.

Cell Tower Plans Moving Forward

District would receive 50/50 split on rental income.

Things are moving forward on the proposal for a cell tower at the administration building on Lawrence Road.

Assistant Superintendent for Finance, Phil Kenter, said at Tuesday evening’s board meeting that there were three proposed sites on the administration property. Kenter said the district was able to negotiate a 50/50 income split with Suffolk Wireless Communications, the company managing the project, on all rental income.

According to a presentation given at the Jan. 11 board of education meeting, the tower would take up about 2500 square feet. Cell carriers AT&T, Verizon and Nextel have shown interest in leasing space. The high school had been considered as an option for the tower, however placing it on the administration property would provide the best coverage in an area that is considered a dead zone for cell coverage.

Kenter said that according to Suffolk Wireless, “all space on the tower will be rented before it is even up.”

Kenter said a full presentation on the cell tower plan would be given at the Feb. 28 board of education meeting.

John Massaro February 28, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Very good point. With what you have rotting away into the air practically on the other side of the street, this cell tower should be way down on your list of worries...
Christina B February 28, 2012 at 09:16 PM
It is not right for you to be telling parents of children who live and go to school in Kings Park what they should be worried about. If you can't keep your opinions focused on the topic this article is about without making personal attacks about people you don't know, then go comment on the town's board that you do live in!
John Massaro February 28, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Wow! That didn't take long at all. I see how it goes. OTHERS can attack me, but I can't retaliate? I spend my time trying to EDUCATE people in here on something & I get attacked? When I try to defend myself, my post gets deleted? I'm waiting for an explanation...
John Massaro February 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM
It's not right for you to tell me where or when or what I can post in here either. Let Jennifer work that delete button like a boss...
Susan February 28, 2012 at 11:02 PM
You are arrogant and rude. You dont really know anything. If the World Health Organization won't validate for sure that there are no dangers to our health-- who are you to be so adamant. There are many articles out there on both sides of the debate. And since we apparently have enough to be concerned about with 'asbestos and 500 acres of pollution' why should we take on anymore?
John Massaro February 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Well there you go, Jennifer! What are you going to do about this? Come on, you've deleted MY posts for much less than this! Let's see you turn that hypocritcal pendulum the other way now!
John Massaro February 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Go ahead, remain in ignorance. I was only trying to educate you all. But you all choose to remain ignorant. Not my fault & not my problem...
John Massaro February 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Go ahead, Jennifer, you can delete this post too. Smile when you click that button...
Dan February 29, 2012 at 12:28 AM
hmmm, could have sworn someone referred to the WHO (World Health Organization) ... maybe adeleted post?. Well, for some reason I went to see what their stance was ... and its a bit schixophrenic I'd say (sic?). Here (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/) it states in part; "Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks" Yet here (http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/EMF-Precaution.htm) it advocates a "Precautionary Approach" for everything from "power lines, household electrical wiring, appliances and motor driven instruments, computer screens, telecommunications and broadcast facilities, mobile telephones and their base stations." fwiw
Dan February 29, 2012 at 12:30 AM
hmmm, could have sworn someone referred to the WHO (World Health Organization) ... maybe adeleted post?. Well, for some reason I went to see what their stance was ... and its a bit schixophrenic I'd say (sic?). Here (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/) it states in part; "Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks" Yet here (http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/EMF-Precaution.htm) it advocates a "Precautionary Approach" for everything from "power lines, household electrical wiring, appliances and motor driven instruments, computer screens, telecommunications and broadcast facilities, mobile telephones and their base stations." fwiw
John Massaro February 29, 2012 at 01:57 AM
Don't waste your time, guys. You're dealing with people who have blinders on. Nobody here knows any better because nobody here WANTS to know any better. Let them wallow in their ignorant bliss. It's a lost cause. World Health Organization. Un-freakin-believable...
bob iwanejko February 29, 2012 at 02:20 AM
cell towers in the passed are to be a minimun of 1500 feet away from a school if they ever need to use this as a school or rent out space to a nursery/ day care it would be in violation the federal goverment is looking into baning use of cell phones totally while driving this includes hands free pay phones may be coming back
John Massaro February 29, 2012 at 03:01 AM
Here is a PDF link to the current Cell Phone Tower construction laws in this country. Nowehere in these laws does it say anything about a 1500 foot minimum distance from schools... http://www.ncpz.com/PDF/Section%209%2012%20-%20Cell%20Tower%20Regulations%20(pdf).pdf Read it while you can. Being that it proves people wrong, it'll probably be deleted by the morning...
John Massaro February 29, 2012 at 02:07 PM
At Patch, we promise always to report the facts as objectively as possible and otherwise adhere to the principles of good journalism. However, we also acknowledge that true impartiality is impossible because human beings have beliefs. So in the spirit of simple honesty, our policy is to encourage our editors to reveal their beliefs to the extent they feel comfortable. This disclosure is not a license for you to inject your beliefs into stories or to dictate coverage according to them. In fact, the intent is the opposite: we hope that the knowledge that your beliefs are on the record will cause you to be ever mindful to write, report and edit in a fair, balanced way. And if you ever see evidence that we failed in this mission, please let us know.
Christina B February 29, 2012 at 02:13 PM
He's awake and ready to rant!
Susan February 29, 2012 at 02:45 PM
LOL just ignore him. This appears to be how he fills his social calendar. We are all mothers concerned about our families and neighbors and this is all he has to fill up his time. Its sad actually- we should stop arguing with him- it doesnt matter.
