Vote No Or You Will Go

Vote No Or You Will Go
Staff editorial

At the Sept. 17 council meeting, one resident at the public microphone warned council members, “Vote no or you will go,” regarding the Wireless Master Plan. He indicated residents can replace council members who don’t heed the pleas of their constituents. He added, “There’s something sleazy and underhanded about the wireless plan. Why aren’t we more informed?”

The meeting offered more contention than usual. Animosity between council members has been building lately, especially between Ury and Reavis, who are both up for reelection in 2008. Ury has acted sullen and quiet after being bypassed as mayor in January of this year. Reavis has been more diplomatic than usual, overly polite at times and going along rather than offering resistance to bad ideas – the quality that got her elected.

Following are various comments or summaries of comments by public speakers:

  1. “The city gave ATS $200,000 to create a Wireless Master Plan. Don’t permit cherry-picking of parks – protecting only some of them while others become targets for cell towers.”
  2. “I don’t see any indication of signal strength in this report. Tell me the page number where I can find this information. Also, the report doesn’t account for different frequencies – global or limited.”
  3. San Clemente resident Joe Thompson, the sole defender of ATS and the Wireless Master Plan, whose employer is Team Mobile: “I represent the silent majority.”
  4. “The cell towers (RF waves) might be the asbestos of our generation.”
  5. “RF is the same as your microwave. Would you operate your microwave with the door open?”
  6. Referring to the ATS consultant who discounted health risks, “After hearing from the science professor you brought in (for an earlier meeting), what listeners concluded is that studies are inconclusive.”
  7. Regarding the $14,000 P.R. contract to Paul Glaab to engender a positive outcome for the cell tower plan, “The positive outcome in this case would be for the council to listen to the residents. You can terminate the contract without cause – that’s what the contract states.”

Interesting comments coming from the council and city staff:

  1. Council Members Kelley, MacLean and Ury, as well as the city attorney, all referred to the Wireless Master Plan as “just a study.” MacLean: “Residents are victims of terminology.”
  2. Ury: “This is the way the process is supposed to work. We balance the needs of the community with the needs of the community.”
  3. Ury: “I sat down with a resident [who is concerned about cell towers in parks], and we’re going to remove the exclusion regarding private sites.” (We’ll give ATS an even better deal, putting cell towers on private property, and we’ll blame the concerned resident for bringing this upon the community.)
  4. Ledesma (objecting to the plan): “We’re giving ATS a monopoly for towers on city property and now allowing him to compete with private property.”
  5. Reavis (objecting to the exclusion of only a few parks instead of all parks): “We’re all in or we’re all out.” “I’m voting against it because it’s a flawed document and it’s unclear. I don’t agree we should receive and file.”
  6. MacLean: “We’re going to lose our rights. Decisions will be taken over by the state.”
  7. MacLean wouldn’t let it go when Reavis voted against the plan. He became agitated and hostile. He talked over her and then engaged in a tag-team attack with Ury against Reavis.
  8. Ury to Reavis: “You’re not being articulate about what the heartburn is.” Ury usurped control of the meeting at one point, directing the city attorney to speak, but he got no response.
  9. Ury: “I think it comes down to trust. I think the community doesn’t trust some of the things we’re thinking about.”

Finally, Ury gets it. This council cannot be trusted with any decision, and particularly an important one involving health and safety risks, property values, aesthetics and misuse of city parks.