennae zone.
- Where should the antennae go, assuming that anti-antennaeists aren't planning to give up cell phones?

I'd also drop the "esthetics" argument, considering the tonnage of unsightly TV dishes and uncontrolled, ugly construction/rehabbing in BR -- both of which are far more visible (even unavoidably in-your-face) than cell antennae. BR *very definitely* isn't one big High Esthetic Zone!
April 28, 2009, 10:56 am
nextel customer from Brooklyn says:
About 60% of you protesters that have nothing better to do than to complain about an antenna that will provide us with better service, I bet are complaining about your own cell service. Get an effin life and show some proof what harm it does instead of regurgitating out of the mouth with your opinions! btw ( I don't claim to have proof that it doesn't harm, I just dar you to show me some?
April 28, 2009, 11:57 am
Verizon Customer from Bay Ridge says:
nextel customer from Brooklyn says: "About 60% of you protesters that have nothing better to do than to complain about an antenna that will provide us with better service ..."

CB10 is very special. Last month, it refused to OK a karaoke bar, moronically claiming that karaoke = prostitution. [One classy CB10 member made the immortal statement: "We don't need no hookers here."]

Everyone, and every DRIVER, in Bay Ridge is Krazy-Glued to a cell phone. So where do we put the cell towers? If we limit the antennas, will CB10 then gripe about no-reception zones? Are concerned parents tossing out their kids' cell phones, to prevent microwave exposure?

Realitycheck from Bay Ridge says: "I'd also drop the 'esthetics" argument' "
Me too. They're on TOP of BUILDINGS, they're "huge towers" only if you hang out on their rooftops, and they're not HALF as unaesthetic as some of the other structural scenery around here. (Don't get me started!)
April 28, 2009, 11:11 pm
Land of Zeus from Borats Paradise says:
Borat will save you from your cell phone madness.
May 5, 2009, 4:45 pm
Land Zeus from Borats Paradise says:
Borat will save you from your cell phone madness.
May 5, 2009, 4:45 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: