Re: WKOX from the WUNR site

[mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>Dan Strassberg wrote:
<snip>
>However, WKOX has been rebuffed by local zoning authorities in each of its
>previous attempts to find a new site--and ran into quite a few objections in
>Framingham when it proposed demolishing its two 440' towers (the ones now
>used by WMEX) and replacing them with three shorter unilluminated towers. So
>why should the City of Newton behave any differently from the towns of
>Framingham, Sudbury, and Wayland? I suspect that the WKOX proposal will
>encounter difficulties in Newton also.
<snip>

        This is sort of a rhetorical question, but, why would a local
government have a problem with replacing existing towers with shorter ones?
And you're saying that the change in this case also would eliminate tower
lights.
        I'm not doubting that you're correct that the local officials could
be a problem. It is, in fact, the usual story. I just don't get it. The
station would not be changing the use of the property, and radio towers
don't send children to the public schools or generate traffic, so what's
the issue? Plus, radio towers aren't anywhere near as ugly to look at as,
say, the architecture of your average suburban office-park building. Hell,
AM stations ought to get tax rebates for preserving open space.
        Everytime this comes up I think of how, IMO, it's bad public policy
to have the federal law limiting local officials' ability to block cell
phone towers but nothing similar for broadcasting. In radio, this is
another thing that hurts the small-time owner.
        The big companies can afford an army of lawyers to fight these
things out if they want to change/build a transmitter site. Although, it's
so bad that even the big owners and big stations can lose. An engineer at
WCCO (AM) told me a few years ago how they were all set to move to a new
transmitter site in a new town, had bought the land and all, had a CP, but
then the local yokel zoning board would not approve it. I think he said
that, no surprise, the main issue was the height of the tower (which for
WCCO would have been, shall we say, noticeable in the neighborhood --
maybe, what, 700 feet?). They finally gave up.
        But I'm incorrigible on this. (Possible tower geek motto: There's
nothing more beautiful than a four-tower array with the flashing lights
illuminating the surrounding marsh grass?.) In fact, I was just admiring
the lovely towers for the six Hartford FMs on top of West Peak in Meriden
yesterday as I drove by.
        I'll go along with the anti-tower NIMBYs when they all sign a
contract that they will never use a phone, listen to a radio, or watch a TV
for the rest of their lives.