Oak Grove residents oppose cell tower construction
By LaReeca Rucker

Oak Grove residents went to court Wednesday to procure a preliminary injunction that would halt construction of a cellular phone tower in their neighborhood.

Dorothy Wade, a plaintiff in the case and member of the The Concerned Citizens of the Oak Grove Community group, asked Chancery Court Judge John C. Ross Jr., to issue an injunction, temporarily halting plans to construct a 330 ft. tower on County Road 121 outside the city limits on leased property adjoining Oak Grove M.B. Church until the case could be heard.

They argued that if Signal One, the company planning to construct the tower, is allowed to do so, it will become a nuisance and a danger, as well as an eyesore in the residential area.

Signal One representative Sean Caskie maintains that construction of the tower will not be harmful to the community and will represent a move into the 20th century for the residents, as well as provide safety by creating a new cell phone service that would make 911 available for more cellular customers. He said if a temporary injunction is issued, the company stands to lose a client, the potential revenue generated by the client, and more than $120,000 due to a five year lease the company is already locked into.

The judge heard testimony from both sides Wednesday morning, and later that afternoon, announced that a decision would be made shortly. Oak Grove resident George Keys, a retired Air Force officer and former New Albany policeman, lives directly across from the tower site and Oak Grove Church. He testified that he believes the flashing light on the tower, a Federal Aviation Administration requirement, would be a nuisance and that the tower’s erection would make his property value depreciate. He said he was also afraid the tower might fall in his front yard. Keys said eight families live in the neighborhood, and the tower would affect the lives of approximately 125 residents.

Defense attorney Les Sumners said another tower once stood near the proposed cell tower site, and asked Keys why Oak Grove residents took no action against the owners of the radio station who built it.Keys said residents were unaware of plans to construct the tower until construction had already begun, and residents, at that time, did not know they could take action to stop the company.

Wade, a retired elementary school teacher, expressed similar concerns, and made consistent statements regarding the first tower’s construction. She has lived in the community all her life, and said, the tower would be diagonally positioned across the road from her home.

“It’s a residential community, very well kept,” she said. “We usually try to work together. No matter what’s going on, we try to support each other, and we never do anything that is offensive to one another. It’s going to be a problem because the flashing lights will be flashing and blinking during church services. The mechanisms will be where the children are playing.”

Wade said the previous radio tower caused many problems, including interference with the church Intercom system and residential televisions and telephones.“We didn’t know what the problems were going to be or how to go about taking action,” she said. “We do not want to experience those same problems.”

Caskie, vice president of business development for the Chattanooga-based Signal One, has worked for the company for the last three years and been involved in cellular signal transmission work since 1994. His job is to oversee and manage the company’s site regulations, zoning and real estate issues. He testified that in order to maintain a FCC license, a cellular phone company must provide service to 75 percent of the geographic population.

The cellular phone company in question is TriTell, a division of Suncom, and Signal One wants to own and operate TriTell’s cellular telecommunications tower.Caskie said there are currently seven companies licensed to provide cellular service in this area. The tower would have very little operating equipment, except for the FAA required light, and it will cost approximately $300,000 to complete.

It is scheduled to be delivered Nov. 12 and operational by Dec. 31. If construction does not begin on the tower then, Signal One will not be able to use the site and will lose approximately $120,000 a year in a five-year lease, costing approximately $350 a month. Caskie said a delay could mean losing the entire operation.

He addressed Wade’s and Key’s concerns about potential problems caused by the tower, saying it will not cause interference and will not create a lot of wind noise.“There would be wind noise in extreme weather conditions,” he said, “but trees and tin roofs would make much more noise.”

An air conditioner installed in worker shelters during tower construction is the only other thing that Caskie said could produce noise. And the tower, an unmanned installation, would only require one visit each month for maintenance work. In his redirection, plaintiffs’ attorney Bill Rutledge said Caskie had not visited the proposed tower site and could not know, first hand, what kind of impact it would have on residents.

Caskie said the tower would be safe, and the company has every right to erect it because it was approved by their customer and met federal and state guidelines.“I understand that this is upsetting to them, and I feel for them,” he said. “I am sympathetic. But it represents an improvement in the infrastructure of this community, to the safety of this community, and it represents a move into the 20th century.” Approximately 75 percent of Signal One’s towers are located in residential areas, he said.

On Oct. 29, Judge Ross issued a temporary restraining order, instructing the defendants to desist and refrain from construction of the tower. According to documents supplied by Rutledge, the phone company plans to erect a 330 foot tower equipped with a strobe light that will flash during the day and a red light that will flash at night.

The plaintiffs allege that the proposed tower and/or it’s supporting structure will be located near the property line, placing the structure only a few feet from the proposed site of the church’s Family Life Center and close to multiple residents.

They also believe the tower will depreciate the value of their homes and realty, and their quality of life. They are afraid it might also expose members of the community to radio waves or cell phone signals that may have medically harmful effects.

Caskie said Wednesday no study he has read has shown that cell phone signals create health problems.

E-mail LaReeca about this story