A previous article in the Peninsula Press spoke of strong public opposition to the proposed telecommunication tower at 75 Lindsay Rd 40 and the multiple inconsistencies, irregularities, and blatant violations in following the Municipal process and protocol by Shared Tower Inc.
From vague answers regarding justification and site selection from Cheyenne Zierler from Shared Tower, we are left to conclude this development is more about serving private interest rather than a pressing need for service.
During the February 12, 2024 council meeting, Shared Tower illustrated there would be no improved coverage to cottages on the Dyers Bay shoreline, to Gillies Lake cottagers, or Parks Canada. The only improved coverage shown is directly in the settled rural residential community of medically vulnerable residents, the majority of whom are strongly opposed. It appears this tower is meant to serve Rogers and Shared Tower Inc, not residents.
Our community already has alternative options for connectivity that are faster, safer, more reliable, cost effective, and can fill any ‘gap’ without building a tower. This provides residents with CHOICE, whereas a tower, with its indiscriminate emissions, would not.
Dr. Magda Havas from Trent University educated council with respect to current research regarding the safety impact for vulnerable residents and urged council to vote non-concurrence and say no to these corporations and profit-minded strategies that discriminate against vulnerable residents.
It’s within council’s power and duty to protect the interests of the local public and environment.
Council has further been informed and urged to vote non-concurrence by the following:
– Sheena Symington, director of the Electro Sensitive Society, offered her services to assist MNBP in optimizing connectivity and accessibility for all residents
– Resident Charlie Anderson clearly illustrated the failed process, lack of justification, and inappropriate designation ‘low visual impact’
– Resident Laura Vanderaa, who suffers from a diagnosed medical disability and would be forcefully evicted and rendered homeless immediately if the tower were approved and operationalized
– Dr Meg Sears, Phd from Prevent Cancer Now, urged council to protect this unique community and cultural heritage, and consider radio frequency as an environmental pollutant.
– Dr Marg Friesen, Phd highlighted the multiple adversely impacted endangered species at the site in question and noted an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been conducted, and must be.
– Dr David Fancy, Phd of Well Earth Collaborative, reminded council of their responsibility to accommodate and refrain from actively discriminating against residents living with disabilities under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act, with EHS acknowledged in the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He urged council to have the moral courage to protect a disabled person and her family and vote non-concurrence.
– Shelley Wright, director of Canadian Educators for Safe Technology who reminded council they represent the voices of children in this community who live with disabilities. She urged council to avoid liability issues and make careful decisions to intentionally safeguard residents, and the environment.
– Dr Riina Bray, MD, medical director of Women’s College Hospital, specifically addressed MNBP council in an effort to urge non-concurrence. She noted increased cancer deaths within 500 metres of cell towers and adverse reactions to microwave radiation are increasing. 3-30% of those living near towers are likely to become so ill they may be unable to remain in their homes. This may lead to liability issues for the municipality, since telecommunication companies don’t carry liability insurance.
– Resident Jessica Rivers encouraged council to vote non-concurrence as her emerging ecotourism business relies on the area being a low RF environment to succeed.
It’s the duty and responsibility of elected government to listen to concerns and make a reasonable decision in the best interests of their electors.
Protocols are required to be followed completely, not partially. The MNBP legal counsel was asked to review the application and give an informed opinion whether Shared Tower followed ISED default protocol “enough” to continue, or needed to restart the application.
We don’t see how council could responsibly approve of continuing with the application for this development, given that ISED mandates that concurrence only be considered if ALL criteria are met by the proponent. This includes appropriate land use (Community Sensitive Location designation would exclude), strict adherence to protocol (multiple violations), and consideration of residents’ concerns (strong public opposition), in addition to the completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment (not completed).
Given such compelling evidence, we are asking council to now exercise its strong influence in commenting status to ISED and refuse approval of this application through a vote of non-concurrence.
Laura Vanderaa
