Petition Against Proposed Cranston Cell Tower

Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

We have heard many residents express the desire to distribute a petition to document those in Cranston who are opposed to the construction of the 30m cell phone monopole tower at 433 Cranberry Park.

For those who would like to participate, please feel free to click this link to download: CellTowerPetition, print and distribute to your friends and neighbors in the community (if you will be trick-or-treating with your children, consider taking the petition with you).

The Cranston CA will collect all original signed petitions for forwarding to the appropriate ministry and stakeholders for consideration.  You can either drop off completed petitions at the Cranston Community Association mail drop slot located in the basement of Century Hall, or email cranstonca@gmail.com for pick-up arrangements.

Here are some cell tower facts:

  • There is a need for increased service to Rogers customers in Cranston, and we have received feedback of this nature from Cranston residents.  There is no evidence that this cannot be done by other means (i.e. with a different tower location, or smaller towers/antennas or by partnering with other networks) and Rogers has not presented any alternatives to the community.
  • Rogers first approached the Cranston Residents Association (Century Hall) and the Sobey’s to construct a cell tower on their private property.  Both parties rejected the proposal from Rogers.
  • The approval for the tower was granted by the board of the condo association at 433 Cranberry Park.  The condo association is being compensated by Rogers in a lease agreement.
  • Only those within a 300m radius of the proposed tower needed to be notified of the Open House held on October 27.  There is no obligation to notify other Cranston residents, however feedback from all members of the community must be forwarded and considered in the Rogers Communications Inc. submissions to Industry Canada.
  • Rogers has the ability to alter the aesthetic appearance of a cell phone tower.  For example, if approved for construction, it could be built to look like a windmill to fit the community architectural standards.

Thanks,

Michelle MacKenzie, President

Cranston Community Association

15 Comments

  • I’m totally against the tower and don’t understand why it should be built very close to houses!! It’s dangerous to kids and Cranston is family oriented community… There is lots of empty space just outside of the city that they can use. Please do NOT put the tower there 🙁 thank you

  • I am and so are everyone that I have talked to strongly against such a tower in our community. It is absolutely ugly and will not only drop our property values or the ability to sell our homes, it is also known to be a health hazard and I feel it is not in the communities best interest to have it there. If you would like to talk to me just call at 403-629-1543.
    On a separate note I would like to talk to someone about the community fence beside my house that is falling apart. Talk to you soon.

  • I live just down the street from where Rogers is proposing to build the large 30m tower. About a year ago we had TELUS try to install a tower on our condominium property. More than 75% of the residents in our building refused it. Although Health Canada has its standards, our countries standards under Code 6 are much lower than other countries’ standards around the world. I did a lot of research into this topic and there are studies that show that it had a very negative effect on babies, children, and especially the elderly. A 30m tower with additional antennas, 2 maybe even more will be added, will have a definite health effect on the students who will attend the middle school right next to it in the future. Also, the residents in the condominium will certainly be affected. Further, all those who go shopping to Sobeys will be affected as the tower will be built right behind Sobeys. Some of the health effects that have been found in scientific studies include, headaches, leukemia in children, brain tumours, brain cancer and other types of cancers due to radiation. Even though the owners where the cell tower is proposed to be built will receive around $30, 000 or $40, 000 for a whole year, in the end this amount divided by all the residents living there (200 or so) will really be maybe $25 a month….$25 a month difference in condo fees is really not that big of a deal. My children’s health and the health of my community is more important than any monetary amount. The tower can easily be built by the road if Rogers was really willing to make an effort and willing to do what is best for the interest of the Cranston Community. I don’t want this cell phone tower here. Thank you!!! Plus, there is evidence to prove that our property values will go down. This is a beautiful community. Please let’s keep it that way and let’s keep our property values up. Anyone living close to the tower or on the property of the tower will surely lose money on their property. Let’s be one of the Community’s in Calgary that is cell tower free.

    • Rogers is has approached our condo board and I am strongly against their proposal. Would you be willing to share some of the websites/studies you found so I can take it forward to our condo association?

