Yeah, Gerry! Do the right thing! Just do it!

I just moved to Mount Vernon from a 4 year assignment in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and am absolutely amazed that I get at best 1 bar of signal on a good day. In order to call Verizon to set up land-line service I had to drive 1 1/2 miles from home to get a proper signal. I find this to be a safety and security issue for my family. As a new registered voter I will be happy to place my vote for the someone who represents the 21st century.

People seem to forget that this is more than an aesthetic issue (which can easily be remedied). It is a matter of public safety. Our first responders are thwarted when their equipment takes a dive in the areas of no reception leading to longer response times. In addition, those in need...victims of assault or an accident...many times have NO WAY OF CALLING other than cell phones for help in an emergency situation. It's high time we get off our duff, use technology for the greater good, and join the 21st century--like the rest of the county. And, no. Their property values have not seen a decline because they have towers. Their neighborhoods maintain their charm (whatever that is) just fine... We often call ourselves the "forgotten part of the county." Could that be because we blockade any new technology or property use that comes into question by a few vocal people in the minority? What a shame...

The price of deregulation of utilities seems to be more expense, more pollution and more cell phone tower radiation for us all. Why can't people be more responsible before they choose a carrier and go to the company websites and see where they offer heavy coverge? I hope ten more carriers don't sprout up-- I guess we would need a giant pole every half mile! Why are other counties concerned about the health risks and US citizens aren't even allowed to consider the possibility of risk? Why are parks allowed to turn down cell phone towers? They are an ideal location since no one lives in parks! There are good locations and there are bad ones. I hope that citizens will continue to speak up when an inappropriate location is chosen. Locating a giant tower with several brick communication equipment buildings at the base requires a sufficient distance from homes, and sufficient tree cover and lot size. Otherwise it will be an eyesore, a possible health concern, and quite probably reduce the value of the immediate neighborhood. You make a mockery of our very valid concerns and efforts to make sure the towers are placed in the most appropriate locations. So sorry about your lattes and fried chicken order.

I'm a little confused about what deregulation of utilities has to do with the construction of cell phone towers (which have several carriers on them). Even more about the potential health risks (which are not allowed to be considered as a denial basis for their placement) and how anyone could possibly think that keeping us out of the 21st century is good for our home values. I think it is a mockery to those who are in critical need to deny them this badly needed technology.

We have four or five trash and cable companies serving various homes in our neighborhoods. So instead of having one trash truck traveling down our streets twice a week, we have five making the same route, polluting as they go. How many phone/cable TV/internet providers have their separate equipment in our neighborhoods. Same principle with cell phone providers, The more carriers on the tower, the more radiation. Too many carriers to fit on that giant 150' tower? You'll need another one! Let's get into the 21st Century by caring about the environment and our health and questioning big business. Why not investigate the alternative DAS systems? We need a better, more uniform method of locating these towers to avoid all this drama-- which is just what the new committee is trying to do.

Which committee would that be? The MVCCA? The committee that no one voted to make decisions for the rest of the community? Experience also dictates that it will take a long time to decide, much less implement. We can't even get the long-ago APPROVED cell phone tower constructed at the GW Recreation Center. And, again, I must remind that health risks are not allowed to be considered as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court. As the writer states...are any of those who disapprove of the cell phone towers NOT using their cell phones or letting their children use them because they are concerned about potential risks to health? I think not.

Sprint's coverage is pretty good in the Hollin Hall area. If you check their coverage on http://coverage.sprint.com you'll see they have a tower close to Hollin Hall Shopping Center. If you prefer a fixed, home phone solution instead you can sign-up for Sprint Phone Connect ($19.99/month) for unlimited service. Per this press release (http://newsroom.sprint.com/news/sprint-phone-connect-fact-sheet.htm) Sprint Phone Connect allows your home phones to use Sprint's wireless network for fixed services via a router like device. I just thought I would pass this on since I use them for wireless service and have been pretty happy.

