Wednesday, August 3, 2011


Erin Brockovich move over!  We have a mom in town who has posted videos documenting the sheer volume of cell towers in the area in a convincing effort to ban them from school properties (there are at least 86 within a 4 mile radius of Brockett ES already).

As many of you are aware, the board contemplated a 30 year contract with T-Mobile (in the process of being acquired by AT&T) placing cell towers on 12 of our school properties. In exchange, each of the PTAs of those schools will get a one time $25,000 donation and the school system will collect monthly rent on the towers.

After serious community outcry, the board dropped three schools from the list (Brockett, Medlock and Meadowview), however plans were approved to build these monstrous structures on the remaining nine school properties.

Below are my notes from the July board meeting where the subject was discussed and then passed over the objections of Nancy Jester and Donna Edler.

McChesney proposes to remove Meadowview, Brockett and Medlock from the cell tower proposal for 12 schools. Question by Elder to McChesney. Why? McC - we've heard from these communities and they've been clear, so I'm supporting their opinion. Speaks: is there a grace period so that other communities can speak up but haven't had the opportunity [audience claps and Womack admonishes them]. Is there a mechanism for other communities to let the district know that they have an issue? Tyson - no option other than to pull the item. Womack: isn't there a 6 month window? Donahue: T-Mobile has 6 months for [due diligence]. Jester: concerned about many things. I don't like the timing - we didn't get this till Friday. Didn't get financials. Term is too long. I favor an opt in rather than opt out for communities. There may be others we haven't heard from so I am reticent to support. Edler: Happy to speak on this matter - I've had concerns. Communities have cited health reasons. I rep district 7, but also entire county so I'm not one to pick and choose for health of a particular community. So if we take out 3, I suggest we take out all 12. [Applause and Womack again admonishes.] Lots more discussion. Roberts rules out the window. [Sorry - got distracted - missed some.] I think Edler took out all the others but Lakeside, Briarlake and Meadowview(?). I think Walker insisted on Roberts Rules. So Womack puts out original motion and takes off Brockett, Medlock and Meadowview. Vote. Passed 7-1. Whew!

Edler: Amendment to the motion. Remove the remaining schools we identified before: Jolly, Margaret Harris, MLK, Narvie, Princeton and Smokerise ES. Cunningham: we don't have towers at all in South DeKalb - we're losing signals left and right. We want towers. SCW: I agree. Meadowview is smack dab in the middle of a community. Cunningham can have towers since they have a lot of land, but Meadowview is in a community so yes, it needs removed from the list. Edler: It's not the school system's business to provide cell and internet service to the county.

Vote: on Edler's amendment - eliminates all towers. Motion fails.
Main motion with original amendment: Passes 6:2 (Edler & Jester)

Some of these communities are only going to get a cell tower because they weren't aware of the plan and/or didn't have the time or focus to organize a campaign against them. Apparently, there is still time to fight this action. Visit the newly formed Facebook page, Get.The.Cell.Out for more info.

To view a map highlighting the locations of the towers, click here. (The locations removed from the list are indicated by a flag.)

UPDATE: Here's the NEW link to the countywide survey:

Get the Cell Out of DeKalb County Schools

And here's a link to the FOX 5 report on the cell towers:

Opinions Divided Over Cell Towers at DeKalb Schools

Opinions Divided Over Cell Towers at DeKalb Schools:


Cerebration said...

To clarify:

There were 12 schools proposed to allow cell towers - Briarlake Elementary School, Flat Rock Elementary School, Brockett Elementary School, Jolly Elementary School, Lakeside High School, Margaret Harris Center, Martin Luther King Jr. High School, Meadowview Elementary School, Medlock Elementary School, Narvie J. Harris Elementary School, Princeton Elementary School, and Smoke Rise Elementary School.

After much discussion, the board removed 3 - Brockett, Medlock and Meadowview.

Atlanta Media Guy said...

The smoke and mirrors that DCSS staff and the BOE create on so many items is unfathomable, it's also hard to trust them on anything!

DCSS needs new leadership! This Crawford Lewis bunch have tip-toed around the Palace for years. There have been so many issues added to an agenda late Friday afternoon, before a Monday meeting. This keeps the parents from organizing, since most have family obligations on the weekend. Also, parents talk when they see each other at school. Thanks Cere for keeping us informed. Several items have been taken off agendas, after word got out via the blogs. Folks let's stay focused on these folks. The Palace "Sit Up here" bunch of Clew's has done enough damage to our school system. It's time for change!

