Terrible Precedent

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

As president of the Tisbury Great Pond Association, I question the legality of the proposed 80-foot cell tower at the head of Town Cove.

Aside from the aesthetics, or lack thereof, necessity or appropriateness of such a construction, I am extremely concerned about the precedent this would be setting.

As of now, the riparian or coastal zones of all beaches, rivers and ponds have been protected from any such building. If this construction is allowed, virtually the entire Vineyard would become vulnerable where it is now proposed. (Verizon’s proposal to camouflage said 80-foot tower as a tree is at best unconvincing. Anyone ever see a lone 80-foot tree on the beach?)

I think it is time to take a stand against these huge profit-driven technologies and their intrusions on the natural landscape. In fact, we are the ones paying for it, twice: once a month on our bills and again, and far more important, in the irrevocable loss of habitat — ours.

Mary Jane A. Pease West Tisbury

•

Consider Alternatives

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

West Tisbury’s rural and agricultural character is remarkable for the absence of poles, power lines and other industrial structures. Construction of an 80-foot vertical cell tower (whether or not disguised as a giant fake pine tree) would mar the long horizontal vista of rolling hills and fields from multiple locations in West Tisbury — including publicly-accessible Tisbury Great Pond and the historic town center. While cell service could use an upgrade in a few locations, there are a wide range of feasible options to accomplish this with much less visual impact. Other towns have found ways to improve cell coverage without large towers, and the Secret Service seemed satisfied will the cell coverage provided by a couple of extra antennas. There are emerging low-impact options to improve cell service (including the Rubik’s cube-sized small cell antenna technology). West Tisbury should require that a full range of alternatives be properly evaluated that are more in keeping with the character and natural vistas of West Tisbury.

Tracey Braun, West Tisbury and Washington, D.C.

•

Protecting the Coastal District

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

On Jan. 24, Verizon Wireless will appear before the Martha’s Vineyard Commission to propose an 80-foot utility tower within the Coastal District of Critical Planning Concern in West Tisbury. Standing only 320 feet from the state-owned headwaters of Tisbury Great Pond, and looming about 110 feet above the pond and far higher than the surrounding trees, it would violate the natural serenity of a legally-protected scenic area.

The commission’s DCPC regulations and the West Tisbury zoning bylaw prohibit such a tall structure in such a sensitive location, but Verizon is trying to dissuade the commission from exercising its proper authority by arguing that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires local approval of such proposals no matter how flawed they may be. In reality, though, the Telecommunications Act does not pre-empt local land use authority. Instead, the act affirms that state and local governments “retain control over the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities,” subject only to certain reasonable limitations, including that any decision should not “have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services” or “unreasonably discriminate” among competitors.

Federal courts have upheld denials of permits for wireless towers in many other cities and towns where a tower was proposed in a sensitive location, unless the carrier had proven by an exhaustive search process that the location was unavoidably necessary. In contrast, Verizon performed a search for a suitable site in West Tisbury that was perfunctory at best and overlooked many possible sites. Moreover, denial of a special permit in the protected coastal district, where no competitor has ever received one before, in no way amounts to “unreasonable discrimination” in favor of Verizon’s competitors.

If anything, the more worrisome issue raised by the Telecommunications Act is that if the commission were to exempt Verizon from its usual requirements in such a sensitive coastal area, other competitors would be able to demand the same exemptions elsewhere in the coastal district in the future. If that were to happen, sadly, an important tool for preserving the scenic coastal qualities of the whole Island would be forever lost.

Suzanne E. Durrell, West Tisbury

•

Despoiling the Riparian Zone

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

I recently discovered that Verizon has plans to install an 80-foot tower within the riparian zone on the Tisbury Great Pond. As an owner, and someone who has a great appreciation for the no-build rules on the pond, I find this to be a tragic and terrible idea. If construction is approved on this precious land, what’s to stop the next person from building more things on this land? This would be a very bad precedent to set in such a special place. This is one of the last few places on earth where you cannot see wires or towers, yet still be only a few miles from civilization. Given the existing protection of this land, I am surprised that this is even on the table.

Jesse Hughes, West Tisbury