Maya Lin School parents seek removal of cell tower
Maya Lin School parents seek removal of cell tower
Parents at Maya Lin School are asking schools officials to move cell phone antennae perched on the school’s roof to a building that doesn’t house children and to use an upcoming contract renewal as an opportunity to review whether the deal to put a cell tower on the school was inked legally.
A school district spokeswoman said the district has heard parents’ concerns and is reviewing the contract, and that district officials will look into whether the equipment can be moved to a different site. Superintendent Kirsten Vital announced during the March 11 school board meeting that the district would be reaching out to Maya Lin families and that meetings will be scheduled to discuss the issue.
Parent Sarah Feldman, who launched a petition seeking removal of the cell equipment that had been signed by 130 people as of the March 11 meeting, researched the cell towers and the district’s history with them after learning from another Maya Lin parent that the school had one on its roof. Feldman said she’s concerned about the potential health effects of the radiation the towers emit, and she wants families whose children are attending the two-year-old magnet school to have a say in whether they should be there.
Schools leaders approved contracts with wireless companies to place the towers on top of Wood Middle School in 2002, Maya Lin (then Washington) in 2004 and Alameda High School’s Larry Patton Gym in 2005. The contracts generate tens of thousands of dollars a year for the school district’s facilities fund; the Maya Lin contract has so far generated $252,000, district spokeswoman Susan Davis said, $45,000 of it in the form of a one-time contribution that paid for a new playground at the school.
Feldman said she understands the towers provide revenue to the school district. So she and other parents are asking the district to consider moving the towers to buildings that don’t house students, like the district’s warehouse or district office.
“I’d like them to move it to a building that does not have children in it. That way they can still receive the money, and it won’t harm the kids,” Feldman said.
The American Cancer Society says that most scientists agree that cell phone towers are unlikely to cause cancer; on its website, it says exposure to radiation from the towers is “typically many times lower” than exposure from using a cell phone. But the organization also notes that few human studies have focused on the potential risk posed by the towers.
While the International Agency for Research on Cancer – one of three expert agencies that classify cancer-causing exposures, according to the American Cancer Society – has said that radiofrequency (RF) radiation may be carcinogenic, none of the three has classified cell towers as cancer-causing.
“I realized that some parents are now worried about the potential health risks posed by the tower,” Vital said during the March 11 meeting. “I’d like to gently point out that according to the American Cancer Society, the type of radiofrequency emitted by cell phone towers is not the type that causes cancer. Nor is the amount of radiofrequency energy found at the base of the towers enough to cause cancer.”
She said the contract was signed in 2004 and renewed in 2009 with parents’ support. Parents have questioned that assertion, noting that the contract was originally signed in August 2004, when school was not in session.
But some school districts are saying no to the towers. The board overseeing an Oregon school district that’s similar in size to Alameda Unified reportedly banned cell towers on campus in 2008, saying their safety had not yet been proven, while the Los Angeles Unified School District passed a resolution in 2000 restricting cell towers on school sites and another in 2009 signaling its intent to challenge towers to be installed near school sites that may emit more radiation than allowed by federal law.
Feldman said that it’s the lack of knowledge about the potential effects of the towers that concerns her. And she’d rather see Alameda Unified err on the side of caution.
“We don’t know that they’re perfectly okay,” she said. “That we don’t know is exactly the point.”
The contracts were inked with an initial term of five years and four to five automatic five-year renewals. While minutes of the 2004 board meeting where the Maya Lin lease was approved that were obtained by Feldman through a public records request say the renewals can be made “by mutual consent,” none of the contracts appears to give the district the right to cancel, unless a government health agency determines the radiation emitted by the cell towers is dangerous and orders them removed.
A 2012 amendment to the Maya Lin agreement that refers to a potential redevelopment of the property offers the district the opportunity to require the company that owns the cell equipment there, Cingular Wireless, to move it to a mutually acceptable site or to cancel the contract if agreement on a new site can’t be reached.
The amendment doesn’t refer to a specific project, and the district has not announced plans to redevelop the site.
Parents are also questioning whether the district legally had the right to enter into the contracts to begin with. Jessica Reed said she doesn’t think the law district officials cited when seeking approvals for the cell tower contracts applies to the contracts board members okayed. She said she was unable to find a board policy authorizing this type of lease; Feldman said the board has a policy to only grant contracts for use of school grounds for a year at a time.
Reed and Feldman said parents want a chance to talk with schools leaders, either as part of the decision-making process or after the fact, to voice their concerns and to find out why the contracts are still in effect.
“It’s important that we be part of the conversation as they make this decision,” Feldman said.
Vital said on March 11 that she understands that parents are concerned about the cell tower at Maya Lin and that Cingular will decide over the next six months whether to renew its contract there.
“This will present an opportunity for the community to express its opinion about whether or not to renew,” she said.