  • Does anyone know why they have to choose the core, geographic centre of a neighbourhood as the antenna location? (besides the radial spread of signal waves?). I have checked the locations of other cell towers and most of them are placed towards the back end of the neighbourhoods by the highway… NOT behind a shopping mall. (http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html)
    I am just stunned about the fact that Rogers went very quietly getting only the consultation going with the people at the condos and by negotiating a “reduced condo fee”. I live within the 300 meters of the antenna location and we were never consulted. Plus, this should be a matter of consultation to the whole neighbourhood and not just the condo building and the two blocks of homes on each side, which is truly a very small amount of population to get approval from. I am truly sorry that this is going to happen as there was not enough people informed and opposing. I myself have been twitting and publishing on Facebook and talking to people everywhere I go; and sincerely, most people seemed even happy that their phone connectivity was going to be improved (?!) I even had a group on a certain site coming back very rudely about me trying to gain awareness over this issue. In any case, tomorrow Nov 5 is the deadline and all I’m doing left is sending an e-mail to Industry Canada to leave public record of my concerns and disapproval.

    • As an owner of one of these condo units, I am very concerned about how the 75 % vote in favor was obtained. On the first vote, I voted NO, because I questioned a condo board representative, if this project was to be given the go ahead, would that reduce the monthly condo fees, since some $40,000. were to be given to the condo board in exchange for a yes vote, on a yearly basis. The answer I got back was NO, it will not reduce the monthly fees, which by the way are close to $400. a month. Therefore I voted NO. Now I hear a second vote was placed, and as an owner, I did not receive notification of a second vote. My question is, did all the signatures regarding the second vote belong to owners, and not renters? Since it is the owner who has the authority to vote. If this affects the entire community of Cranston, which it does, then some authority from the city should be monitoring the vote process and ballots cast. The Alderman who is suppose to be representing this community, should be all over this, ensuring that a democratic process has in fact taken place. Which does not seem to be happening, nor does there seem to be any policing of these condo boards in the city of Calgary.

      • I would like to know what is deadline to submit the signed petition regarding cell tower issue? I have just learned about that a couple of days ago. I am willing to go visit all my neighbors and try to collect as many signatures as possible. Thanks.

        Miroslav Mandic

  • The issues of RF and property values will not resonate with Industry Canada. The accepted reasearch doesn’t support these arguements. The issue that will resonate with Industry Canada is that Rodgers does not appear to have followed Industry Canada’s siting process. Rodgers has not proposed an alternate site, nor have they exhausted options to colocate on existing towers, structures, and buildings.

  • Cell Tower Radiation Has Also Been Linked To:
    Headaches,
    Memory loss,
    Low sperm count,
    Cancer, birth defects,
    Heart conditions,
    Alzheimer’s.
    I am against this tower. Not in my backyard.

  • We are also strongly opposed to this cell tower, first of all and most importantly because of the health risks, and secondly, it will be an eye sore. But even if Rogers altered its appearance, we would still be dead set against it.
    We personally know individuals whose health has been extremely compromised due to electromagnetic frequencies. We do not want our children to be at risk, nor any other people in our community. Of course Rogers and the government tell us it is safe. The government and big corporations tell us many things we should not believe.

  • I think most of the resident within the 300 m have not been notified appropriately. We all should be informed and have a chance to vote.

    • The actual notification area only needs to be 3 times the tower height, which is 90m. So those in the extra 210m radius didn’t actually need to be notified to begin with. Everyone received the same notification for the meeting on October 27th. Very few people showed up, so don’t complain if you didn’t show up to learn what was going on.

  • The OWNERS and the BOARD at these CARDEL condos should be ashamed and embarrassed over seeking profit and the glorified promise of reduced or no condo fees in exchange of the cell tower in their lot vs consideration of the entire community.

    Not only ROGERS but also TELUS and BELL (and others) would use the tower for multiple access points for cell and satellite signals. There are plenty of other options and locations to consider placing this, but simply triangulating the distance markers from the opposing towers to decide that dead centre in the middle of an established community is the ideal spot for an (initial) 30m tower is ludicrous.

    Signals ARE needed, location needed to be better thought out, and the tactics used by both the company seeking the tower, and the board who was very narrow-sighted in their approach, requires further scrutiny at many levels to prevent this happening in other places.

    Hopefully, the VOICE of the WHOLE of the community will be heard over the promise of $$ and the NEW location will be a better compromise for all of CRANSTON.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *