Hey what's that atop 59-24 Kissena Blvd? Wow, it almost fooled me...here I thought it was a flagpole since it's so well disguised (heh). Of course, it's a cell tower - one of those moneymakers for absentee landlords that lowers the value of surrounding homes. Because if you're an absentee landlord, you really don't give a shit about neighborhood aesthetics or residents' health - it's all about lining your pockets.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Kissena cell tower
Hey what's that atop 59-24 Kissena Blvd? Wow, it almost fooled me...here I thought it was a flagpole since it's so well disguised (heh). Of course, it's a cell tower - one of those moneymakers for absentee landlords that lowers the value of surrounding homes. Because if you're an absentee landlord, you really don't give a shit about neighborhood aesthetics or residents' health - it's all about lining your pockets.
17 comments:
So now the geniuses on this site don't want people to have cell phone coverage where they live. Let's put everything back to 1950, that would make you happy.
That tower was erected in 2006. I believe we had plenty of cell coverage prior to that in Flushing.
The point about abentee landlords is the best one.
Lets hammer that time and again.
All the prodevelopment folks talk about accommodating immigrants and midwestern hipsters.
Never about the importance of building strong communities with landlords with a vested interest: owner occupied housing.
There's another cell tower in Bayside on the Clearview Expressway service road and 35th Avenue. Residents there have been fighting it for a year to no avail. And it's practically right on top of someone's backyard. In the end, what the community wants never seems to count.
The point about abentee landlords is the best one. Lets hammer that time and again.
Exactly. Message discipline. You've been well Roved.
You're absolutely right, though. That's what Queens Crapp does best - discuss important issues like absentee landlordism. And there we can agree.
One doesn't have to be "prodevelopment" to feel that immigrants and midwestern hipsters, once they've invaded this wonderful stinking country called NYC, deserve a fair shot at the American dream. In fact, I'm every bit against "bad" (or "ugly" or "neighborhood-destroying") development as you are. But I also feel that social/demographic issues like New Americans and the untamed hipster in his natural habitat require an empathy and thoughtfulness often lacking in the comment halls here.
Now, for some news on people taking home ownership and community development into their own hands:
http://shorl.com/lisubrygrikystu
This link, coincidentally, came to me (unsolicited) a few minutes ago. I thought that I'd share it with you:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/
By the way, the Kissena cell tower and the 4 newly installed antennas on the NY Times printing plant have something in common. Both of the applicants were:
Applicant Information
Name: PETER LONGO
Business Name: INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING INC Business Phone: 732-240-4400
Business Address: 1144 HOOPER AVE S209 TOMS RIVER NJ 08753 Business Fax:
E-Mail: Mobile Telephone:
License Number: 081318
Applicant Type: P.E. R.A Sign Hanger Other
Directive 14 Applicant of Record
Name: PETER LONGO
Business Name: INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING INC Business Phone: 732-240-4400
Business Address: 1144 HOOPER AVE S209 TOMS RIVER NJ 08753 Business Fax:
E-Mail: Mobile Telephone:
Applicant Type: PE License Number: 081318
The NY Times printing plant towers are definitely a Homeland Security project. The antennas are being installed in conjunction with a $500 million project that has been designed by Northrop Grumman. I have paperwork to verify the NY Times project but I suspect that all of these towers are part of the same project.
But I also feel that social/demographic issues like New Americans and the untamed hipster in his natural habitat require an empathy and thoughtfulness often lacking in the comment halls here.
----------
This is because the city as targeted that element for the future and ignored the bed rock of our country - stable middle class families that will live a long time in their communities.
Just the type of person that will drive a pol nuts with their constant demands at quality of life issues.
The others will keep their head down and meet, mate and move.
The problem with these cell towers is that that are too big and stick out like a sore thumb and nobody knows what the health implications are. Most people have cell phones and want good service, but not at the cost of ruining a community. Why can't they scatter smaller scale towers around to achieve the same result? These cell towers are huge and don't belong in residential neighborhoods. Shame on the Board of Standards and Appeals for allowing these eyesores in the first place.
"The problem with these cell towers is that that are too big and stick out like a sore thumb and nobody knows what the health implications are."
That is only part of the problem, as I see it. I was told that cell phone towers emit different types of radiation than microwave towers. Can anyone please clarify this for the lay people reading these posts. This is not my area of expertise.
Having said that, I feel that the lack of public oversight and review to be more disturbing than anything else. As the previous poster suggested, do these devices affect the health of those living nearby? Can we rely on Northrop Grumman, the Homeland Security Department, and city agencies such as the EDC to protect our interests?
Earlier today I posted some correspondence about the system being installed all over New York City. Here are the links:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74276567@N00/2981092065/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74276567@N00/2981949312/sizes/l/
Please note that in the first letter, Mr. Amor noted that he saw no construction going on even though he saw the crane lifting the equipment onto the roof! Also, watch for the "flagpole" comment in the second letter.
I hope that this ends the mystery of the proliferation of these towers all over Queens.
I am having problems providing the links so you may need to resize the documents in order to read them more clearly.
I like the telephone lines draped across the picture.
I like the telephone lines draped across the picture.
Hee hee.
Here's just one of several articles on the web citing the dangers of cell towers: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/09/28/what-are-the-dangers-of-living-near-cell-phone-towers.htm
I don't care if it 'looks' bad. My main concern is my health! These things emit microwaves.
I recently bought myself one of these: http://www.lessemf.com/rf.html#437
It's a device that measures the about of cell phone radiation. It's cool to watch that thing jump to the red zone whenever I drive past a cell tower/antenna. Man, long term exposure to that has to be bad for your health.
Our politicians are all in on it. It's corrupt.
Vote Baldwin 2008.
Can anyone please clear up a technical question for me? Is there a difference between cell phone transmissions and microwave transmissions? If so, is one type of technology more dangerous than the other? I believe that the Northrop Grumman system is different but I do not have the technical expertise to understand the effects that these towers have on health. Perhaps the previous poster can measure the radiation being emitted by the 4 antennas on top of the NY Times printing plant and report back to us? This could answer a lot of questions and perhaps open up a big can of worms.
It's a tale of two cities:
In Maspeth, a proposed cell tower was stopped by a vocal, organized community. In Flushing, apathy, and lack of political will resulted in the cell tower.
The Maspeth cell tower was not stopped yet. Its BSA hearing was postponed until after election day. How convenient.
Post a Comment