Roswell residents crying foul over proposed URS tower

[CapStar362]

no, not really.... there are towers in almost 2K Feet even some that EXCEED 2K feet.

List of tallest structures in the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that list right there has a 2K foot tower in GA,

WCTV Tower 609.6 m (2,000 ft) 1987 Guyed mast VHF-UHF transmission United States U.S. Metcalf, Georgia Tallest structure in Georgia 30°40′14.0″N 83°56′26″W


to further detail the lights as misguided in the stopthetower website............

according to FAA/FCC Combined rules.... during daytime High Intensity Operation they are spaced like this:

regulations limit the use of medium-intensity lights to towers fewer than 500 feet above ground. Towers taller than 350 feet have a set of white strobe lights at 200 feet above the ground or at their midpoint, whichever is higher. Towers from 200 to 350 feet have a single white strobe on their top. Towers from 500 to 700 feet require the same lighting configuration as the red obstruction lights but display high-intensity white strobes.

for the low intensity reds -

regulations require pilots to stay at least 500 feet from a structure. Towers are required to have two non-flashing lights mounted opposite each other at each tower level for orientation purposes. Towers from 500 to 700 feet have one solid red light mounting at their midpoint. Towers from 700 to 1,051 feet have two equally spaced levels. Towers from 1,051 to 1,400 feet have three equally placed levels, while towers from 1,401 and 1,751 feet have four levels. The tallest towers, from 1,751 to 2,200 feet, have five levels of solid red lights. Each tower is topped with a flashing red light.


hours of operation for White High Intensity Strobes are usually between peak daylight hours. determined by when the sun is about to crest the horizon for sunrise and vise-verse just before the sunset is passing, based on local environmental effects. anything else is Red or low/Medium Intensity White with directional Filters to hamper downward white light shadows and flashing effects.








POST:

i found in that list, there are two towers about 2 miles apart from eachother in GA.. . i also found that the US has the tallest radio tower in the world. in North dakota.

Here are the towers:

In order as displayed:

2K Exact Tower

its little brother coming in at 1993 Feet

the distance between them

and KVLY-TV In North Dakota the TALLEST Radio Tower in the world. coming in at 2063 Feet which has its own Wiki : KVLY-TV mast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kg4ojj]

.....and the WCTV tower carries an amateur radio repeater, too....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[RoswellVoter]

The "other sites" do not provide for adequate simulcast coverage without dramatically re-engineering the system and thus, increasing cost exponentially. You see, LMR sites for simulcast coverage for P25 is not like going to Best Buy and putting up WiFi access points. With CQPSK digital, sites have to overlap in precisely calculated locations and there are limitations on the distance, spacing between sites, power levels, etc and delay spread for the coverage and DAQ desired. Of course your little flyer doesn't explain all this because the author knows absolutely ZERO about digital LMR system design.



It's not a technicality, it's state law. Government authorities do not need a special land use permit, they are exempt. Don't like it? Go call your state representative and get the law changed. Otherwise the school board would have to get an SLUP everytime they want to add seats to a high school gym or re-vamp a football field.

All your "anit-big gubment" conservatives would have a coronary at the though of that!



Again, there are technical parameters well above your comprehension level that are factors in preventing the designs for antenna structures you have in mind.

This isn't cellular or WiFi. It's part 90 LMR public safety radio.



Those same homes certainly are more affected when your police, fire and EMS workers are unsafe and will not enter your "modest and expensive" homes because they have unreliable radio communications because you don't want them to build out the system they need to perform their tasks in a safe manner.

Want to take a walking tour with me in your little town and I can demonstrate first hand how poor the current Smartnet analog system performs inside those "modest and expensive" homes in the area so you can gain a perspective you clearly do not have just how dire the situation is?



So what? Are you inferring that the city administrator acted improperly or illegally by using the authority given under state law? Better let Paul Howard know!