Anonymous said...


If the people raising "concerns" about the "health" issues related to cell towers have and use cell phones, then they are phonies and hypocrites and best, and the moronic result of DCSS science teaching at worst.

Stop being stupid. Stop making me look stupid by claiming to "represent" me. Edler is a total fool.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting a link to this video and letting the communities slated to receive towers that they can still have a voice. There are still many ways to stop the actual construction of the cell towers at the 9 approved sites. T-mobile has to file for zoning permits with the county for each location. Although health concerns may not be raised at this level of the process, the public may still make comments regarding concerns about property values, aesthetics and other safety issues such as the HAZMAT materials located at the bottom of the towers, what is located within the "fall zone" for the towers, concerns about "stranger danger" since towers need regular maintenace and provide 24 hour a day access to the school property for tower workers and vehicles both of which are commonly unmarked. And, T-mobile must PROVE there is a NEED for the tower in the location they have designated. If a member of the public can voice objections based on the fact that another tower is not needed or another location nearby would be more suitable, the zoning committee must consider it. This is one of the main items T-mobile has had difficulty overcoming in other communities, including Cobb County were several towers were approved by the school board, but shut down by the zoning officials. Thank you to Get the Cell Out in Atlanta for showing us exactly how many of these things are out there and exactly what they look like so we know what to expect if we do not oppose this construction on our grounds!

Anonymous said...

If a tower caught fire and fell on your child's school, would you consider THAT to be a legitimate health concern? Here are a few examples in case you think that could never happen:

Anonymous said...

@Anon 12:19

Using that logic we should ban houses because house fires kill children too. Ban trees while you're at it because kids have gotten hit by lightning while under them.

The "concerns" being raised are about radiation and cancer which the American Cancer Society has said has no foundation.

ACS facts trump YouTube. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Add as I recall Dr Walker said that people in his district actually wanted the towers. He did not give a reason.
I wonder if Super Auditor Babst ever checks cell phone usage charged to DCSS.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 12:19

This logic also rules out school buses. One caught fire yesterday, completely destroying it. Fortunately no children were hurt.

teacher said...

Bottom line is some say they are safe, others that they are dangerous. Either way I see law suits from this. DCSS does not need any more law suits and the small amount of money received for these towers will not pay for any law suits that ensue. DCSS is a very litigious district and doesn't seem to understand that they can do things to stop the law suits.

I just want to know when the district is going to put the children first. I wonder who is having his/her pocket lined from this deal. It just stinks.

Anonymous said...

Are you people idiots? We are talking about elementary school children here. We are talking about HUGE commercial structures with a laundry list of hazords that go along with them. You can't say that the people who are against them are foolish simply by your logic that the ACS has not made a statement regarding the cancer risk. That is only one single reason to keep these things off school properties, but it is far from the only logic being used by the very intelligent, well-educated people who are refusing to let big business and shady government just waltz into their neighborhoods and do whatever they want with school property that is owned by taxpayers, not by the school board members.

Do we take risks with our lives everyday? Yes, of course we do. But do we let other people tell us what risks we should or should not take with our children's lives? Do we intentially put things onto their school playgrounds that are so dangerous they must be locked away, covered with warning signs and attended to around the clock to make sure they are maintained properly? Do they cause cancer? No one can say for sure, but foget that arugment commpletely if you think you are so smart.

So, you are not opposed to them. Good for you. That's probably because you are not one of the people who has a child at that school or a window that will now have a view of a large metal structure with a HAZMAT base station.

You trust the ACS because you read a statement that you think told you that these things are okay for children. I would like to know exactly what statement they made that you are referring to, but let's just say they are right. The ACS is never wrong. School employees always put kids first. Government will always protect us. Big businesses would never do anything to intentially harm us just so they can profit

Cell towers will never cause cancer, not now or 30 years from now and they are safe for children, even though cell phones have been warned against for children because of the dangers of the radiation.

Then are you saying you are PRO-cell towers at our schools? Because I can give you many, many, many other reasons why I am ANTI-cell towers at schools. I am willing to at least take a stand on the issue, are you?

