By: Jerry Woloshyn
If you ever thought the City of Winnipeg held public opinion in high esteem, you may want to think again.
It is now dawning on the residents of Winnipeg’s Fairfield Park that their viewpoints are of little significance to the city’s planning, property and development department, or to telecommunications giant Bell MTS.
Bell MTS plans to erect a highly visible freestanding cell tower in the front yard of Grace Christian Church at 50 Barnes St. Residents of Fairfield Park and the surrounding communities are now asking themselves whether they are suffering from a bad case of déjà vu.
In 2016, telecommunications powerhouse Rogers Communications made a similar proposal to construct a cell tower on the exact same church site. After a flood of public protest, Rogers decided to yield to public pressure and abandon the proposal. A petition, circulated then to oppose the cell tower, generated over 1,000 signatures from local residents.
Eight years later, residents are now reliving a Groundhog Day-style experience, yet this time it’s one with a marked difference.
In 2016, Rogers undertook a highly transparent campaign to notify the public. They hosted a public “town hall” style presentation which was well publicized and, consequently, well attended. In addition, they notified residents in nearby condominium properties of the proposal via mail or hand-delivered notice. And finally, they also widely advertised the proposal by public notice in local newspapers.
This time around, none of those forms of public notification was undertaken by Bell MTS.
It is true Bell MTS did post a notice board on the proposed site, but then situated it in such a manner that few could read it. The sign was erected parallel to the roadway and approaching motorists were only able to see the outside edge of the sign. In addition, the sign was unapproachable by foot traffic, as it was posted in a rutted field with no sidewalk. For anyone with mobility issues, access to read it would be impossible.
And finally, in another action which limited it from being read, the sign was taken down days after the minimum notice period expired.
When questioned about the lack of public notice, the city’s planning, property and development department was quick to point out that public notices were sent out. And indeed a tiny handful were. A grand total of eight notices were sent out: one to the church itself, one to the owner of the Fairfield Apartments, four to BMO Life Assurance for Loblaws (Superstore); one to MPI and one to the University of Manitoba. They sent none to residents who live, breathe and sleep in the vicinity of the proposed tower.
When questioned why the city would waive all conventional forms of public notice for this proposal, no clear answer was provided. The planning department did emphasize, however, that it was empowered to waive any and all manner of public notice, should it decide to do so.
For Winnipeg taxpayers though, this is entirely unacceptable.
Tenants of the Fairfield Apartments, who reside within the federal government’s “prescribed distance” (three times the height of the proposed tower) are still in the dark because no notice was issued to them. Furthermore, the roughly 900 residents who live within a radius of one city block from the proposed site were not issued notice either.
Yet another pressing concern was raised by nearby Southeast Personal Care Home in respect to possible electrical interference to life-saving medical equipment and other sensitive devices, such as pacemakers, hearing aids and vital sign monitors. This concern has basically been ignored by both the city and Bell MTS.
Perhaps Bell MTS may yet prove to be a good community partner and come to the same decision as Rogers and withdraw their application to erect this cell tower. Or perhaps they may not. It would appear that other placement options are available to them.
Or perhaps Bell MTS may yet decide to invite broader public participation by hosting an open information meeting. Likely, time will soon tell whether Bell MTS and the city’s planning department invite public input or choose to keep this proposal under its current ‘cone of silence.’
The city’s longtime mandate to locate freestanding cell towers on commercial, industrial, or institutional grounds may also be in jeopardy.
Unless the city decides to make widespread public consultation in residential areas a requirement that cannot be waived, you may, too, soon be on the lookout for a cell tower coming to a backyard near you.
Jerry Woloshyn is the president of the Barnes Area Residents Committee.
source : https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/2024/11/28/cell-towers-and-public-input
