Re: WKOX from the WUNR site

["Dan Strassberg" <Dan.Strassberg@worldnet.att.net>]

Doesn't make sense, does it? What can I say? It's a government thing--and,
more than that, a NIMBY thing. The people in the area don't want the hassles
of getting the station to correct interference problems. The towers will
have to be closer to the property line. Abuttors worry about towers falling
over onto their property. More than anything, they worry about the radio
station having a negative impact on the value of their property. Us radio
geeks think directional arrays are beautiful (or a lot of them are). The
average person thinks of them as ugly.

--

Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net
Phone: 1-617-558-4205, eFax: 1-707-215-6367

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin J. Waters <mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu>
To: Dan Strassberg <Dan.Strassberg@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: Boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
<Boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Date: Sunday, February 06, 2000 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: WKOX from the WUNR site


>>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.