For everyone who can so easily be critical and try to dismiss the people giving you legitimate reasons why they are AGAINST the towers, I have an idea... Let's play FLIP THE SCRIPT for a moment.

Let the rest of us hear YOUR arguments about why we should all be in FAVOR of the towers. And then give us the chance to pick apart your logic.

I cannot wait to hear your educated, informed reasons why we should all sit back and watch these towers go up and feel reassured that everything will be fine. Actually, not just fine..l convince me that we are somehow helping the school or the kids or even helping the advancement of technology, not just the greed of a looming monopoly.

Let's see your YouTube video... where is it?

I'm guessing that you will be unable to say anything intelligent in favor of this cell tower proposal because I'm guessing you really don't know very much about it, right?

You just trust your school board blindly? Really? Just curious because you are the one sounding pretty ignorant right now.

Even if these towers were made out of sugar and could shoot bubbles out the top of them every hour I woud STILL not want them on school property.

30 years is a long time to sign a lease agreement ... think carefully before you align yourself with one side or another on this issue. You know, KARMA.

I would really love to hear the PRO side to this argument because if you don't have one, then you need to keep quiet while the grown-ups here are talking. Go back to your video game and come back when you are prepared to speak to the classs.

Anonymous said...

teacher... I appreciate your concern is in the right place, but please do not fool yourself into beleiving that anyone is willing to say cell towers are safe. The cell phone companies themselves are telling us with their huge warning signs, danger signs, keep out signs, do not pass this line, etc. etc. signs that are plastered all of the towers that even THEY do not claim for these things to be safe.

Cell towers are absultely not safe. The only thing people are saying is that the research completed to date cannot say beyond a doubt that RF radiation in low doses over an extended period of time can be linked directly to cancer. But, that is only ONE concern that we do not need to debate here. The research community is far more qualifies to take up that issue which is what they are doing right now. There have been statements issued on both sides, but most agree more research should be done and certain precautions can be taken in the meantime if you are concerned.

SAFE is not anythiing that ANYONE can say about cell towers. They would be opening themselves up to huge lawsuits if that were the case. It would be irresponsible as well as inaccurate.

Tucker Parent said...

If anyone is writing a comment on this topic and you have not actually VIEWED the video that is the subject matter, please take the time to do that first. This is not a video about the concerns over cell towers causing cancer.

Please, don't comment on something that you have not even watched. You are making yourselves look like idiots and you are not even taking the time to consider the message. Think about the interests of the parties involved here before you decide what side you are willing to support.

Anonymous said...

So, for all of you that are so anti-cell towers, are you willing to give up your cell phones or will you have your children turn in their cell phones?

Thought not....

Cell phone towers are nothing new. There is no data that indicates these towers or cell phones are dangerous.

Sagamore 7 said...

The American Cancer Society didn't have a problem with cigarettes for the first 40 years either....

I'm just saying that I do not beleive you can understand the real affects of cell towers until a few years into the process and I'm not willing to RISK my child's health and future well being on an unknown.

Let's put cell towers on top of the prisons and jails and see what the ACLU has to say about that!

Let's ask Eugene Walker's son if the cell towers can go on all of the DeKalb Housing Authority properties.

Why on top of our children? There is plenty of available and EMPTY land in DeKalb County where the towers can go! Follow the money!


Anonymous said...

@ Anon 4:16

Wow! Switch to decaf!

Learn to read while you're at it. No one said they were "pro" cell towers or "pro" business involvement in anything else. What was said was that anyone claiming cancer or radiation risk was wrong. Go get that stick pulled out. You are hysterical and your hysterics are hurting any argument you may have.

I don't take the side of any argument where the majority of the proponents are hysterical. Like you. You're obviously unable to think straight or hear anything but your own screaming.

In case someone rational is reading this, here is the ACS statement on cell phones (listed #3 of 5 most common cancer mythgs)

Here is the ACS statement on cell towers.

Hysteria is not a substitute for good science. Have a calm day.

The Deal said...

Anon 6:29, why is the default situation one where we have cell towers on school property? Why are we having to show why they're not good instead of the other way around? Better safe than sorry, esp. with respect to our kids, who, by law, have to attend school.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 10:22

"Default situation"? What does that even mean? If you don't want cell towers, say so but use a reasonable argument that can be defended.

