Construction of T-Mobile Cell Towers Halted But Neighbors Still Have Concerns

February 13, 2012 -- Residents in Portland's Eastmoreland and Concordia neighborhoods are still waiting to hear whether T-Mobile plans to build cell phone towers in their neighborhoods – and the cell provider itself is mum on the subject.

“We're still evaluating our options,” said Rod Delarosa, senior external affairs manager for T-Mobile's USA West Region.

If T-Mobile decides to move forward, the next step will be to hold another community meeting with the neighborhood associations. Such a meeting was held November 1 with the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association, but city regulations require cell providers to observe a waiting period of at least 30 days after gathering input from the community before they can apply for a permit. The earliest date T-Mobile could have applied for a permit from the city for the Alameda/Concordia site was Nov. 28, and the earliest date the company could have submitted an application for the Eastmoreland site was Dec. 1. The city has not received such an application.

Although it appears that such plans have been put on hold, neighbors – particularly in the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association – are fighting for better regulations on cell tower construction.

“These are industrial structures that don't belong in residential neighborhoods,” said Eastmoreland resident Kimberly Koehler, who’s actively involved in fighting the towers. If people raised questions about a gas station opening up in the middle of their neighborhood, nobody would accuse them of opposing cars, she said.

“It isn't that we're against computers or against cell phones,” Koehler said. “We just don't think this is the best place for these towers.”

Allison Gillespie's home sits near one of the sites targeted for construction of a cell tower – along the intersection of SE 37th Avenue and Ogden. She didn't realize T-Mobile planned to install infrastructure on her block – which it began doing three years ago – until a neighbor told her. The tower in question was actually a piece of equipment to be attached to a utility pole to increase coverage.

After getting involved with the neighborhood association, Gillespie and her neighbors were able to prevent the construction of that tower and urged the city to implement better guidelines.

“Three years ago, there weren't even any guidelines,” Gillespie said.

Besides fighting these particular towers, the neighborhood association – working with the Concordia Neighborhood Association and Southeast Uplift, an umbrella group – wants the city to change its zoning code to prohibit the construction of cell towers in other neighborhoods.

What really needs to be changed, Koehler said, is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits local governments from considering the health effects of radiation of cell towers.  

According to the National Cancer Institute, research hasn’t shown a conclusive link between cell phone use and the incidence of cancer, however its fact sheet doesn’t address the health effects of radiation from cell towers though it did note that a cell phone user's exposure to radiation varies depending on their proximity to such a tower (http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones). The President's Cancer Panel has also called for more research on this issue.

Neighbors want officials to apply the precautionary principle before making a decision, Koehler said. That means if an action poses a suspected risk to the environment or human health – but the risk isn't definitively proven – advocates bear the burden of proving that action is safe.

Also, she said that T-Mobile hasn’t shown, to the neighbors' satisfaction, that there’s a hole in cell coverage on Portland's inner east side.

“What all the carriers are doing is responding to an unprecedented demand for coverage, including data,” said Delarosa, adding that smart phones in particular are driving the demand for better coverage.

That may include what Delarosa called “deep green” coverage – that is, coverage in residential areas.

“These are not appropriate in residential areas close to homes or schools,” Gillespie said. “They can be an eyesore of sorts.”