Park cell towers' threat
A new Allegheny County ordinance that opens the door for cellphone towers in county parks could greatly affect county residents' livelihood and investments ( “Cell tower plan puts South Park residents on edge” ). A proposal by LJS Development to build a 190-foot cell tower only yards away from where residents sleep, students learn and young people play is strongly opposed by South Park citizens. The proposed tower would be on park property at the corner of the heavily trafficked Ridge and McCorkle roads. This area is not zoned for a cell tower.
According to studies by The Appraisal Institute, cell towers negatively affect homes' property values. In addition, federal government-commissioned studies concluding the safety of cell towers did not examine humans over a long period. The bottom line: Whether fact or fiction, there is a perceived health concern that drives away homebuyers. The thousands of taxpayers who bought or built homes alongside parks did so because of the promise of undisturbed, beautiful park views and historically proven, stable increases in property values. Cell towers erected nearby would threaten our investment.
As taxpayers and citizens, we have a right to not only oppose this tower, but to ensure that all citizens who live near county parks are aware that cell towers could be proposed in their backyards, too.
The writer is president of South Park Residents United (email@example.com).
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.