Let me BRAG about my tower
Over the last 3 years, Binford Redevelopment and Growth, Inc (BRAG) has spent a great deal of time and effort to redevelop the northeast corridor of Indianapolis.. Through private and corporate donations, volunteers have planted trees, installed flower beds, and brought in new businesses to take over vacant space. Last February, Mayor Ballard took time to acknowledge their accomplishments.
Now there will be another corporate donation to the BRAG area, one they didn't plan. It's a 50 foot cell tower that will be generously donated by T-Mobile. Marion County Zoning Board #3 granted a variance allowing T-mobile to place the tower near the entrance of Tanglewood Estates.
Despite the fact that a commercial site was offered, T-Mobile felt this neighborhood was a better location.
In the petition hearing, T-Mobile pointed to a Federal law which requires them to provide "good" service. But according to their website, they have a minimum of 3 bar coverage in the area this tower is to serve. That seem pretty good.
One Tanglewood resident went to a T-mobile store and inquired about switching carriers. When she inquired about the coverage in this area, she was told by the salesperson, "It's excellent."
Plain & Simple: Despite 70+ remonstrators in attendance at the hearing, the board felt the public would be better served by T-mobile then by consistent application of zoning. As far as I'm aware, there is no appeal process. This is another example of how government is serving big business so they can serve us better.
Now there will be another corporate donation to the BRAG area, one they didn't plan. It's a 50 foot cell tower that will be generously donated by T-Mobile. Marion County Zoning Board #3 granted a variance allowing T-mobile to place the tower near the entrance of Tanglewood Estates.
Despite the fact that a commercial site was offered, T-Mobile felt this neighborhood was a better location.
In the petition hearing, T-Mobile pointed to a Federal law which requires them to provide "good" service. But according to their website, they have a minimum of 3 bar coverage in the area this tower is to serve. That seem pretty good.
One Tanglewood resident went to a T-mobile store and inquired about switching carriers. When she inquired about the coverage in this area, she was told by the salesperson, "It's excellent."
Plain & Simple: Despite 70+ remonstrators in attendance at the hearing, the board felt the public would be better served by T-mobile then by consistent application of zoning. As far as I'm aware, there is no appeal process. This is another example of how government is serving big business so they can serve us better.
This is tough, because NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) can keep everything from being built. There are negative externalities associated with any project on the local level. I think people should be compensated, but the good of the community should be part of the equation. NIMBY is why it is just about impossible to build a refinery or landfill today. Everyone needs gas and creates trash, but no one wants a refinery or landfill near their house.
Reply to this
Steve: Excellent point, but you are taking about things the entire community needs (refineries or landfills). Does everyone need T-Mobile? This serves a corporate desire at the expense of the taxpayers.
Reply to this
Thank you Steve for posting the Tanglewood story on your site.
I am one of the women who tried to prevent the city from granting the 3 variances to the ordinance which will allow T-Mobile to place their tower in our neighborhood.
Yes, I do not believe T-Mobile should be allowed in my backyard. I do not believe T-Mobile, or any private company, should be allowed in anyone's backyard. T-Mobile is not a public utility. T-Mobile does not benefit the entire area. T-Mobile only benefits its subscribers and its stockholders.
Nine years ago this specific ordinance was crafted by city planners, cellular industry officials, and neighborhood associations specifically to prevent the encroachment of cellular equipment into neighborhoods. This specific tower, by T-Mobile's own admission, will only cover service in a 1/2 mile radius. There are only approx. 30 current T-Mobile customers in this area.
T-Mobile did not provide to the Board of Zoning Appeals alternate site locations. T-Mobile did not provide to the BZA any record of poor reception or proof of dropped calls. All they said to us and the BZA was that there was a need.
We, the Tanglewood representatives, brought to the BZA hearing 400 signed petitions opposing the placement of the tower in the neighborhood, 70 remonstrators, and concrete proof that adequate and above adequate coverage already existed in the 1/2 mile radius. Our City County Councilperson, Christine Scales, one of the gentlemen who helped create the ordinance, Norman Pace, and our State Representative, Greg Porter, all spoke on our behalf. We provided evidence that the placement of cell towers will harm the welfare of our neighborhood. All this and the Zoning Board still ruled on the side of T-Mobile, they ruled on the side of big business.
It is unfortunate. The precedent is now set. Yes, we were fighting for our neighborhood. We do not want this "in our backyard", or in our case, at the beautiful entrance to our neighborhood. But more importantly, we fought this because we feel it should not be in anyone's backyard.
Reply to this
It is unfortunate that Steve Neterval fails to see the big picture here - and that is the compromising a city ordinance created just to halt events like this from happening.
We in Tanglewood never opposed T-Mobile providing good customer service. According to their website, they already do this. Also according to their customer service representatives at their 800 number, they provide "excellent" service in the area this pole would cover, which is merely a half mile radius. Additionally, their employee at their North Keystone store concurred that coverage in this area is "excellent". T-Mobile's attorney was the only one who disputed that T-Mobile provides "excellent" service.
Someone was lying! Was it the T-Mobile offical website? Was it T-Mobile's 3 customer service representatives? Or was it T-Mobile's attorney at the ZBA hearing?
No matter who is lying, T-Mobile's business practices are suspect and I would caution anyone who is thinking about doing business with them.
So why this tower in this location? I have no idea, but I can surmise that a tower will be coming to your neighborhood soon. Better watch the legal notices in the paper because you can be sure T-Mobile will not go out of their way to inform you of their growth plans.
Reply to this
I am glad that the blog is constantly evolving. This post just adds popularity
Reply to this
blog.votekeltner.com is my top site. I love to read it.
Reply to this