Since you are so concerned, where were you in 2000 when your county commissioners voted down funding for badly needed improvements to the King Rd site for the current county 800MHz system? You see, this is a problem that has LONG been ignored.



It certainly does need to be there. Again, when you actually understand RF propagation, Project 25 CQPSK simulcast system design, LMR coverage implementations, then you will gain some badly needed perspectives and see things in a much different light. When you understand that your public safety workers are struggling with an aged, poorly performing system installed close to 25 years ago that is becoming more and more unreliable as days go by, you will understand that this IS necessary and you will put your effort into supporting them and this project.



you should be thanking them. You live in a city that takes public safety seriously enough to fund life safety projects, provide top pay for their employees, and wants them to have what they need to protect you.

You could live where I do, where we have lost 120 officers to other agencies because they are underpaid, overworked, and struggling to keep up with an ever growing crime problem.

Advocate for taxpayers and citizens? Ha ha, tell me that again after I finish emptying my jar of Vaseline paying $397 million dollars of MY tax money to some out of state private, for profit corporation to build some race to waste stadium that NO ONE WHO LIVES HERE wants.

We were thrown out of a public meeting and our voices were silenced. When that happens to you, then come register on a forum and tell us about not being represented by your elected officials.

The Code in question is the City Code of Roswell, not Georgia Code. The state enacted the legislation to create the Authority. The City Code is what was to be followed by the City in approving the construction permits. Try again.

The Authority members themselves have stated that there were other working locations. You may have inferred something from what I stated, while I didn't even "imply" anything. We will voice our displeasure with their choice of locations when they meet Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. Again, we support the purpose of the Authority and system, just not the site selected from their choice of sites they identified as viable. We will support other sites which are located in commercial and industrial zone locations.

I'm sorry that you feel you must use personal attacks.

Good day...

 

[MTS2000des]

The Code in question is the City Code of Roswell, not Georgia Code. .

Doesn't matter. State law trumps city code anyday of the week. Thanks for playing.

The state enacted the legislation to create the Authority.

Right. I posted a link to that previously. Your point is?

The Authority members themselves have stated that there were other working locations.

Yes, there are other locations, and those locations impact the buildout of the network, and increase the cost of the system. That is a cost YOU and fellow taxpayers must bear. You left that part out.

Again, we support the purpose of the Authority and system, just not the site selected from their choice of sites they identified as viable.
.

So you don't dispute the technical reasons I have cited and accept that such alternate sites you demand impact system buildout in such a way that dramatically increase cost to taxpayers?

you are the typical consumer with a selfish mindset that wants to have their cake and eat it to.

Infrastructure is necessary to deliver RF coverage for services you need. I'm sorry you cannot accept reality. Your loss when the people who are protecting you don't have what they need to do their jobs.

Your cost to bear when the price of the system goes up substantially.

I am sure you will create some B.S. flyer whining about the tax increase next.

 

[prcguy]

I don't live in the area where this tower is being discussed and really don't care what happens except I would hope a proposed tower doesn't get rejected because of someones lies and misconceptions about RF levels, etc. In my mind its purely an aesthetic issue.

Where I live in So Cal we have local hills 1000ft + and not too distant mountains that are 6,000ft + with lots of repeaters on them. Most commercial towers in residential areas around here are usually not more than 100ft.

In the flatlands you must have very tall buildings or tall towers to make public service infrastructure to work, there is no way around it. The city should pick a good location for the tower based on performance vs surroundings and error on surroundings so you don't compromise needed coverage.

Maybe there is a better place for the tower and maybe not, but its kind of silly for anyone to even comment on how high the tower really needs to be unless your privy to all the system coverage needs and engineering data. Without that its just a bunch of BS being thrown around.
prcguy

 

[RoswellVoter]

OP hasn't read the state or city code. Local permitting of this tower was required, subject to references to some federal requirements. I make no radiation arguments. You should not make unfounded assumptions about facts or the beliefs of others.

Have a good day.

