Ely's leaders need to ask for options on the cell tower

Some folks suggest that outsiders questioning the proposed Fernberg cell tower are pegging us Elyites as second class citizens. But what's really making us out to be hicks is that our township and county leaders are too weak-kneed to ask the tough questions of AT&T that would show we've got a little political savvy.

The days when communities would grovel for cell service are long gone. Nowadays cell companies are scrambling to fill the last remaining service pockets, and they're willing to wheel and deal when community leaders show a little moxie. When communities insist on alternatives to unsightly towers with flashing strobes and beacons, phone companies increasingly find them.

Vacation communities around the country have gotten phone companies to provide cell service without diminishing the scenic qualities that are key to their economic base. These towns are near nature reserves, state parks or along coastal highways -- areas with nowhere near the protection of a federally protected wilderness area. Nonetheless, they've leveraged their concerns to not only secure concessions regarding the towers but also in some cases to secure leases worth tens of thousands per year.

Given that we've got vastly more leverage up here with the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), AT&T must be chortling with glee that it hasn't had to battle any community resistance. It probably can't believe its good luck that local township and county leaders are doing its dirty work by ridiculing those who have raised questions about the tower, rather than raising questions themselves of AT&T.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act allows local jurisdictions to set maximum heights for towers. Many areas now restrict towers to under 200 feet, the height that triggers FCC requirements for lights to warn aircraft. One tall, flashing tower on the Fernberg may mean AT&T can outcompete other phone companies, but two shorter unlit towers might provide ample phone coverage for area residents. We don't know, because our community leaders have not pressed AT&T for options.

Recent court decisions strengthen community leverage, placing a burden of proof upon phone companies to present all alternative tower options upon community request. But none of our community leaders are requesting that. Perhaps it's just the typical knee-jerk reaction: "If the tree-huggers are against it, we're for it -- no matter what it is."

And perhaps it doesn't much matter in this case. After all, the neon strobes on this tower will be an annoyance to only a few hundred lodge guests, fisherman and canoe campers and will lure a few hundred birds to their death each year.(The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the nation's 200,00 cell phone towers are responsible for up to 50 million bird fatalities annually.) And perhaps we're willing to tolerate that, if AT&T proves there is no alternative.

The real worry here is that if our local leaders don't have the backbone to leverage concessions from a phone company or even just ask a few questions, what confidence can we have that they'll go to bat for us when there are huge issues at stake -- like our entire watershed? Are they just going to roll over and play dead if PolyMet and Duluth Metals fail to provide the assurances we need that toxic metals will never leach into our lakes and rivers? Are they going to poke fun at conservationists rather than take the mining companies to task if it's apparent that copper-nickel mining may place our economic base at risk and threaten the health of our grandchildren?

The phone and mining companies have one mission: to make money. Our community leaders have another: to ensure that's done without compromising our quality of life. Let's hope they rise to the task and show we're not pushovers.

----

Author/adventurer Paul Schurke and wife Susan have operated Wintergreen Northern Wear and Wintergreen Dogsled Lodge near Ely for over 20 years.

Gallery

Fullscreen SlidePrevious Slide

1 of 1

Next Slide