The Taos News

» Ron and Dina Burnham created firefighti­ng, EMS training for entire Enchanted Circle

Despite landowner objections and lone nay vote by vice chair

- By WILL HOOPER

It was a heated yet civil meeting Tuesday (Sept. 22) as the Taos County Commission debated the installati­on of a new cellphone tower about a mile west of the Río Grande Gorge Bridge.

The four-hour online special meeting highlighte­d the battle that has been ongoing in Taos for years now – the fight against 5G technology

Commission members voted by a margin of 4-1 to uphold approval of the cellphone tower, with vice chair Candyce O’Donnell casting the lone vote against the tower’s installati­on.

In December 2019, Hemphill LLC, a company that builds and installs cell towers, submitted an applicatio­n for its newest design for a 50-foot tower west of the Río Grande that would provide Verizon 4G LTE service in an area that is otherwise void of consistent cell service.

The applicatio­n was approved earlier this year, but was appealed by Nick Jaramillo, a representa­tive for a landowner adjacent to the installati­on site. Jaramillo pointed out many negative aspects that could come from building a cell tower in that location.

Jaramillo argued in favor of preserving the natural land, and made several technical arguments for why a cell tower in the area was unnecessar­y – a sentiment that was echoed by several members of the public. Jaramillo said it would affect the flight patterns of birds that use the corridor to migrate, as well as elk, deer, bighorn sheep and other animals. Another concern was that the cell tower could be updated to a 5G network at any time without civilian or board oversight.

Ralph Wyngarden, who represente­d Hemphill LLC, countered with a sobering take on how the Río Grande Gorge Bridge has been a scene to many suicides – both local and national – and said that more wireless coverage was necessary in the area in order to assist police and other emergency responders with better and faster communicat­ions.

While the two sides made their cases, there was a looming question that everyone seemed to be dancing around: What about possible effects of radiation?

When the meeting opened for public comment, one resident noted the lack of conversati­on around potentiall­y dangerous wireless frequencie­s. She said that she loves where she lives, and that she doesn’t want to see the local wildlife population as well as the animals who live on her property (specifical­ly her cat) affected by harmful radiation.

As soon as she mentioned “harmful radiation,” chairman Tom Blankenhor­n was quick to bring up the Telecommun­ications Act of 1996, which, in this specific case, prohibits local government­s from denying applicatio­ns such as Hemphill’s on the grounds of health and safety regulation­s.

With the discussion of potential physical effects off the table, public

commenters had to rely on other arguments against the installati­on of the tower. Several callers who live in the area in question said that the new tower was unnecessar­y for several reasons.

“I do not have problems getting service out in that area,” said Loyola Torres. She also added that the cell tower would be a visual blight. “There is nothing to obscure the cell tower from the line of view from my property,” said Torres. “I am planning to build a home and don’t want a cell tower in the future that will have a negative impact on my views.”

Another public commenter, Karl Anderson, brought up that if they can’t talk about radiation due to the Telecommun­ications Act of 1996 then maybe it would be time to review such a law. “This law is 24 years old, maybe the town can put pressure on the government,”

suggested Anderson.

After much back and forth, including accusation­s of an incomplete applicatio­n by Jaramillo (which the Zoning Committee denied), it seemed as if the commission had made up its mind.

The one dissenting voice was that of vice chair O’Donnell, who questioned Wyngarden about whether Hemphill had sought proper permission­s from local agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Río Grande del Norte National Monument.

She also asked about their ongoing plan, which includes the question of who would absorb the expensive bills that would pay for the equipment needed by emergency services.

Eventually, the commission and Wyngarden seemed to settle upon a deal that will have Hemphill LLC

conduct a frequency test upon installati­on, and provide a checkup and rediagnosi­s on the levels of radiation emitted from the tower every three years.

As the commission closed its session with a final vote, it was clear that Hemphill LLC would retain the right to build the 4G LTE cellphone tower. With the final vote called, just O’Donnell voted nay. Obviously upset by the outcome, she signed off promptly.

The cell tower is expected to provide service for Verizon customers when traveling through the Gorge Bridge area and help emergency services with their communicat­ions while dealing with casualties at the gorge. With this decision leaving many Taoseños upset, the arguments against the tower and 5G technology don’t seem to be going anywhere.

 ??  ??
 ?? COURTESY PHOTO ?? Taos County commission­ers and staff discuss an appeal by Nick Jaramillo. a representa­tive for a landowner adjacent to the installati­on site, of an approved cell tower applicatio­n during a Tuesday (Sept. 22) special board meeting.
COURTESY PHOTO Taos County commission­ers and staff discuss an appeal by Nick Jaramillo. a representa­tive for a landowner adjacent to the installati­on site, of an approved cell tower applicatio­n during a Tuesday (Sept. 22) special board meeting.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States