KingsParkKid February 29, 2012 at 03:49 PM
just because someone posts info on here doesn't make it fact. who knows where he got his information. even reputable organizations are payed off. i trust NO such device. perhaps i am being a hypocrite since i do in fact use a microwave and do use a cell phone but my babies do not. from what i researched i do not appreciate a cell phone tower this close to MY home. however, i do understand that the tower is going up. no matter what. the choice is on San Remo property or across the street on state property. It is a losing battle. The school district should at least benefit from it rather than the state. I don't even understand why there is arguments and debates about this here or elsewhere. It can't be healthy for anyone having a tower near them and as far as i am concerned it is selfish of the community to want 'better cell service'.. but i guess that is what this world is coming to...convenience at any price ....sad.
Henry Powderly (Editor) February 29, 2012 at 04:18 PM
As we've said multiple times, personal attacks will not be tolerated and if certain commenters choose to ignore our terms of use unfortunately we may suspend accounts.
KingsParkKid February 29, 2012 at 04:31 PM
i am not argumentative, unreasonable, ignorant or uneducated .. there was one source of information from the ACS. Their use of language, such as "usually, may be, typically, at this time, might" does NOT make me feel comfortable. That is all i am saying. People have their own opinions and it doesn't make us right or wrong. I PREFER NOT to have a tower close to my home. end of story.
Dan February 29, 2012 at 05:34 PM
I understand your position and respect your position, but I just want to make a point. You will never find a reputable peer reviewed study that uses absolute language to describe a non-event. You can not prove a negative, you can only disprove it. Looking at the the information (with citations) in the ACS, San Fran DoH, and WHO links, I am pretty comfortable that there has not been any evidence to date (<< there you go ;-) ) with reputable agreement from the broad scientific community showing health effects from nearby cell towers. Honestly, there is more evidence out there (and its small in of itself) that holding a cell phone to your head, including bluetooth, may (<< there it is again) have adverse health effects over the long term. Now would I want one near my house? Of course not. Not because of the possible health effects but for the same reason I don't want any other 150ft monster screaming upward into the sky around my house. So I see why people would be opposed, I just see no justification anywhere other than anecdotal references to state its a health issue and raise a panic. If you want absolutes, then look further into the WHO reference I posted above; ******************* Conclusions Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. ******************
Dan February 29, 2012 at 05:44 PM
... the original ACS link that got ... ummm, flushed down the 'john'. ;-) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phone-towers
KP Pride for Life February 29, 2012 at 06:16 PM
What would all of you do with your spare time if the Patch ever shout down? Henry Powderly, shut this topic down already.
John from Kings Park February 29, 2012 at 06:44 PM
I really appreciate the fact that you (and several others in here) are defending me. You are the epitomy of the term "Kindness from Strangers". I just wanted to thank you for sticking up for me. Yes, they did "suspend" my account. I got an e-mail from Henry Powderly who felt the need to scold me like a bad child, which I don't appreciate at all. To tell the truth like I told Henry, I really don't WANT to be a part of this site if I have to worry about everything I post for fear that someone (or the editors for that matter) disagrees with my views & considers it to be "personal attacks", as Henry so lightly put it. I'd rather go somewhere where they've actually heard of "freedom of speech", not where they delete, ban & opress others people's opinions. Here's my e-mail before they delete this account too massarojohn@hotmail.com Or look me up on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/john.massaro Feel free to chat me up whenever you feel. Again, I really appreciate your stance but I'm not going to bother with this site anymore if my posts are misconstrued as "offensive" simply because they don't agree with my opinions.
Walter from Kings Park February 29, 2012 at 07:52 PM
John was getting hostile with people that disagreed with him. No need for that. Topic should stay up, as decision hasn't been voted on yet by the school board and there's still time for affected residents to have their voices heard.
Walter from Kings Park February 29, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Either way, he isn't my concern. Anyone who has questions about this issue should attend the next school board meeting and / or contact the board members directly.
Tom Gillen February 29, 2012 at 08:58 PM
From the Terms of Service that we all agree to when we register for this site: "We understand that everyone has different opinions, but Patch will make the sole determination as to whether Content is acceptable for the Service. (Someone has to be in charge, right?) Without limitation, you agree that you will not post or transmit to other users anything that contains Content that: •is defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive; •is threatening, harassing or that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual; •promotes or encourages violence; •is inaccurate, false or misleading in any way; •contains “masked” profanity (e.g., F@&#) Instead of trying to memorize all that, you might boil it down to three main policies: “Keep it clean,” “Don’t try to trick people,” and “Treat others as you’d like to be treated.” Easy, right?"
Tom Gillen February 29, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Freedom of speech does not apply. We waive that right when we click "I accept" upon registration. Noboby is making you be a part of the Patch community.
Doris L March 10, 2012 at 12:31 AM
You want to see what tall ugly does to a beautiful neighborhood just look at the LIPA towers in Northport. Will our taxes get less ?? I doubt it. They never went down when they closed , San Remo, Indianhead and RJO Elementary Schools. What happened to all the money allotted for those school budgets?
bob iwanejko March 10, 2012 at 03:15 AM
its time the residents vote we are the tax payers OR IMPEACH its our school district when they are done and retired do they have it in their back yard and where do their kids go to school there are more important things than cell phones its called our kids and thair and our health JUST SAY NO NO NO
new guy March 21, 2012 at 01:14 AM
Just got back from the meeting at the high school. Looks like the cell tower is a dead issue. All board members were not supporters of the proposed cell tower. Good news.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »