Local & State Headlines

Cell tower not welcomed

• Residents in the West Albany Marlborough avenue neighborhood say a cellular tower was forced on them by the city.

Carlton Fletcher

ALBANY — Residents in the county-maintained Marlboro Drive area say they are still baffled — and more than a little upset — at the Albany City Commission’s recent vote to place a cellular tower in their neighborhood without giving them an opportunity to comment on the matter.

At a special called meeting April 8, the city voted 6-0 (Mayor Willie Adams abstained) with very little discussion to allow Alltel Communications to place a tower at property the city owns off Marlborough Drive. That move halted a lawsuit that had been threatened by the communications company when the commission denied an application to rezone property in the Doublegate neighborhood for the purpose of locating a tower there.

Subsequent negotiations to find a suitable site for the tower failed, and Alltel filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court.

City officials said Tuesday they did not understand citizens’ complaints since the matter had been discussed during public hearings, but the Rev. Kent Miller with Christ United Methodist Church said there is more to that scenario than officials are saying.

“We had representatives from our neighborhood at that first public hearing, and we had a petition (opposing the tower) signed by people in the neighborhood,” Miller, whose letter complaining about the vote was published in The Albany Herald April 10, said Tuesday. “We asked to be put on the agenda, but we were told there was no need for us to speak. We were told they were not interested in the location.

“And then we read that the commission had called for a special meeting and taken a vote to put the tower in our neighborhood. We never got an opportunity to talk about it with commissioners. We were told three things: ‘Don’t submit your petition,’ ‘don’t speak at the hearing’ and ‘we are not looking at your property.’ Then we read about their vote in the paper.”

City Attorney Nathan Davis and Commissioner Bob Langstaff expressed surprise Tuesday when asked about complaints from people in the Marlborough Drive neighborhood.

“I never thought this was an issue,” Davis said. “There’s already a water tower on that property, so a cell tower is not going to detract from the look of the neighborhood.”

But Miller said aesthetics was not his main concern.

“I have a problem with that microwave dish they’re going to put up,” he said. “They have not proven that those things aren’t dangerous. Certainly there is concern about (Alltel and construction crews) having access to that property 24-hours a day, but as a person with a family who lives not 75 steps from the site, I’m concerned about my family’s safety.”

Langstaff said he had not gotten any negative feedback about the tower site.

“There was a public hearing; I never heard any complaint,” he said. “Information was also printed (in the newspaper) and broadcast. Anyone with a concern could have called me.

“I voted to approve that site because there is already a water tower there, so I didn’t see how a (cellular) tower was going to make any difference.”

Adams said he abstained from the vote on the tower location because “I have a financial interest in Doublegate.”

County Commissioner Lamar Hudgins, who represents the Marlborough neighborhood on that body, said Monday the city commission’s action is akin to taxation without representation.

“Both of these properties (Doublegate and Marlborough) are in my district, and I certainly can’t say that I prefer one (as a tower site) over the other,” he said. “But the city brokered this deal without any input from the people in (the Marlborough) neighborhood. I know they were facing a lawsuit, and I certainly am not picking a fight with the city.

“I’m just saying that I understand why these citizens are upset. The action taken by the city was perfectly legal, but I certainly would have hoped that they would at least have allowed the people in the neighborhood to have a say in the matter.”

Miller said the city action has left him and others in their neighborhood with a sour taste.

“They kept us from commenting at the public hearing; that’s bad enough,” he said. “But then when I talked with one of the (city) commissioners after the vote, he told me ‘They’re going to put that tower way back in the woods.’ I really don’t know if the city owns enough property there for that to be accurate.

“This affects our church, but I am complaining as a citizen of Dougherty County. I can’t believe our elected officials would do this without allowing us to have a voice in the matter.”

More Headlines>>