Susan Marcotte-Jenkins of Bow attended the Monitor’s opinion writing workshop this summer.

I’m a Bow resident with nothing personal at stake in the town’s cell tower project except the serious concerns everyone has over Bow’s inadequate cell service.

I appreciate the enormous, years-long effort that volunteers have made to address them. I’m disappointed for them and the rest of us by what has and hasn’t transpired since March, when voters authorized a long-term lease of a town-owned property for constructing a cell tower.

Rising Tide Towers, the cell-tower company with whom the volunteers and town have been working, wouldn’t start its design phase without that go-ahead.

Before the vote at Town Meeting the select board chairman, speaking for the full board, emphasized it was only step one. He stressed that an RFP (Request for Proposals) would be forthcoming, along with a detailed tower design, which would be fully vetted, with public input, by the planning board. The tower’s projected 190-foot height, an exception to Bow’s ordinances, would be evaluated then.

RTT’s application is now before the planning board. At their public hearing, another selectman, speaking as a member of the public, questioned the board’s authority to make any changes to what was presented to the voters last winter. Let’s be clear. The only certainty then was the address of the 62-acre property selected for the tower.

Parts of RTT’s application give me pause, including their declaration that cell towers can improve property values. Really? In a town where many live for its rural nature, how would a property that abuts lovely woods and has an unobstructed sky view have greater value after a 19-story tower is built nearby? Indeed, I have a compilation of articles from various business and real estate journals that report a nearby cell tower reduces property values by as much as 20%.

RTT’s tower would be extremely close to homes, as close as 150 yards. Why among 62 acres have they proposed a tower so close to homes and so high that a taller tower would require lights? To achieve the so-called “best coverage,” RTT says they’ve selected the proposed site for its higher elevation, and they’ve maxed the tower’s height to attract multiple carriers. The carriers pay RTT rent for antennae space on the tower. More carriers drive up RTT’s profit and the tower’s height. The tower’s proposed height is very troubling to nearby homeowners. So, let’s consider where our neighbors’ compelling interests fit in RTT’s proposal, along with Bow’s other top priorities.

We’re assured the proposed tower would provide cell service to the schools, Bow’s top need. But “best coverage” means closing all of Bow’s coverage gaps. RTT’s tower, even at 190 feet, cannot achieve that. We need at least one additional tower. Why load as many carriers as possible onto a tower so close to residences, maximizing its height, except for RTT’s profit?

In pushing their proposal, profit-motivated RTT is just doing its job, while the town has faltered in theirs. Basic planning steps were missed, the promised RFP process didn’t happen, and no financial information about this project has been disclosed.

Sadly, we’ve also overlooked the golden rule, which the term NIMBY invoked in gentler times. Neighbors who live near the proposed tower’s location should not be the “them,” pitted against us. We’ll pay a price, such as ill will and costly legal action if we don’t do what’s possible to minimize the negative impact of this tower on its 30 abutters and their many nearby neighbors.

Contrast this situation with the process Sutton followed to improve its cell service. They planned the number, location, and height of their towers and built a timeline that aligned with the town’s priorities. They were advised by an independent cell-tower consultant, and they engaged in a competitive RFP process. The result is three towers that balance individual and collective interests.

One 150’ tower is located far from any dwellings, and the other two are shorter and located near a highway. Bow needs a similar master plan for cell towers before we finalize a commitment of at least 30 years to a proposed tower that most of us wouldn’t want piercing the sky view from our yards, far above the height of the tree canopy.

I urge the town to engage an expert with no financial interests at stake to help create a multi-tower plan that will ensure cell coverage everywhere in Bow, prioritize cell service at the schools, and incorporate financial projections and an RFP process. This consultant could help determine the minimum height of the currently proposed tower that yields coverage at the schools. This consultation should not cause a long delay because so much research is already done. It would go a long way in trading a win-lose proposition for a win-win.

]]>