Yes, that committee. They won't be making decisions, they will be making recommendations. Just because the U.S. doesn't allow health risks to be considered, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be. Some people seem to care about cell phone towers and what type and where the are placed and apparently some people just believe 4G coverage as a birthright. I chose my cell phone based on the current coverage provided by the carriers. Why don't we all choose a carrier who has one band of coverage in our area and then try to get a pole placed in our neighbor's front yard for our convenience?

This sixty-something Mt. Vernon resident jogs, bikes, and mows his own lawn in the Fort Belvoir to Ft. Hunt. The inability to use my cell phone in cases of emergency for myself or others is a serious consideration in my decision to relocate after 21 years. The approved tower at the Mt. Vernon Rec Center would be a reasonable accommodation. Andy

I am quite anxious to know the name of any company (companies) that provide adequate cell coverage throughout the Mt. Vernon area. I feel quite sure that if one existed the name would have been mentioned over the past few years. I have personally tried three different carriers (all of which claimed to have good coverage in our area) and none of them have provided satisfactory service. I have been unable to find a carrier that will give me consistent coverage at my home. Why should I have to stand in the middle of the street in front on my home or on to[ of my deck railing to use my cell phone?? Even if I could find a company that gives good coverage at my home the problem isn’t solved - - when we really NEED a cell phone is when we aren’t at our home.
Like Andrew J, I am an ‘almost’ 60’s something who runs, bikes and maintains a 1.3 acre lot. The inability to reliably count on being able to use my cell is a serious safety concern for me as well.

Additional Comment

Additionally, I am a Realtor who works primarily from my home office. I find it not only embarrassing but fell quite unprofessional as well when I have to explain to my clients that I can’t reliably be reached by cell phone and that it often takes ½ hour or more before my cell phone even registers that a voice mail has been left for me. Why can’t we reliably use the technology that should be available to us.
Finally, I am SO tired of the concerns voiced over ‘lowered property values’. It simply doesn’t happen. Cell towers and every other type of ‘pole’ has become so common that no-one gives them a second thought when driving through a community - - they simply fade into the background. I’ve been selling Mt. Vernon real estate since LONG before we even heard of cell phones. Not once has a potential client asked about cell towers in the vicinity of a home they were considering purchasing. Conversely, on more than one occasion I have heard complaints after the purchase about the poor cell coverage in our area. In todays ‘wireless’ world we should be more concerned about lower property values throughout the area due to the inability to use modern technology than the fictional lowering of property values because a cell pole is within x number of yards of someone’s home.

Verizon and Sprint have excellent coverage where I live. I'm not saying we don't need cell phone service. I'm saying that in the short term, we need for our county to have better guidelines for placement and also actively identify acceptable locations. The cell phone companies pick sites willy nilly and independently of each other. They sign contracts with land owners for huge sums of money up front and yearly to use their land. When the application becomes public knowledge, then a community that feels the need to protest that location has the burden of fighting it by proving that there are other, more suitable locations. What a waste of everyone's valuable time! This is what's bogging down the process. We should also be investigating aternate antennae systems. Why can't 911 calls be routed through any carrier available at that location? I'm no expert, but from what I've learned about the issue, I think the process is the main problem and that it is causing the "NIMBY" response.

Why is the "process" not difficult for the rest of the county? Why are we the only area that is without complete cell phone coverage? It is because of the bureaucratic red tape that is being described to help alleviate "everyone's valuable time." THAT is what is "bogging down the system." And, why are we so opposed to churches and schools gaining invaluable revenue in the process of serving the rest of the community? I pay for a cell phone service and should not have to pay $200+ for a signal enhancer. A lot of people can't begin to afford that. I also pay taxes and want the best return on my money when it comes to emergency response. I'll tell you who the real NIMBY's are...the MVCCA...plain and simple.

