Do cell towers belong in the Historic District?

You are viewing The Info Page Click here to view The Action Page

UPDATE : FCC Issues Stop Work Order!

Breaking news! The FCC issued a stop work order on Friday, April 9, 2010 to allow for time for a thorough investigation of the proposed cell tower by Smith Communications. You can read all about at via this article at the Lovely County Citizen. Our hope is that all of the facts can finally be assessed and the city is allowed to reuse existing infrastructure instead of allowing this new cell tower to be built within the Eureka Springs Historic District. We thank the Arkansas State Preservation Office for suggesting that we appeal to the FCC for review.

A 195-foot Cell Tower at Planer Hill?

Yes, you heard correctly. Not only is a massive cell tower for AT&T going to be installed in the Eureka Springs Historic District, but it's going to be the first thing our visitors will see upon entering downtown Eureka Springs from Planer Hill. If you had thought that the Planning Commission had already rejected this project, you'd be correct. City Council upheld that decision when the applicant appealed, too. However, the city is now being strong-armed into accepting this ugly monstrosity under the threat of litigation.

And the worst part of all?

AT&T has an existing tower lease on Hwy 23 that they aren't even using! Shouldn't existing facilities be fully utilized before deploying a new tower? We believe so, especially when a new tower will have such an adverse impact on Historic and Residential neighborhoods...

What Will it Look Like?

Cell Tower Balloon Test Planer Hill Cell Tower
Cell Tower at Planer Hill
This photo was taken from the Planer Hill Trolley Park and Ride on S. Main Street - This is the primary entrance to the Eureka Springs Historic District. The first photo shows a red balloon that was floated from the site to indicate the height (195 feet) of the proposed cell tower, and the other images are graphical representations of what it may look like installed. As you can see, the tower will extend much higher than the tree-line and will be the first thing visitors see while waiting for a Trolley or driving into town. This is NOT a good first impression of our historically preserved "Victorian" village.

Click here for additional artist renderings »

Let's Review the Facts - at least those we can all agree on:

Enough with the Facts already...

It's easy to lose focus when a project with such adverse effects on the community somehow manages to side-step our well-intentioned commissioners and regulations. And when our local elected officials seem to suddenly lose their effectiveness at protecting our best interests, what can we do? Get angry? Get even? Give up?
Nope.

Passed by the Historic District Commission?

The applicant was still required to submit an application for review by the members of our Historic District Commission. According to HDC guidelines, these underappreciated stalwarts of our community are charged with the responsibility of determining if "the placement does not have an adverse effect on the character-defining features of the existing structure, street, or the District as a whole."Considering their behavior thus far, you probably won't be surprised to learn that Smith Communications also tried to get the Mayor to allow them to bypass the HDC review. Fortunately, the Mayor wouldn't allow that.

Now I don't know about you, but it's my belief that anything that "towers" above the entrance to our Historic District at a height of 195-feet tall (plus antennae) is going to change the character of Planer Hill. It would seem like common sense that our Historic District Commissioners would foresee the negative first impression that such a structure would present to our visitors - particularly those who have chosen to start their "Extraordinary Escape" to our quaint Victorian village at the new Planer Hill Park and Ride.
How could they NOT deny this unsightly behemoth?

Smith Communications would still be able to appeal. However, HDC appeals are routed to the Circuit Court of Carroll County, where in the name of justice ALL THE FACTS can be considered - INCLUDING the fact that both the Planning Commission and City Council were acting in OUR best interests when they decided that this HUGE cell tower DOESN'T BELONG at the entrance to our Historic District. Being legally strong-armed into a settlement didn't change that opinion. Rejecting the cell tower location was THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I was hoping the HDC would agree.

But they didn't. Unfortunately, Smith Communications presented a letter of support from the Arkansas State Preservation Office. That letter of support was based on the fact that emergency services were to be included. They apparently were unaware of the offer for free antenna placement for emergency services by the existing tower owner. According to Frances McSwain, State Preservation Office Director, they would not have approved of the project if emergency services had not been included. That letter, along with the implied threat of litigation from a Municipal League attorney present at the meeting, was enough to convince the HDC to approve the tower.

What about the Telecommunications Act?

Some communications companies (and their lawyers) like to tout the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as some sort of omnipotent chokehold mechanism that was passed to allow them to place cell towers anywhere they please. While it is true that trying to place a permanant moratorium on cell tower construction can often be an exercise in futility, what these overly confident pole planters (and their lawyers) often fail to acknowledge is the fact that the Telecommunications Act also serves to protect the interests of local municipalities to a certain degree. A city may not be able to outright deny a carrier, but it certainly is entitled to regulate how and where cell towers can be built.

Is there a need for a new tower in this location?

The city never hired an independent consultant to validate the claim made by Smith Communications that a new tower is necessary and that this is the only location that will work for the carrier (AT&T). Locals with AT&T cellphones have told me that they are surprised to hear that an additional tower is needed in town, as they experience very little trouble with their service.

If AT&T is truly in the market for additional coverage in this area, are there existing facilities that would fulfill this need? The owner of one local tower has already stated that he has the space for AT&T and an existing lease that they aren't using. After careful analysis, he also indicated that there is a "significant overlap" in the coverage of his existing tower and the new tower being proposed. In fact, there are at least 3 towers already in town (Magnetic Rd, Harvey Rd, HWY 23S) - for a city of only 2,500 people! It certainly isn't in the applicant's best interest to consider towers owned and operated by their competitors. Representatives from Smith Communications have even admitted that there were other alternatives (such as a nearby water tower) that were not investigated because it would be harder for them. It's a shame when the right thing to do is overlooked simply because it isn't the easiest.

Hypocrites and the NIMBY effect

Another thing that some tower builders like to throw around is this "NIMBY" word. NIMBY is an acronym that stands for "Not In My Back Yard", and the premise states that we are all hypocrites because we want the service but don't want to see the ugly infrastructure. It's assumed that we are being unreasonable. But they've got it wrong. To be quite honest, we're not against having cell towers. We understand that they are a necessary part of our communications infrastructure, but that zoning laws are in place to site them accordingly. In this case, we just happen to disagree with the use of a Historic Residential parcel that was zoned Commercial for storage buildings, NOT a cell tower - especially if there are existing towers with available capacity. City Council members have stated that if the cell tower proposal had been expressed at the time of the rezoning request, it would never have been approved. We also don't believe that this is the best, only, and least intrusive site available, just because the applicant says so.

Bigger than Jesus

Putting things into Perspective

Representatives from Smith Communications have attempted to downplay the visual impact of this 195-foot tall tower. Although it will extend much taller than the treeline, they have suggested that residents will eventually grow accustomed to the sight of the tower and not notice it. Some locals, having missed the balloon float test, wonder if the tower will be visible from other areas of the Historic Loop. It will be VERY visible. After all, we can see the Christ of the Ozarks statue from a great number of streets in town, and it is only 67 feet tall!

United We Stand...Taller than a Cell Tower!

For once, it's not about who you voted for, who you know, or how you make a living. We seem to be on the same page with this one. It needs to be installed someplace else, IF it needs to be installed at all. At the least, let's hope for due diligence, and that the fear of litigation will not once again trump local jurisdiction.

Another way to help the Citizens of Eureka Springs fight the proposed cell tower at the entrance to our lovely Historic District is to Sign the new Online Petition asking City Council to file a stop work order!

Please include your full name and zip, as we may follow up with a local paper petition. Thank you!

Don't miss all of the other suggestions on The Action Page!