Hi!
SPPA, BELL, Industry Canada and we have some very real problems. Some are economic and others are political! The SPPA signing contracts without adequately consulting members goes outside all prior history of the SPPA. For this reason we must now go outside box to find an amicable solution other than shouting at our friends and neighbours. We can forgive, but only once for the past error of judgement, not future ones.
I thought it would be useful to look at potential hidden costs of the cellular project whether real or imaginary. The political voting process within Southcott Pines Park Association also interested me!
Planning for future exposures.....
A theoretical plan for coverage of expected costs for shielding homes near the cellular tower needs to be thought through and apportioned fairly through SPPA. The total real cost could be in the order of $10 million today's prices, but even this might be too little.
I will narrow down on the dollar estimate this weekend with a Toronto Investor who went through the process several years ago when residencing in downtown Toronto. The same household is moving to a more distant location well away from Toronto where there is greater realism concerning the negative effects on immune system deterioration arising from cellular tower whole body radiation. Reacting sensibly to fear of the unknown is itself a cost!
This note is also to revisit the real possibility of bias in the decision making of Southcott Pines Park Association.
Any costs and benefits of a cellular tower need to be spead more evenly among all members whether full or part time resident.
In the case of changes of use of the park lands abutting properties around the park and within the high risk area of negative levels of production of cellular waves, there needs to be a reduction in those having a say to that group of people owning residences that abut the park or are within a well defined estimate of the highest risk zone.
My suggestion is that any vote be exponentially weighted according to an exact measurement of the distance from the cellular tower. The weighted share could for example be from 1/distance to the power that independent measures from a Toronto consultant familar with the process would claim is the risk area.
Thus, if the highest risk is defined to a short distance from the tower these people would have a higher vote in a weighted vote-out. They would also receive the highest dollar amounts for shielding whether or not they put it up.
Thus, my property for example which is fairly close to the proposed tower would get an enormously high vote in a weighted vote-out while some one living much closer to the lighthouse would get proportionally less weight in a vote-out. In addition, if I lost in a vote-out, I would still expect to be paid an enormous amount less the $5,000 I might receive, say $50,000 to do a property job of shielding that I would be more comfortable with, though still worried about.
This would in no sense be a payoff for risks encurred by those living close to the cellular tower. At some future history, they would need to be paid out of a fund set up to cover other costs.
As the cost of shielding from the tower could be extremely high as it is in Toronto, a fund needs to be created to which all residences contribute an equal amount. The proceeds would be non-profit.
One could easily suggest that all residences within the Southcott Pines Park Association each initially contribute $5,000 to cover the costs of necessary shielding for the homes closest to the tower. In Toronto the costs per residence are somewhat higher, but the shielding is for properties in tower blocks. This is just to get you thinking in the rough mathematics. The cost might be much higher, say $25,000 per household.
Several homeowners say they would pay $1,000 to have the issue go away ... ! Indeed, that is a very rational response, however, those households least affected by radiation and most likely to vote for the project should theoretically pay more because they are more likely not to have taken into account the risks. What do I know? They might be information junkies like me!
With 500 residences and $5,000 per residence the fund would still be only $2,500,000, which would just cover a few homes, so possibly a higher levy would be needed, possibly 4 times that amount, just for starters.
This cost would in no way cover the potential costs down the road for health and other damages when including charges and costs of activily protecting species etc. setting down standards and organizing an effective shield that children and nearby residences would be comfortable with.
Incidently, its no argument that some people do not have shielding around their homes. Such general changes are like shifting the direction of a supertanker, except of course amongst those wealthy residences in the skyline Toronto, or companies that may find the costs of officing in urban areas quite prohibitive as years go by and more and more people are clued into the real costs, say almost daily covering one's body from top to bottom with protective creams that shield one temporarily.
One notices the effects of radiation with age and weakening of the immune system as it is overloaded by constant stimulation of microwaves and other rays less frequent though no less dangerous as the earth's protective shield in challenged and thinned out even more from gases corrosive to the protective layer!
Arthur
Posted to Http://woohs.blogspot.ca
Join the many thousands by being better informed through reading daily news and journal articles to be discovered through http://woohs.blogspot.com .... Enjoy a series of regular sketches and photos by Woohs' ... RT and share a relatively safe way to sample critical and thought provoking writing about what's happening .... worldwide. Prepare to think differently about your world.