Verizon & Sprint may well give you good service "where 'you' live". In fairness Verizon is the best service that I have found for my home as well - - in so much that I can at least attain service on my top floor (sometimes) or if I choose to stand on the railing of my rear deck. As mentioned before; at home isn't where service is most important since out of necessity most on us in Mt. Vernon still have the traditional landline. Wouldn't it be nice if we could 'cut the cord' such as they are able to do in many other areas and rely on dependable cell service?
Cell phone companies do NOT pick sites “willy nilly and independent of each other”. Few (if any) cell towers are actually owned by cell phone service providers. Most are owned by private companies which build the towers and lease the facilities to multiple carriers - - i.e. the same space is shared by the same carriers so the quality of services tends to be similar (poor) among multiple carriers. For info on who owns towers in our area check this site:
http://www.cellreception.com/towers/towers.php?city=washington&state_abr=dc
Sites are not selected ‘willy nilly’. If they aren’t built in appropriate locations they will not be able to lease the space and the investment would be lost
Please note when reviewing the map on the site I've provided above how few towers the Mt Vernon area has in comparison to surrounding areas.

I'm just glad that I have a land-line internet connection so that I could read this article in real time rather than wait several hours for it to download over my smart phone coverage plan.

First of all not having cell service would not nor does it cause me any heart burn. Personally, I am just not so important that I must be connected to the world 7x24 everywhere I go... With that said I have lived in the Mt Vernon area for 13 years and my carrier, Verizon, has provided wonderful coverage throughout the area... My take is the author should find a new carrier.

I live next door to the proposed St. James tower. I have fantastic cell coverage from Verizon, even below ground in my basement. T-Mobile wants a cell tower on a grid every half mile throughout Northern Virginia. They are the main carrier on the approved tower at the GW Rec Center and have asked to co-locate on the Tower past Mt. Vernon. There is also a plan for a new T-Mobile tower on the new Army Hospital. Clearly there would be cell coverage when these towers go online. Large 100ft cell towers should NOT be in the middle of neighborhoods when alternate technology is available. D.A.S. has been implemented in Great Falls and could be implemented in the Mount Vernon area. Neighborhoods are zoned Residential for a reason and we choose to live in these zones to be protected from commercial entities. A 100 ft. cell tower with 3 12' x 22' utilities buildings beneath it and 150 ft. from a home is absurd when there are several towers in and the works. As for 911 systems, you should use your landline. That is the beauty of Enhanced-911 systems. As soon as you call 911 from your home the dispatcher has your address and can see realtime on the screen the GPS location. Check out the online tour of the fantastic E911 system Fairfax County has in place. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/911/tour/

Interestingly, last night the Mount Vernon Council's Planning and Zoning committee passed unanimously a resolution encouraging the use of the DAS system, which are smaller, less obtrusive, spread out poles, versus the larger poles. So, the committee supports "towers", but the kind that will blend more. That sounds reasonable to me. Now, Sup Hyland and/or the companies need to find a spot that would be amenable to the community. On the other hand, there will be some who dont even want this kind of technology.

Fabulous column! Clear, concise and fair treatment of a never-ending issue that begs for a rational solution to prevail. Great quirky writing too - GIVE US MORE!

I live exactly one mile from mount vernon, also near GW rec center, and I can get verizon coverage on a good sunny day from near a window and nowhere else in my house. Its scary thinking that even as a high school kid "with the phone glued to my ear" I could not get service AT MOUNT VERNON HIGH SCHOOL! You remember 2006? There were MULTIPLE bomb threats at the school that year. If you wanted to go home all you had to do was call your parents. Oh wait, I couldn't! We could not get service sitting at the top of the bleachers during the middle of a sunny day. THAT is the kind of emergency we are talking about. Not that you can't download a movie, but that kids can't get through to their parents and vice versa. When I lost power/phone during the hurricane I was absolutely cut off with no way of contacting the outside world since my car was stranded in my power-door garage. It is now 2011. I had better cell signal going to college in the mountains of Southern VA than I do 20 miles from DC. I bet driving around you couldn't spot the few towers that do exist if you tried.

