Signatures 98 total
Page: 1, 2
-
1
Name: Anonymous on Aug 18, 2007Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Ili Wathen on Aug 20, 2007Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: Anonymous on Aug 22, 2007Comments: I am for HEALTHY LIVING!Flag
-
4
Name: Priscilla Stevens on Aug 22, 2007Comments:Flag
-
5
Name: Tena Meadows O'Rear on Aug 22, 2007Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Grady O'Rear on Aug 23, 2007Comments: There are superior alternatives available to additional cell towers that are more benign environmentally and to human health. I urge our politicians and decision makers to prioritize implementing these.Flag
-
7
Name: Margaret Maslanka on Aug 23, 2007Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: Holland R. % Yvonne M. Burgan on Sep 7, 2007Comments: We are strongly opposed to the erection of all of these cell towers. However, the two cell towers at site No. 2 near the corner of Rt. 287 and Rt. 9 is located within a few feet of our property.. The erection of these imposing towers will detrimentally effect resale values throughout this area by their appearance, and also by the public's concern about perceived health hazards caused by the towers electromagnetic radiation.Flag
-
9
Name: Anonymous on Sep 8, 2007Comments:Flag
-
10
Name: Sandi Preston on Sep 9, 2007Comments: Also, be aware that the facilities attached to the cell tower area involve generators which are regularly turned on, regardless of need, and are extremely loud.Flag
-
11
Name: John Shourds on Sep 9, 2007Comments: No cell towers at Arlington corner site or anywhere else in Loudoun County.Flag
-
12
Name: Larry E Preston on Sep 10, 2007Comments: This is big business. Local residents will derive no significant benefit from these towers. We already have several local broadband internet providers and cell phones work just fine in this area. There are real concerns about property values and health risks. There are nuisance issues associated with generator noise, and the site becoming a "mischief magnet" for teenagers. Make no mistake, this is Big Business and there's a lot of money to be made at our expense. If we do nothing to oppose these towers now when we have the opportunity, they will become part of our landscape...Flag
-
13
Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2007Comments: there is also an other proposed cell tower , at 38696 charles town pike, and the application for it has been accepted by the county.. this one must be stopped also. the location would put it 150 ft' from the closest neighbors home. the health risk is unknown at this time, OR in the futureFlag
-
14
Name: Anonymous on Sep 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Polly A. Davidson on Sep 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
16
Name: Frederick H. Davidon on Sep 10, 2007Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Diane Shipp on Sep 11, 2007Comments: Our farmland is already compromised by existing development. The addition of these communication towers will further destroy the rural quality of the western part of the county. Rather than towers, why don't we do what other countries have done and ban the use of cell phones while people are behind the wheel of vehicles. This act would not only cut down on use of cell phones and prevent accidents, but it would eliminate the need for additional towersFlag
-
18
Name: Kristine Hales on Sep 11, 2007Comments: Definitely do not want the tower. Why is the meeting during work timeFlag
-
19
Name: Anonymous on Sep 11, 2007Comments: We believe that any new cell towers, and their locations, should be subject to public meetings and approved by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors.Flag
-
20
Name: Jennifer Shourds on Sep 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Jennifer Long on Sep 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
22
Name: PAUL F. OFFENBACHER on Sep 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
23
Name: Joyce Guthrie on Sep 12, 2007Comments: Four of these towers are within a couple of miles of my home. They do NOT belong in residential areas! They are intended to benefit those who are passing through the area and will not suffer the long-term affects of radiation exposure. I have young children and fear for their safety and well-being with this level of radiation exposure on a daily basis.Flag
-
24
Name: Karen Stephens on Sep 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Vilma Jacob on Sep 12, 2007Comments: I do not wish you to devalue the beauty of rural Loudoun County with cell towers in the wrong place. I worry about the radiation and would not purchase a home near one. Please plan to place them in industrial areas. Thank you.Flag
-
26
Name: Sheryl Blackington on Sep 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: Anonymous on Sep 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
28
Name: Anonymous on Sep 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
29
Name: Kristi Gray on Sep 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: Anonymous on Sep 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: Roni O. Rich on Sep 12, 2007Comments:Flag
-
32
Name: Steve Oberlander on Sep 13, 2007Comments:Flag
-
33
Name: C. Loparo on Sep 13, 2007Comments:Flag
-
34
Name: Anonymous on Sep 14, 2007Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Keith R. on Sep 14, 2007Comments: Its bad enough that people pay more attention to being connected while they are driving rather than on their driving. Talking while driving is bad enough, people will now be text messaging while driving. I don't want my loved ones on the road while these people are communicating needlessly and unsafely. Too many people are willing to sacrifice their health and life and other people's lives for the conveniences of instant communications. When people understand they can't communicate wirelessly in Loudoun county they won't use their phones and cause accidents. We don't need any more towers!!! There's enough signal for everyone to SHARE. By the way I wouldn't buy a home that's within 3 miles, preferably 5 miles, of a tower - not even for a $.01. Its unfortunate these land owners who lease their properties to the wireless industry are getting so ripped off - in more ways than one - and they don't even know it. MORE IS NOT BETTER FOR US; MORE IS ONLY BETTER FOR THE WIRELESS INDUSTRY = MORE $$$$. FOR THE INDUSTRY ITS ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE MONEY THEY CAN MAKE (AT OUR EXPENSE).Flag
-
36
Name: Darlene Carey on Sep 14, 2007Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Kirsten Voell on Sep 15, 2007Comments: Please respect our freedom to own and maintain a truly rural environment. The additional cell towers are not wanted nor welcome in our residential and farming community.Flag
-
38
Name: Philip Haeussler on Sep 15, 2007Comments:Flag
-
39
Name: Betty Ford on Sep 16, 2007Comments:Flag
-
40
Name: Barbara Haeussler on Sep 16, 2007Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Ellen Polishuk on Sep 17, 2007Comments:Flag
-
42
Name: Tena Meadows O'Rear on Sep 17, 2007Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Martha W. Langdord on Sep 28, 2007Comments: The towers are obscene in our rural landscape. I would rather have poor reception until they can discover more eco-friendly ways to get a signal withour destroying the character of our area.Flag
-
44
Name: Anonymous on Oct 21, 2007Comments: We are against the construction of cell towers in any residential and agricultural communities. We are concerned about the perceived/potential health effects as well as any impact to property values.Flag
-
45
Name: Rebecca Garib on Jan 3, 2008Comments: I strongly object to the placement of a cell tower at 14349 Berlin Turnpike (near Morrisonville). I have young children at home, and the health (radiation) concerns associated with the placement of this tower is still vague enough to be a valid concern for residents!Flag
-
46
Name: Laura Vasta on Jan 3, 2008Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Tricia Hutton on Jan 3, 2008Comments:Flag
-
48
Name: Hannah on Jan 3, 2008Comments:Flag
-
49
Name: Rachel G. on Jan 3, 2008Comments: No towers at the corner of Rts. 9 & 287, PLEASE!Flag
-
50
Name: Joshua's Hands on Jan 3, 2008Comments: There are many other locations that would hide a cell tower better. This site does not conform to the recommendations. It has no natural, tall growth to camouflage the TWO proposed towers, which are to be situated in one corner of the property (not the middle, as recommended on such sites). It also has a 4800 s.f. maintenance facility associated with it -- larger than many homes. Scale back. Rethink. Choose another site.Flag
Page: 1, 2