In an e-mail to the district community, she explains her reasons:
Dear Walnut Creek School District Parents and Community Members,
On January 20, a meeting was held at Walnut Heights Elementary to discuss the possibility of erecting a wireless antenna tree at the school. The Board wanted to hold a meeting so that the public could receive information and make comments concerning the potential tower. I plan to recommend that the Board reject this antenna tree at Walnut Heights for the following two reasons:
--Clearwire's representative who spoke to the Board in December was clear and cogent. However when this gentleman was not available, the company flew in a substitute presenter from Chicago. He met with Stuart House, our Director of Facilities, and felt that he and his fellow Clearwire representative were ready for the meeting. Clearly, they were not: the Clearwire men were ill-prepared and offered no concrete information that facilitated the discussion. Therefore, Clearwire is not a company that I can recommend to the Board that the district should do business with.
--At the meeting three key issues from the community/parent speakers surfaced:
a) The aesthetics of the tree,
b) The concern for the health of students and adults, and
c) The antenna tree's effect on property values.
Whether these issues were confirmed or not, the Walnut Creek School District is cognizant of the apprehension expressed by many at the meeting.
Therefore, the item will appear on the February 1 Board Agenda with a recommendation to reject this antenna tree.
Again, thank you to parents and community for taking the time to offer your comments.
12 comments:
"...the Clearwire men were ill-prepared and offered no concrete information that facilitated the discussion. Therefore, Clearwire is not a company that I can recommend to the Board that the district should do business with."
Perhaps a few specifics might help this "A therefore B" conclusion sound slightly less demogagic.
demagogic... clearly I was ill-oprepared for the spelling test and therefore should not be recommended....
There is nothing demagogic about the decision. If you can't answer the question set forth about the technology, we are not going to do business with you.
It wouldn't be prudent to move forward without addressing the issues of the concerned parents.
I'm inclined to see it like Up3rd does-- just because a 'pinch-hitting' presenter couldn't answer an impromptu question shouldn't be grounds for disqualifying the whole company. It sounds a little like minds were made up in advance.
NIMBY wins in WC once again.
If it's an AT&T cell tower, I would have voted yes! My AT&T service sucks around here! Hey, the cell company can put a cell tower on my property if they want... all I want is a 3 year contract for $350/month!!!
So Clearwire had a lousy spokesperson? What a lame reason for a superintendent to recommend a vote against the project! Be against it because you mistakenly believe the antennae site will irradiate your students, or decrease property values, or because it's unsightly, but because they had a lousy spokesman? What kind of reason is that? What kind of thinking is that?
The presenter had a bad tie, get 'em out! Decision makers educated by TV.
I was not there and I didn't see the presenter. I can only assume they were not as prepared as they should have been.
Since we are using superlative arguments...why don't we just ask for bids for a nuclear waste dump underneath the soccer fields. I am sure the contractors would say it is perfectly safe. We should just take their word for it and they don't need to show up and answer any questions from parents?
Nuclear waste dump underneath the soccer field sounds like a great idea, we could have glow in the dark night games without expensive lights.
Dumb as Bricks you're not. You are so much more stupid than that!
Anonymous 9:13-- Perhaps we can disagree on content and ideas without it being nasty personally? Otherwise, valid discourse tends to dry up....
Post a Comment