Ron,

Thank for the comments... I cannot imagine downloading an HD movies even on today's FASTEST 4G wireless network (best case 20Mbps stationary) when I have fiber into my home at a fraction of the cost...
Emergency, once again, I think I want to be part of Fairfax County's enhanced 911 system at $20 per month on my land line. If I were a first responder in an emergency, point-to-point communication (one phone to one phone) would fall a distant second behind my desire to be part of a many-to-many communication network provided by my radio.

I am not even going to touch the logic of panic stock trading.

Texting, you go me there, I can see the catastrophic impact of a dropped text message.

Fairfax County approves almost all cell tower applications, the County is not anti-technology. The Supervisors’ role in the process is limited. The rare cell tower applications not approved reflect selected locations that do not conform to local zoning laws (which are not displaced by the Telecommunications Act). The St. James Church application is one of those locations and is overwhelming opposed on a variety of grounds by Woodlawn Manor, the only community which it may provide some marginal benefit. That application is languishing (15 months) as the provider refuses to bring it before the Planning Commission for a vote. I believe that this is also the case for the Sandburg application. The delay in the process is often the result of the applicant. The provider for the St. James site has not produced any documentation that emergency services are compromised by the current level of service which it markets as being "good." Locating 150 foot towers every half mile (which we are told is optimal) in our densely residential community is a daunting prospect which requires public debate. While the local government cannot consider potential health concerns, the public debate can certainly that topic. Our community is not alone as many communities are facing the same issue. Commissioner Flanagan and the MVCCA have been working to seek solutions to this issue. As with any zoning issue, all concerned citizens should get involved in the process to seek sensible long term solutions.

Ron Fitzsimmons states that Supervisor Hyland is running for likely his last term (Fitzsimmons has never been an insider concerning the Supervisor's political decisions regarding running for re-election) and that, as such, presuming he is re-elected, thereafter as a lame duck he should approve cell towers regardless of the wishes of adjacent neighbors. Ron, why don't you just come out and say you don't think the Supervisor has any integrity? I often disagree with Supervisor Hyland and when I do, I either tell him directly or in a published letter or sometimes both. I would never dispute his integrity because, regardless of our disagreements, his integrity is unquestionable. I am as strong an advocate as any for more cell towers and I am often frustrated by NIMBYs who succeed in defeating them, but as Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema said in her decision re the proposed cell tower at the Masonic Lodge on Fort Hunt Road, the most important voices are those of the people most affected. We have to educate our citizens concerning the advantages of cell phone service, the ways cell towers can be disguised and the facts that adjacency to cell towers does not pose a health risk and may enhance property values.

Mr. Spiegel - First, I find it interesting that you attempt to put words into Ron Fitzsimmon's mouth (article). Second, it is interesting that rather than place your comments when the Patch article was published 4 days ago you instead wait and post them only after Fitzsimmons announces on Facebook that he will be out of town through this coming Monday. The timing certainly gives the appearance that you saw an opportunity to strike while Fitzsimmons isn't in town to defend himself or even be aware of your accusations for at least 2 days. Fitzsimmons never claims to be an “insider concerning the Supervisor's political decisions regarding running for re-election”. What he did write is: "It is also assumed that this will be his (Hylands) last four year term." I believe that to be a generally accepted assumption, making Ron's comment a true and accurate statement. I know that I, for one, have assumed that to be the case - or perhaps it was just wishful thinking on my part. I personally cannot speak to Mr. Hyland's integrity and I don't believe that was Ron's intention either. There certainly is the appearance (on the cell tower issue in particular) that Hyland caves in to small minority groups rather than represent the interests of the majority of his constituency who WANT & NEED better cell service. Fitzsimmons appropriately called on Hyland to ‘do the right thing’ by supporting the needs of the majority of his constituency rather than small, vocal pockets of opposition.