Getting hysterical about non-existent health risks minimizes your argument.

I don't argue in favor of cell towers. Read the posts again - no one is claiming to be in favor of them. Debunking bad science does not mean there's an endorsement. I'm speaking out against ignorance and hysteria and a public that didn't pay attention in science class when they were children. Big difference.

Reading is fundamental. If you think there's a "default situation" that is in your tiny little mind. I didn't say the towers should be there.

Cerebration said...

Thanks for the link to the ACS statement on cell towers. I'll share that here:

Do cellular phone towers cause cancer?
Some people have expressed concern that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. At this time, there is very little evidence to support this idea. In theory, there are some important points that would argue against cellular phone towers being able to cause cancer.

First, the energy level of radiofrequency (RF) waves is relatively low, especially when compared with the types of radiation that are known to increase cancer risk, such as gamma rays, x-rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone towers is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules, which is how these stronger forms of radiation may lead to cancer.

A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths, which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body.

Third, even if RF waves were somehow able to affect cells in the body at higher doses, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low -- well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone towers are not significantly different than the background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.

For these reasons, most scientists agree that cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer.

It does lean toward stating there are no health issues but stops short of a certain promise.

shark bait said...

I wouldn't want one around my school... all the reasons listed, plus just ugly.

Cerebration said...

Also, FWIW, the Medlock community made a very good case citing the negative impact these eyesores have on property values. That data can be researched and documented. They are ugly - no bones about it.

Why on earth do we need so many? I think there must be a way to insist that these towers, which are basically infrastructure, be shared. Maybe the citizens should own them and lease them back to the cell service providers. At least work it something like we do the gas service providers to our homes or even the electricity. Just because there are competitors shouldn't mean that they each have to build these monstrous structures dotting our landscapes and overlapping in service.

And == as far as children go - I would wage a bet that it wouldn't be long before some children tried to climb one and fell. You know darn well that something like that would happen.

Cerebration said...

But for me, the whole issue is a concern as the school board paid far, far too much attention to this issue - and far too little attention on finding a new superintendent and working to make sure students' needs were being met. (Our dismal test scores are testament to their lack of focus on that task.)

Not only that, but they forced entire neighborhoods to drop what they were doing and fight the school board. Several associations hired attorneys and wrote letters and attended meetings. The whole deal was a colossal waste of many people's time and a major distraction from the school board's main job - educating the children of DeKalb..

Not Addicted to Wireless said...

Anonymous, yes I am willing to let my child to give up her cell phone... it has Tinkerbell on the front of it and holds candy!

I do not know any child in elementary school that has a cell phone, nor should they.

The Deal said...

Goodness Anon 10:29, I think it's you that needs decaf. Maybe you need to rename yourself "troll" because if you're not pro-cell tower, then why do you care that there are those of us who do not want them? Are you simply here to judge people for what you deem as lack of science education? Your appearance on this particular blog seems to be nothing other than bashing other posters. Personally, I couldn't care less about what the science says (and I am well-educated). What I care about is that I don't trust the members of the school board who are pushing for this, and I think the school board and administration need to focus on cutting other areas as opposed to grabbing at $ from cell phone towers. This is just a diversion from what they know they should really be doing. Sort of how your posts are a diversion from those of us who want to have a meaningful discussion.

Anon said...

It shouldn't take a community speaking out -- if McChesney believed the arguments from the Medlock et all community, he should have universally applied those arguments. What is not good for the goose is not good for the gander.

As Jester indicated, communities should have had to opt in.

betty said...

Why are we putting up cell towers at our schools? MONEY. Is this happening at other counties schools as well? Probably. Should it happen. Hell no. Will it happen? Yes.

This board is a gang of thugs,lead by a dumbass.

Cerebration said...

As far as the statement from the ACS goes,

"Most" and "Unlikely" -- these are not strong words.

I wouldn't want to place my faith in a wimpy statement like that.

Especially not for thirty years.

Especially not when children are involved.

Lefty said...

They need a cell tower at Lakeside because the coverage around the adjacent Greenglade Rd./Mercedes Dr. area stinks. Lakeside is the closest non-residential spot. As I drive down Greenglade or Mercedes, my calls always drop.