 

[RRR]

Wow, some of you are so whiny and arrogant, and for no reason I can tell, except big ego's. Purely absurd.

When a public agency enables encryption, the same ones of you will be crying foul, saying you deserve more public disclosure, yet you don't seem to be too concerned about the local residents and the lack of transparency from their local governments.

Amusing reading to say the least. But I think the real tragedy here is how longtime members treat first time posters, and others they don't agree with.

Life in the big city, I reckon.

 

[rapidcharger]

I own a home atop a ridge that has become a sought after place for towers (after I moved here), and I can certainly understand the drawbacks to living close to them, and there definitely ARE drawbacks (as well as benefits). I've tried to approach this (as well as the last one from a few months ago) with an open mind.

That being said, I pulled up the proposed site on google maps. Considering the enormous height of the tower (~~40 stories) I can definitely see why that would be an unavoidable thing to look at no matter the season for a particular neighborhood.

However, it's just that. One small neighborhood. And there is an existing tower that you can see there but you can see that too. So the view is already spoiled.

See...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/3...s_UKVDOb5GynyWJG6887bSg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

Now I was gonna say, that's just a case of poor planning which is typical of our crooked, sorry excuses for planners but I can't even say that. Again, that's one small neighborhood where if it weren't for that, the tower would be in the middle of friggin nowhere.

More accurately, it's a case of the home buyer failing to do their due diligence and see who owned the surrounding properties and what the potential uses were for those properties. In Georgia, that use is seldom keeping trees around.

I tend to favor citizens getting their way when they say they want/don't want something. But I hate to say it, that's going to be a tough battle.

I bet there were probably just as many, if not more people who were upset when that large tract in the middle of the woods became a subdivision. If you move out to the country, A.) Expect country STUFF (sights, sounds and smells- good and bad, mostly bad) B.)Expect more people to follow and more infrastructure like this and more unwanted development. C.) Expect it to look nothing like it did 10 years earlier than it does 10 years later.

I would suggest that those in attendance at the meeting that oppose the tower, propose that instead of using an elaborate, costly and overly complex 800/700 megahertz simulcast trunking system, that there wasn't anything wrong with the earlier analog conventional technologies that covered the hill country better with fewer and lower towers. Analog, conventional radio systems are still in use in many large cities. Much, much larger cities at that. Because what they are trying to do is more like one of those Afghanistan war radio systems.

The primary purpose of those Afghanistan/Iraq war radio systems is not for public safety. The primary purposes are to cost millions in taxpayer money, create more problems so more money can be wasted solving them, and keeping the police a secret highly militarized force at constant odds with the community.

There are other solutions.

 

[rapidcharger]

Wow, some of you are so whiny and arrogant, and for no reason I can tell, except big ego's. Purely absurd.

When a public agency enables encryption, the same ones of you will be crying foul, saying you deserve more public disclosure, yet you don't seem to be too concerned about the local residents and the lack of transparency from their local governments.

Amusing reading to say the least. But I think the real tragedy here is how longtime members treat first time posters, and others they don't agree with.

Life in the big city, I reckon.

Well hopefully I balanced that out. I thought my post was respectful of the new member and somewhat supportive, I might add.

 

[MTS2000des]

OP hasn't read the state or city code. Local permitting of this tower was required, subject to references to some federal requirements.
Have a good day.

Facts please. Links to municode, CFR, FCC...or troll elsewhere.

You should not make unfounded assumptions about facts or the beliefs of others.

Here is the system your police, fire and EMS users have been struggling with. Recorded directly off the air during a raging house fire in Sandy Springs.

Sandy Springs FD house fire radio traffic - YouTube

Now that you have perspective you clearly did not have prior, tell me again why you want to complicate a project that is to benefit YOUR safety. If that were YOUR house, would you NOT want those fighting the fire to have a RELIABLE RADIO SYSTEM? The tower is needed. Get over it.