First, I don't want to be unjustly accused of waiting for anyone leaving town before I weighed in. Next, reading the comments sure sounded pundit-ish. Having heard Mr. Hyland waiver many times on his political future, I'll continue to expect business as usual from our stand-up Supervisor, letting the people closest to an issue have the loudest voice and leaving his political future up in the air. As for cell towers, I get better reception on the water than on Fort Hunt Road.

Keith Whited: Your post is filled with false assumptions. First, where can I go on FACEBOOK to monitor Ron Fitzsimmons' travel plans? On second thought, don't tell me - I don't care. Second, tell me how you know when I first read Fitzsimmons' column. Unlike you, the musings of Fitzsimmons aren't high on my list of priorities. Third, unlighten readers as to your secret pipeline to Supervisor Hyland's re-election decisions. I don't know anyone, even his staff members, who knew of his decision this year until he announced it at his town meeting. Ron Fitzsimmons certainly didn't know. Several months earlier, he asked me if I was running for Supervisor. When I told him I wasn't, he asked me to support him. Mr. Fitzsimmons said in his column:
"Supervisor Hyland is up for re-election this November. It is also assumed that this will be his last four year term. His successor will have the same, delicate political situation with this issue. So, Gerry, you really have nothing to lose. Do us a favor and do the right thing. Can you say YES to at least one cell phone tower?"
In my opinion, (1) Mr. Fitzsimmons is saying that if Supervisor Hyland is re-elected this year and chooses not to run in 2015, since he won't be accountable to the voters in 2015 he'll change the way he takes decisions; (2) that is an attack on Supervisor Hyland's integrity. You can feel free to disagree but, in so doing, kindly keep your facts straight and refrain from assuming facts not in evidence.

Getting back to the topic...I wonder how many in Huntington and Belle View couldn't use their cell phones (or barely use them) during their catastrophes of flooding...

Kari: I spoke to a friend who lives in Huntington. He said cell service in Huntington is normally fine. It was a little sketchy at times during the flooding, likely due to the large number of cars stopped on the beltway whose drivers were likely overloading the cells with their phone calls.

Touche, Spiegel - - looks like I am as guilty of ‘assuming’ as you. Although you "don't care", I'll tell you why I assumed you arrived a Fitzsimmons travel plans via FB. I did 'assume' that since you were on familiar enough basis to address him as 'Ron' there was good possibility you and he were connected FB friends. My mistake - I should have considered that 'friends' don't normally attack friends other FB friends.
Your request that I "unlighten [sic] readers as to (my) secret pipeline to Supervisor ..." is a poor attempt to distort my comment. I never claimed to have a secret pipeline to Hyland’s re-election plans. I clearly stated my "assumption" - "I know that I, for one, have assumed that to be the case". This referred to Fitzsimmons published statement, "It is also assumed that this will be his (Hylands) last four year term." Previously you attempted to distort that comment in an effort to make it appear that Ron was stating as fact that Hyland would not be seeking another term. It seems you may have some sort of block when it comes to reading the word 'assume'.
In your closing you stated your ‘opinion’ of what Mr. Fitzsimmons was stating in his article. Sir, unless you have a secret pipeline to Ron’s mind (or have asked him directly) your ‘opinion’ is nothing more than another ‘assumption’. As you requested, “kindly keep your facts straight and refrain from assuming facts not in evidence.

Spiegel – Patch was a 1500 character limit to comments. My complete response exceeded that limit. Following is the closing remark that was to be a part of my preceding comment:
I admit that I do not possess the skill or training in ‘word play’ that is a requirement of a prosecuting attorney. That being the case, I am not on a level playing field and will not respond further to your comments. I will just allow you to ‘assume’ you have won.

Mr. Whited, nobody "won." We each stated our opinion. You're entitled to yours & I mine.

In that case I withdraw my statement that I would not respond further to your comment. I wish to state that I agree with your last post.

We need cell coverage in Mt. Vernon and we need it now! Please, please, please bring technology to this area. This should not be a political issue, but one of safety and convenience.

