Carefree OKs faux-cactus antennas in Boulders area

by Beth Duckett - May. 7, 2010 12:08 PM

The Arizona Republic

    Carefree issued permits for a telecommunications company to install five antennas disguised as faux cactuses in the Boulders community despite prior concerns about health and aesthetics.

    In a unanimous vote, the Carefree Town Council this week permitted the devices, called distributed antenna systems, that provide service for smartphones and other wireless devices. NewPath Networks installs the technology to fill a demand for enhanced voice and data services and applications, according to the company.

    Councilman Bob Coady brought up the issue of radiation emitted from cellphone towers. "The research I've found is very disturbing, to say the least," he said.

    Stephen Garcia, a NewPath representative, said the federal government regulates such emissions, which he said are 50 times below the level that the scientific community says could pose a health risk.

    NewPath, based in Seattle, will submit a report annually showing its compliance with the emissions limits, he said.

    The Boulders Homeowners Association supports the antennas. The association will be paid an annual fee by NewPath for use of the property, said Carefree Town Administrator Gary Neiss.

    NewPath is looking at more sites in the Carefree area, which would each require their own permits.

    In another vote, the council tabled a request to pay $3,375 in attorney's fees to assist Coady in a legal matter.

    The bill was from attorney David Burnell Smith, a former Arizona legislator who was first in the nation removed from office for violating public-finance campaign laws.

    Rhetoric was heated as council members discussed the function of town government to cover such legal fees. Coady said he received advice from the town's attorney to contact Smith in the criminal matter. He did not elaborate on details

of the lawsuit.

    "My concern was clearing my name of a malicious charge," Coady said.

    Council members who opposed the payment cited a town code that requires elected officials to give notice to the town clerk and council when a claim arises, which they said Coady did not do. The council voted to address the issue after

details of the bill are released.