Think VERY HARD about this. BTW, that video I recorded almost 2 YEARS ago. The Fulton county Smartnet system hasn't gotten any better.

 

[K4SVT]

Sounds like the system is failing...new one is needed...agreed with Mts2000des

Sent via LG G2 on Sprint 4G LTE Spark

 

[MTS2000des]

Wow, some of you are so whiny and arrogant, and for no reason I can tell, except big ego's. Purely absurd.

You know how right you are, by the number of insults you receive.

When a public agency enables encryption, the same ones of you will be crying foul, saying you deserve more public disclosure, yet you don't seem to be too concerned about the local residents and the lack of transparency from their local governments.

What does encryption have to do with the topic at hand? that is what I call absurd.

Amusing reading to say the least. But I think the real tragedy here is how longtime members treat first time posters, and others they don't agree with.
.

The real tragedy is how some sadly misinformed lay person has made it their personal mission in life to stonewall a project that benefits the life safety of people who are sworn to protect and serve THEM.This misdirected individual is only going to prolong the inevitable and not only cost his/her fellow taxpayers MORE MONEY, but will also stall a project that is way past it's completion date.

I've stuck to the issues at hand. I certainly am not the one trolling with some B.S. about encryption which isn't even relevant to the discussion in this thread.

 

[RRR]

Apparently you are struggling with "comparison" so i'll break it down for you; encryption being relevant here in the respect of open and transparent government that you wish in that case, v/s the case of the resident who wants it as well in his case.

Where are your facts, please? May I ask that you produce links or copies of the documents you claim to have read, since all you have offered is "prior experience with other systems" and "Privileged" inside peeks at documents related to the system (wink wink)

I agree, -Produce facts, please. Or troll elsewhere......

 

[MTS2000des]

Apparently you are struggling with "comparison" so i'll break it down for you; encryption being relevant here in the respect of open and transparent government that you wish in that case, v/s the case of the resident who wants it as well in his case.
..

Apples to oranges. This thread has NOTHING to do with encryption. Draw whatever parallels in your own mind you wish to justify your trolling.

Where are your facts, please? May I ask that you produce links or copies of the documents you claim to have read, since all you have offered is "prior experience with other systems" and "Privileged" inside peeks at documents related to the system (wink wink)

The documents are not on any website. I already stated that. I provided links which YOU can fill out and submit to those who have them and they will provide them. It is not my responsibility to hold your hand. I ASSUME the same web browser that brings you here will work on the links I previously provided.

I already stated I have seen them in person by someone directly involved with this and another concurrent project. If you don't believe me, that's your problem.

I'll tell you this, I manage a similar existing site and what the flyer author says about exemptions to SLUP's is nonsense. Plenty of examples of this are all around you everyday, and not just radio tower structures either.

 

[RRR]

Nice sidestep.

I'm done with this conversation, apparently no useful information or facts will be offered by you, even when you demanded facts from others, and continued pointless debate on this topic is obviously aimed at meaningless personal attacks instead of providing requested information.

 

[RoswellVoter]

Well hopefully I balanced that out. I thought my post was respectful of the new member and somewhat supportive, I might add.

Yes, thank you. There is currently a tower at about half the height that is not a factor for most of the homes. The new tower is quite different, however, in that it adds a tower in many views. Some will be at light level to the tower from many windows. There is also a 250+ acre tract which was just sold for development which will be impacted.

Again, the sites the Authority acknowledged were also workable do not impact residential neighborhoods in this way. Those properties, however, were not private land leases carved out of a farm, and would have required public notice/discourse and city council approval for the change of use. City Council members have complained that they were under the impression that the Lackey Road site was discussed with residents, and we'e disappointed to learn it was not. The alternative sites had potential for revenue for the City, as the Authority has a cost sharing arrangement which could have resulted in offsetting income to support other LEO related activities. The City of Atlanta did this for a connected project by colocating equipment on an existing structure.