Well, well, well....I go away to the beach for two days and look what's going on. How exciting! I want to thank Keith and Marta for joining our little group. Look forward to future comments. Indeed, Keith, you might be interested in tomorrow's column which talks about that speed trap right around the corner from your house!! speeNdeedentrtuupkk

The fact of the matter is this: MV needs a cellphone tower. Supervisor Hyland feels it necessary to cave in to the needs of every nimby community group that comes down the pike. I agree with Keith that no one has ever asked me about cellphone towers when driving through neighborhoods. The health concerns nimby's voice are ridiculous and with very little merit. In order to have a health issue you'd have to shove one up your.......and twirl for a few decades. Most of what Jay said was true. Unfortunately, his medication ran low and he started rambling.

here's what i think will be happening. the park authority has apparently made some decision about having cell phone towers on their land, and sup hyland has repeatedly said he can't control the park authority.--which i find inexplicable since the park auth reports to the board and its members are appointed by the bos.
this may be some fancy footwork buck-passing, and i wouldn't be surprised to see a cell phone tower at lamond park before long. (park authority not always very open about the issues it plans to discuss at its meetings) .

personally, i think that something on that site, with the base preferably part way down the steep hill on the ft hunt rd side, isn't a bad idea, because it would be pretty well hidden, would actually serve a fairly broad area, and wouldn't directly impact neighbors( at least visually)--, and maybe the income could be used to provide more maintainence for some of the county's parks. used by area residents. i don't know enough about the health effects to comment on that aspect. and am well aware that villamay residents are strongly opposed., but for what it's worth, this actually seems to make some sense. ) .

ron, since the appointed Park Authority Board reports to the Board of Supervisors (see charts on bos website) , and since the Board of Supervisors is the voice of the people, if Board members are opposed to cell phone towers, they should step up to the plate and make that loud and clear instead of passing the buck on issues they don't want to deal with. Every decision has its pros and cons,and someone has to take responsibility, but to pass the buck to a group that doesn't include public comment in its regular meetings is not the American way. (which, to digress a bit, leads me to wonder whether there was public comment on the old mill rd change of speed limit before someone in the county imposed it.) Has the County actually even studied thecell phone tower issue and made recommendations based on real facts (such as health risks, alternate configurations, impact of changing technology, etc) , or is it content to sit back and respond to requests that may or may not make much sense--or pass the buck to groups like the mvcca, which may or may not give an unbiased opinion.. (having been involved in a community discussion about a previousr proposal for a cellphone tower in the area, i happen to believe a discreet tower in lamond park would have the less impact on surrounding neighbors and serve more people than many other proposals, but i also think our leaders should provide people with facts., and perhaps some alternate sites. - .

Cell phones are not going away, and the need for towers will not go away. This should not be such hard decision. They must be placed where they serve the greater good....sorry if it inconviences you; however everyone uses the service

All too political for me. All I want is better cell phone service in Mount Vernon!

Agree with last 2 comments, we need good coverage, and we need it now! There should be nothing political about a statement of fact. I'm hoping Supervisor Hyland does the right thing and seeks prompt resolution to this ongoing issue!

I also agree with the last 3 comments. So where do we go from here?

That's an excellent idea

Hmmmmm - - Room on your plate for anything else, Ron???
FB page suggestion: Gerry Hyland - Give us a Tower or Get the Boot ! ! !
Actually, when the tower companies start taking opposition from the NIMBY's I'm surprised they (or someone) never started a 'door to door' petition process for towersupport.

bottom line, this, like many other things, is a political issue, and if people who want something don't speak up and make more noise than the people who don't want anything, nothing happens. (and, cell phone operators have been busy approaching various bds and offering sweeteners, but that isn't the way things should happen.). communities still need some real facts-- including alternatives, actual health risks if there are some, etc,-- which won't come from companies more concerned with the bottom line or from die-hard opponents who oppose any change at all. . again, this is an area where an unbiased study would be useful.