In the small town of Yaphank, Long Island,
the historical committee has been at odds with the fire department who
says there is a dire need for a cell tower to be installed somewhere in
the community. A cell tower would better help first responders
communicate with residents in the event of an emergency and improve the
department's ability to respond to fires. Even though the supposedly
huge tower would be placed behind the fire department's facility,
Yaphank's 13-member Historic District Advisory Committee has turned down
two proposals to approve the project. The board believes that the tower
would ruin the town’s rich character, destroying historic districts in
the area. Does this scenario sound familiar?
What's sad about this situation is that the fire department wants to
erect the tower to improve the community – make it safer and help
expedite response time in the event of an emergency or life-threatening
situations. Television reports indicated that there are also numerous
dead zones in the Yaphank area - where you can't even reach 911 if
you're in trouble because there are no signals coming into certain parts
of the town. When the fire department proposed they would creatively
disguise the cell tower as something that might look somewhat
aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood's character, the historical
committee still rejected the idea. The visual impact this tower will
have on their quaint town is more important than saving lives, they say.
This ideology also sounds familiar.
The only difference between Canarsiens' arguments and that of Yaphank
residents is that we've expressed our fears of living in such close
proximity to cell towers because they may or may not radiate unhealthy
electronic waves. Many community members here opposed the cell tower at Avenue N near Canarsie Road.
Some local arguments are for preserving old homes and structures that
no longer pass building safety codes. With old buildings, as beautiful
and classic as they are, it's often easier and more cost efficient to
replace them with more modern structures that aren't ridden with
asbestos and flammable materials that no normal contractor would use in
today's construction guidelines
However, if an old building that's worthy of being landmarked with a
rich history can be modernized for current use and follow the city's
safety measures, there's no reason to ruin it or tear it down.
The only reason some of those rustic, yet admirable Brooklyn houses –
like the Wyckoff Farmhouse and the Lefferts Historic House – can be
preserved is probably because they're not utilized as living quarters.
I'm sure if someone opted to permanently live in these Dutch homes,
they'd have to rip apart those beautifully crafted walls to reroute gas
and electrical lines and those centuries-old classic wood floors would
be completely redone to comply with FDNY and Department of Buildings
materials. Who knows if the fireplaces in those old homes are really
safe – they might just have to demolish and then rebuild them
completely, too. Is that really preserving history and the way things
were in the old days? Of course, these museums must be up to various
basic safety codes on a daily basis for the general public –but they
certainly don't need to revamp the details of the building the same way
living dwellings are monitored.
Even though I'm all in favor of preserving a community's historic
value, the safety and overall improvement of quality of life should come
before anything else. We shouldn't, like those dedicated Yaphankers,
fight the authorities when they're trying to prepare for worst-case
scenarios.
Every community – not just Canarsie – has residents who want to
preserve their neighborhood. But if you cut your nose to spite your
face, you will be preserving ignorance and not your life.
No comments:
Post a Comment