Would you rather they buy a home or two in that area and put a cell tower in the middle of the neighborhood?

Cerebration said...

Yes, but do they need one at Lakeside AND at Briarlake? And if the community wants a cell tower, perhaps that's a different story?

Cerebration said...

Also, just want you all to be aware - apparently, the county zoning regs prevent building cell towers in most areas of the county. Schools and churches, however, are exempt from this zoning regulation, therefore, the phone companies seek out schools and churches for the towers.

Kim Gokce said...

Our school properties are not profit centers. Forget health, forget eyesores, this has zero to do with education and should never have made an agenda.

If T-Mobile or any other provider wants to include our children in a partnership in education regarding electromagnetism or mathmatics or encryption algorithms and their application in wireless technologies, let's talk about it.

Cell towers for profit being placed on school grounds for no other purpose is an abuse of public trust.

FieldsGrove said...

@ Anonymous 8/3/11, 5:05

Yes, I'd gladly give up my cell phone, and I wish lots of other people would, too, especially those who talk/text while driving, dining with others, walking their kids to/from school, etc... Do all of these people really have important things to discuss all day long, or is their excessive cell phone use often just a bad habit?

Anonymous said...

If you would like to know how many towers are near your home or school, here is a great source for registered and unregistered towers. Just type in any address and see your results in a graphic map format or a list:

Atlanta Media Guy said...

Thanks Kim, couldn't agree more with your statement....

Why are we wasting our time with this issue that never should have been on an agenda? How does this improve test scores? How does this account for the fraud and waste that Audria Berry has been overseeing in our Title One schools? How does this find us a competent Superintendent with NO ties to our current "sit up here" leadership? Why is the current leadership like Tyson, Moseley, Thompson, Mitchell-Mayfield, Ramsey, Clark, Beasley, Tucker and Francine Edward's kids still employed? These were all Crawford Lewis' personal minions. He's been indicted, but the rest continue to play in the pool of 1.2 Billion of OUR tax dollars as well as millions of federal funds, which is going to a glorified babysitting service?

I thank God for the leadership at the successful few schools DCSS has.

It's time for change BOE, found a Super yet? whoops, I forgot you can't tell us until you all agree and have the approval of former Board Rep, Zepora "I'm going to slug you" Roberts and former Board Chair Francine Edwards.

DCSS = Epic Failure

Anonymous said...

Take a look at Lynn's comments on the get schooled blog. She nails it, but of course so much more could be said. I would love to see a march or sit in at the palace. I think that it is the only way that we can get the attention of the governor and the state board of ed. I am at the point that I really to believe that SACS is not in it for the kids, or more would have happened by now. If not for the housing market I would sell and flee. May convert to a rental soon.

Can someone comment on the triage approach of peer tutoring? How successful is this? I have concerns that we are again leaving the high achieving kids behind by not pushing them to achieve more under this approach (shouldn't they get a paycheck if they now teachers as well? are they certified to teach in the classroom?). For those struggling as well - why don't we just point it out even more? I have a child struggling in one subject and, trust me, having her classroom friends "help" her only makes her hate school even more because for her it points out that she cannot do what her friends can. She is dreading going back to school. Our school used to level the classes (which I thought could help as we entered this year). But at open house we find instead that the classes (1st grade) will instead be mixed level with numbers. 26 kids in the classroom as well. (Cannot hire another teacher because not all of the rooms have this many; the other two have only 23). Furthermore, the gifted kids are clearly not being served - we do not have a discovery teacher and requests for a copy of the differentiated curriculum have yielded nothing but lesson plans. I never saw a student contract and the principal has indicated that this is the way that all elementaries will be doing business this year. Is this true?

Can anyone point me to reasonably priced private schools that still have openings?

Ella Smith said...

I totally agree with S7.

I have written to all the school board members as I am opposed to cell phones being on school property. First of all their is evidence of dangers. I read study after study on the topic as a science teacher. I agree thaThe American Cancer Society didn't have a problem with cigarettes for the first 40 years either.... We did not know what caused Fetal Alcohol Syndrome for years but we knew that some children had FLK features in special education.