 

[CapStar362]

what dont you get RRR, he CANNOT provide that info himself, it has to be done through official channels.... but i guess you dont care about that.... you want him to break the law and lose his career for your personal benefit.... GLAD your leaving the topic, delete your HDD as well. DoD Level 10 sanitize it please. better yet just toss it in a shredder....

good god!



MTS, can you provide me the code reference between GA and The City of Roswell, i have the Code library loaded. i want to see something...




actually......



https://www.municode.com/library/ga...ROGE_CH21TECASE_ART21.2STWICOFA_S21.2.5DERETO

Located on this website:

Section 21.2.3 - Applicability.

All new towers and antennas shall be subject to the regulations contained within this article except as provided in subsections (a) through (c), inclusive:

(a)

Public Property. Nothing in this article shall be read to prohibit a government owned tower from being located at a specific site when the tower is required to protect the public welfare or safety.


Even Roswell's code says a Government ( Fireside, EMS, PD and SO ) owned tower CANNOT be prohibited . unless im reading that wrong.....

they can't stop the tower from a specific place as defined by Mr Roswellvoter's theory. so State Code is not even needed to trump Roswell's

am i correct on that?

 

[rapidcharger]

Yes, thank you. There is currently a tower at about half the height that is not a factor for most of the homes. The new tower is quite different, however, in that it adds a tower in many views. Some will be at light level to the tower from many windows. There is also a 250+ acre tract which was just sold for development which will be impacted.

Again, the sites the Authority acknowledged were also workable do not impact residential neighborhoods in this way. Those properties, however, were not private land leases carved out of a farm, and would have required public notice/discourse and city council approval for the change of use. City Council members have complained that they were under the impression that the Lackey Road site was discussed with residents, and we'e disappointed to learn it was not. The alternative sites had potential for revenue for the City, as the Authority has a cost sharing arrangement which could have resulted in offsetting income to support other LEO related activities. The City of Atlanta did this for a connected project by colocating equipment on an existing structure.

Ahh. The plot thickens.

At the risk of having other forum members blow a gasket, I have been saying for a long time that these municipalities should either outsource their radio service since they privatize just about everything else OR do the absolute opposite and if they're going to spend tens of millions of dollars going overboard building out a digital communications network and all the extraneous towers, they should at least have those towers earning money for them.

I'm a dollars and cents guy. Most elected representatives in my finding, are not. So you'll have to show them why using the alternative sites makes more "cents". Make it look less like a case of N.I.M.B.Y. and more of a case of opportunity cost. If you point out all the areas where that money is needed and how much revenue can be generated, that would get the attention of potential supporters who don't live near the proposed tower.

 

[RoswellVoter]

Found in the Open Records Request response from the City of Roswell today was an email from City Administrator Kay Love to the City Attorney, asking for an opinion on the Lackey Road site:

"“I have pasted below Section 21.2.3 of the City of Roswell Code of Ordinances as a reference. Section 21.2.3 (a) references "public property" and Lackey Road is not public property. Further, I am requesting clarification that the NFRRSA "qualifies" as a government as referenced in 21.2.3 (a). I want to ensure that there are no approvals (including public hearings, posting of the property, adjacent property owner notification) etc., required from the Mayor and Council for a tower to be constructed on that site. As you are aware, the City received significant citizen input and opposition to towers being constructed on city owned property since our Ordinance otherwise would prohibit it at the Fouts and Cox Road locations. I need the opinion by end of business on Monday (October?) because I have a NFRRSA meeting on Tuesday morning. Call me with questions. Thanks, Kay L.”

Transparency...

 

[R8000]

Tower location and spacing for P25 simulcast is vitally critical. Another thing to be concerned about as the microwave path(s).

But...who cares about that as long as the NIMBY terrorists get their way. Yes, I used the word "terrorist".

I am glad "Roswell Voter" chimed in. This has actually hurt his cause. LOL

I don't always agree with MTS, but in this conversation he's been totally correct.