Approach to radio tower all about convenience and money

The Lazy Mountain community council has had three meetings this fall where a proposed 199-foot lit radio tower was on the agenda.

At the first meeting, there was a strong vote of nonsupport for the tower. At the second meeting, the community voted to ask MCC Radio back to answer questions, while continuing to not support the tower. At the third meeting, about 90 minutes of questions and concerns from community members were directed to MCC. While there was a minority of voices in support, this tower clearly remains of concern to the community. It is hard to know how this will play out. The company will go through a public process with its conditional use permit application, as it has every right to.

This column is not about that process; rather, it’s about what I feel is a complete disregard for our concerns as the closest neighbors and for the concerns of others in the community. I am continually asking myself to look at all sides of this issue, but I keep coming back to one problem: MCC has not, and is not willing to consider alternative sites. When we first learned of the tower location in September, I called MCC and asked them to slow down and take our concerns, and those of the community, into consideration before turning in its permit application. The response, on the phone and later in writing, was that it has been working on this for two years and needed to move forward. MCC reiterated this at the recent community meeting. When asked if it would consider relocating, the answer was there was already too much invested in this.

Our investment includes 16 years of gradually remodeling our home, including recently replacing a wall of living room windows and adding new bedroom windows that perfectly frame the proposed tower. MCC didn’t ask us, or the community, about tower location. We were not even notified until it presented it to the community (required as part of the conditional use permit) with its site selected and investment made. There are 320 acres of land this tower could go on if it remains on the same property and there are thousands of acres that might be more suitable —for the efficiency of the tower and for minimizing impacts to residential neighborhoods. According to MCC, it is up to the owners of the leased property just where the tower goes. It is MCC, however, that submitted the application and paid for the engineering work without involving the community at all.

The proposed tower needs to be lit (three stationary red lights and one blinking), because of FAA requirements. After the community vote of nonsupport, MCC did submit a request to FAA to drop the lighting and orange and white painting, and the painting was dropped. What it did not do is revisit the siting of the tower so lighting could be avoided. MCC touts its intention to be a good neighbor, but we fail to see it. If constructed, this tower will not only diminish the value of our home, but a view the entire community treasures.

There is so much more to this story. The topography is complex. The benefits of a new radio station are not clear and the resultant tower is not compatible with the goals expressed in our community plan. MCC has criteria it needs to consider, the FAA imposes restraints and there are numerous other questions, issues and concerns. But the way we are being treated is pretty straightforward. The proposed tower location works well for MCC’s profit margin but works very poorly for us and the larger community.

Lynn Fuller lives on Lazy Mountain.