It takes a great deal of evidence to become a scientific fact. However, do we want to put our children in that situation. We have become too adjusted to the convience of phones. Big deal if phones drop in certain areas. It is not the end of the world but putting up cell towers that we could find out in the future could cause damage is inappropriate in my opinion.

I also agree that the school system should not be doing this to make money like this. They need to be focused on educating our children.

I would say that the company does need to buy a few homes in the area if the cell tower is needed that bad. However the neighbors may not want it in their backyard either.

ben dover said...

When the cell tower concerns meeting was held at Briarlake Elem. only four people total showed up. So, it if it's an issue for the community it didn't show in such weak attendance.

Anonymous said...

CLOSE BROCKETT.. and the cell towers won't be near an elementary school in that area. I am sick and tired of those elites who by the way pay LOW property taxes.

Anonymous said...

The only part of the Medlock argument that the school board paid attention to was the part where they pointed out that the school has been closed. Without a school, the school board does not have the legal right to do anything with the property, especially if it would deter its future use by another educational or other business.

Don't be fooled... they planned on dropping a few schools off the list all along so they don't look completely heartless. And, it gets the active communities off the topic of the superintendent search, or school closing, or charter renewal issues ... and onto something else for the entire Summer.

DCSS are masters at throwing distraction and delay tactics at us in an effort to "divide and rule." While we are all tied up with the various issues at our own schools, we are unable to come together as a group to stop them.

DeKalb must unite. This has gone on long enough. We need action.

Anonymous said...

Ben Dover, thanks for pointing out that you believe exactly what the school board intends for you to believe instead of seeing the truth. The community didn't show up for the meeting you are referencing because they were not informed about it. Here is the flyer sent home from school to parents (which, by the way, does not mean that the live in the area thanks to our school choice program)

The notice says nothing about the meeting being related to a cell tower at the school. The surrounding community is made up of a lot of other people besides those with kids in public elementary school. Every resident has a right to know about zoning issues in their own backyards that will affect property values. Give me a break

Anonymous said...

I am a Briarlake parent. I did not know that the BOE was meeting to discuss the cell tower until the day AFTER the decision had been made. That is because the issue was on the agenda at a later date, and the meeting was cancelled. Then, when the meeting took place at an earlier date, the cell towers were on the agenda and I did not know. How many others are there who, like me, would have attended the meeting to voice their protest HAD THEY KNOWN? My child will not attend a school with a cell tower because I believe in erring on the side of caution with my child's health.

Cerebration said...

Here's the NEW link to the countywide survey:

Get the Cell Out of DeKalb County Schools

And here's a link to the FOX 5 report on the cell towers:

Opinions Divided Over Cell Towers at DeKalb Schools

Anonymous said...

NO, WE DON'T WANT CELL PHONE TOWERS EITHER! Homeowners just became aware that cell phone towers are being erected in their beautiful neighborhoods around MLK Jr H.S.and Flat Rock Elementary and they are VERY upset about it. No notice was given to the community before or after the school board voted to approve the project which is unprofessional and inconsiderate of the impact on the community. We are mobilizing to stop this because of the unknown effects on our health and the certain continued plummet of our property values in zip code 30038.Since the school board decided to remove 3 schools from the original list of 12 because of these concerns, they should have decided against having them installed at any school in the county.
Cell phone towers do not belong in residential areas without special zoning or waivers that's why T-Mobile came up with this scheme to put them on school and church properties. The so-called revenue (one time payment of $25,000 for the PTSA and a couple million for a 30 year contract) is not worth it to the school nor the community. Aren't schools non-profit entities? The saying goes "The school cannot live apart from the community" but they are creating a division by making decisions that are detrimental to the quality of life of the very residents they depend on for financial support. Are they trying to drive their tax base out of the county? Do they really care?

We call on your support in our efforts. Information on a community meeting with school board members and elected officials will be circulated in the very near future. Thanks for you help.

Anonymous said...

Nancy Jester voted against them. She also requested that if the BOE approved the towers, that they be an "opt in" rather than an "opt out" so the neighborhood schools/communities affected could choose. Her motion was defeated. Talk to your Board member about his/her actions on this matter and ask why he/she didn't educate his/her constituents and ask what they wanted before voting!

Anonymous said...

You should know that Jay Cunningham was very positive that his communities wanted Cell Phone Towers.