Letter From Rockfordrnby Scott P. RichertrnThe Tower of BabblernThe first call conies late on a Fridayrnnight. “Welcome back,” says Mark Dahlgren,rnthe organist at St. Mary’s Shrine,rnwho is nine months through the one yearrnof probation he received for hugging arntree at Tom and Jan Ditzler’s farm (seern”For Keeps! A Christian Defense of Property,”rnViews, April). “You probablyrnhaven’t heard the news.”rn”What news?” I ask, dreading the tonernof his voice.rn”Oh, it’s nothing really. The cit}’ justrnwants to put a cell tov’er in m frontrnyard.”rnWell, not exactlv, but close enough:rnThe City of Rockford has entered intornnegotiations with Vertical Partners, arnMinnesota company that sells space onrncell towers to muldple cellular providers.rnVertical Partners wants to market 13 sitesrnaroimd Rockford, most of them at cit}’rnwells. One of those sites. City Well No.rn10, sits less than 100 feet across the streetrnfrom Mark’s house; the picture windowrnin his living room faces the well.rn”Are you going to help us or not?”rnI have to admit that I have no particularrnanimus against cell phones. I havernstayed away from them mainly because Irndo not want people to be able to reachrnme at their convenience. Shll, if I couldrnsnap my fingers and make all computers,rntelevisions, and cell phones disappear, Irnwould happily do so. As long as we havernthem around, however, I would not mindrnowning a Titanium PowerBook with arncable modem.rnMark is particularly concerned aboutrnthe potenhal health risks of cellular radiationrnand a possible drop in property values.rnWhile there is no strong evidencernthat living near a cell tower might lead tornillness, that may be because the technolog-rnis too new, and because the evolvingrnnature of cellular communications makesrnan extensive longitudinal study nearlyrnimpossible. I can understand wanting tornerr on the side of caution, and I have norndoubt that a house with a 150-foot cellrntower marring its view would decline inrnvalue.rnThere is a larger principle at stake,rnhowever—the same one that led Markrnto join in the fight to stop WinnebagornCounty Board Chairman Kris Cohn’srnplan to extend Pernville Road (see “Notrnin Your Back Yard,” Letter From Rockford,rnMay). Wh’ should the Dahlgrcnsrnand their neighbors have to put up with arncell tower for the convenience and enrichmentrnof others?rn”Pm happ)’ to help, but I doubt vou’rerngoing to win this one,” I tell Mark. “Mostrnpeople are going to be like me—relahvelyrnunconcerned about the health risks.rnAs for property values, if their homernwon’t be affected, they probably won’trncare.”rn”What about all those people whornshowed up to fight Perryville? Won’trnthey come down to help?”rn”Why should they? Just because yournwent up there? The only reason anyonernwho doesn’t live near one of these towersrnmight get upset over this issue would be ifrnthe city were trying to pull a fast one. Butrnit doesn’t sound like they are.”rnWhen the second call comes a fewrndays later, I discover I may have spokenrntoo soon. (By now, after almost six yearsrnhere in Rockford, I should know thatrnthere is always more to the story thanrnwhat is reported in the local Cannett paper.)rnSharon Schuldt, a local activist, isrnon the other end of the line.rn”I just got off die phone with FinarrnP’orsnian” —Rockford’s cit)’ administratorrn—”and he told me these cell towersrnare a done deal. Apparent!}’, the city hasrna written agreement with Vertical Partners.rnHe also said that the cit- can’trnrefuse to approve a cell-tower site basedrnon health concerns.”rn”I wonder where he’s getting thatrnfrom? The cih’ ought be able to rejectrnsites for almost any reason.”rnI mention the agreement to Mark’srnwife, Cecelia, and she picks up a copyrnfrom the city administrator’s otfice thatrnafternoon. Later, Mark calls me.rn”There doesn’t seem to be much inrnhere. It doesn’t mention not being ablernto deny a site permit because of healthrnconcerns.”rn”How long is it? Read it to me.”rnIt quickly becomes obvious why FinarrnForsman thought the cell towers were arndone deal. Under the agreement, therncih’ had provided Vertical Partners (referredrnto as “VRE”) wirii a list of sites onrnv’hic]i the compan’ could consider placingrncell towers. Vertical Partners tiienrnconducted some initial studies and gaernthe city a list (the “Database”) of the 13rnsites the compan}’ vanted to market.rnParagraph four of tiie agreement readsrn(in part):rnWithin thirt)’ (30) Da}’s of receiptrnof such Database, the Public Entit}’rnshall provide written notice to VRFrnof any Sites the Public Entity, in itsrnsole discretion, deems inappropriaternor unfeasible for use as a Site.rnAny Sites the Public Entity does notrnreject by providing written notice tornVRE on or before the expirationrndate of the thirt}’ (30) Day periodrnwill be deemed to be approved by thernPublic Entity. … The Public Entit’rnagrees to work with VRE to developrnalternative Sites for those locationsrnthe Public Entih’ hasrndeemed insensitive or unsuitablern[italics mine].rn”What’s the date on the agreement?”rn”June 12. Why?”rn”Well, the sites were announced backrnon June 5 or 6, but the 30 days can’t startrnuntil the agreement is signed. Still, thatrnmeans the cih’ council has to notify’ VerticalrnPartners in writing by July 12 that it’srnrejecting the sites. Otherwise, VerticalrnPartners can start marketing them, andrnthen this tiling is a done deal.”rn”But today’s July 5!”rn”And the council only meets oncernmore before July 12, on Alonday.”rnMark calls up Chris Bowman, a talkshowrnhost for local radio station WNTA,rnwho immediately recognizes the importancernof the agreement. The next day,rnthe Dahlgrcns, Janine Schneider (a fcl-rn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn