After discussing cell towers and reading the article that Janelle had sent to us
(http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2014/10/feds-preserve-local-jurisdiction-over-cell-towers.html?utm_source=Adirondack+Explorer+%26+Adirondack+Almanack&utm_campaign=4fd31f5869-Adirondack_Almanack_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b49eb0d11b-4fd31f5869-47298733)
I think I need to play devils advocate for a moment. Going to school at a pretty remote prep school I find a lot of parallels with the Adirondacks. Millbrook New York, acted as the weekend escape for many city dwellers who could afford to have a second home to ride horses and drink tea. This became a home to anyone looking for a rural retreat from "real life". Sound familiar? We also had the issue of putting in cell towers. While the family retreating for the weekend from these overused technologies could have cared less about having no signal on their phone all weekend (partly because it was just the weekend), as a student trapped with no contact outside of my school bubble I felt much differently. Having no signal on campus was inconvenient to say the least and at times a safety hazard. I can see why in both Millbrook and the Adirondacks people would fight to avoid the building of these "eyesores", but for people who live in these places and don't have the means to escape these "escapes" we need to be able to use modern technology especially our cell phones, not just in the one spot on campus where you can find semi decent service. So I know this may go against our anti modernization theme but speaking as someone who has struggled with this issue, I would have welcomed this eye sore with open arms.
I think that this is definitely a valid argument for the pro-cell tower side, and one that a lot of people share. It's pretty easy to take the "not in my backyard" approach and fight against cell towers being put in your own town, but most people who feel that way still want to be able to make calls on the go. So if the cell tower wasn't in one Adirondack town, then it would go in the town over--there's just no good way of reconciling people's more material wants with their contradictory environmental standards. I think the best we can do is minimize the effect of cell towers, like by putting them only in areas with a certain population density (aka less wilderness to disturb) or maybe finding a way to make them less of an aesthetic obtrusion. People often have the same sentiment towards windmills and the way that they can disrupt a nice view, but if you want the benefits of wind energy (or cell service, for that matter), then you have to find trade-offs where you can.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who actually grew up on the campus of said prep school, I have to say I disagree. I understand entirely how inconvenient the lack of cell service could be (I have never actually had a cell signal at my house), but I don't think it's fair to say that the visiting weekenders were the only ones who felt that a cell tower in Millbrook would be unsightly, disruptive, and unnecessary. I definitely felt that way, as did much of the Millbrook faculty. There are other solutions that should have been thought through (as Hayley alludes to above), but overall I think the lack of cell phone service made the community what it was. You wouldn't see people walking across campus staring at their phones; completely oblivious to what was around them. Boosters in the dorms would have made a difference in the ability to communicate with the outside world, but a cell tower would not be welcomed onto campus by the faculty, staff, or even all of the students. I know I'm definitely taking the "not in my backyard approach," but I'm also not asking for cell service at my house, or anywhere around it. We have internet, we have landlines, that should be enough to stop us from disrupting the beautiful woods and fields that surround us.
ReplyDelete