.

Speak Out

The place to speak your mind on everything from politics to potholes.

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
Posts awaiting your approval 0
Anna Vaughn June 24, 2014 at 08:04 AM
I guess that's going to be a Cumberland Farms .Can you imagine the added traffic that's going toRead Morecre ate?
WakefieldResident1 June 16, 2014 at 06:18 PM
The Methodist Church should realize, as I am sure it does by now, what angst this cell equipmentRead Morebus iness is causing the local residents. Many of us opposed to this are working parents with busy lives and do not have the time or funds to devote to fighting the large corporations that the Church has teamed up with, that have bottomless pockets for funding their objective. Regarding ‘faith and hope’, yes – we are looking for the Church to make the right decision for the community it resides in. A church should be in the business of uniting the neighbors and citizens among the community - not creating a tense, divisive situation. Cigarette smoking was once thought to be harmless too. Doctors used to smoke themselves! The harmful and cancer causing effects were denied by many for years. In fact, as recently as 1994, heads of the major U.S. tobacco companies actually had the audacity to testify before Congress saying that evidence that cigarette smoking caused diseases such as cancer and heart disease was inconclusive, that cigarettes were not addictive, and that they did not market to children. Really? Think about this….this was in 1994!! Cell towers/cell equipment/cell steeples, whatever term you want to use, haven’t been around very long and only recently have become more widespread. Unlike cigarette smoking, which you can choose to quit as an individual, if a cell tower is placed at the Church, it will likely be there indefinitely, emitting its output night and day, and those who live and go to school in close proximity to it will have no choice. They will have to endure it, or sell their homes and move away.
jOHN dOUGH July 14, 2014 at 09:01 PM
I bet you don't own a cell phone right?
jOHN dOUGH June 09, 2014 at 06:52 PM
state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless serviceRead Morefacilitie s, but sets forth specific limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules.
Mark Wentworth June 09, 2014 at 07:32 PM
John, you misread my comment. I was trying to make a point to the initial poster that even theRead MoreAmeri can Cancer Society believes the church instalation (and similar) are within FCC guidelines.
WakefieldResident1 June 12, 2014 at 05:42 PM
Your comparison of using your personal cell phone for a few minutes a week being equivalent toRead Morelivin g or going to school directly underneath a cell tower and subjected to its output 24/7 is not a logical comparison. When you purchase a home next to a Church or a School, then it is reasonable to expect that it will remain residential, as zoning laws dictate. Purchasing a home next to Logan Airport or Route 1 Saugus, then of course, the reasonable expectation is that you will have to endure commercially zoned activities. The Church, ATT & Verizon are looking for an EXCEPTION to the existing zoning laws to be made. EXCEPTIONS should only be made when extraordinary needs are proven. No exceptional need for additional coverage has been proven for the area. In response to the link posted from the cancer.org site, it says within that article itself that 'very few studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers and cancer risk' so what are they basing their facts on? Basically all of the information stated there is guesswork. There is just as much information available that indicate there ARE risks. More studies need to be done in this area. The truth is that cell towers are relatively new and there is not enough known yet to say definitively that they are safe. Until we know for sure, these should not be located in residential areas near our children and families. The church is obviously interested in the monthly income this would generate. Why is a church involved in the cell phone business anyway? Would they be doing this if there was no income associated with it? What’s next? How about a drive- through McDonald’s on the church property to generate the next level of income they desire. After all, we all need to eat, right, so anything should be allowed. Threat of 40B housing is snide and unrealistic. This neighborhood has already been subject to housing development. A 30 unit apartment building was just built behind the church property, including affordable units.
DBC May 12, 2014 at 09:20 PM
Thanks for caring! As a senior citizen in low-income housing and trying to make ends meet the bestRead MoreI can, I am amazed at the organizations running food panties (NOT WIFP, EVER!) who think it is OK to pass along the outdated food products to us at their monthly distributions. I worked hard all my life and have given the best of what I had many times over to those in need when I was able. Why is it OK to treat the poor like second-class citizens? The financially secure, it is said, are only a paycheck away from poverty themselves. Please, "check the date, before you donate!"
Leanne Russell May 05, 2014 at 04:31 PM
Respect the town-wide referendum vote. As a resident, I want a better garage option. A YES vote onRead Moret he garage means the Town will pay $2,100,000 in "annual relief" on the garage structure ($105,000 x 20 years). A SMARTER plan would be to build a 2-level garage at the corner of Main and Water, where a parking lot already exists. This used to be the site of a multi-story building, which burned down decades ago, but there is a precedent for a taller structure there. Plus, this lot has 42 spaces. By building at least a two-story garage, let's estimate 80 spaces (or at least 75)....all of which are open for residents, etc. to park at. The average cost to build an above ground garage is $15k per space -- for 80 spaces, that would cost $1,200,000. So, we could triple the amount of spaces open to residents/consumers, save $800k in tax "relief" that was earmarked for a for-profit company, and not overdevelop downtown with a 140-unit structure.
Bronwyn Della-Volpe May 03, 2014 at 07:44 AM
Shouldn't this be posted in the business section?
Julie the Jarhead May 18, 2014 at 07:41 PM
Yes, Bronwyn, it appears to belong in the business section. And, no, Diva, you cannot post it where Read Moreyou see fit. If it violates Patch's terms of service to post a commercial ad in Speak Out, then you cannot do so. And if you're going to stay in business long, I would suggest that you lose the Eric Cartman "I'll do whatever I want" attitude.
Diva Fairies May 23, 2014 at 10:55 AM
Didn't ask you to be my business advisor Julie and it would be up to the patch to contact me if IRead Morevi olated anything not to internet trolls who seem to have nothing better to do but harass and talk down to me
Bronwyn Della-Volpe April 22, 2014 at 04:44 PM
Thanks for a great letter that voices the outrage and concerns of so many Wakefield residents! ItRead Moreis hard to imagine how a TM vote can over-ride a town-wide vote at the polls where almost 5,000 residents showed up to vote. I feel this is a disservice to those who can't attend the town meeting - some have to work, others are unable to sit or stand for long periods of time, many might be out of town - there aren't any absentee ballots for town meeting. It truly isn't as representative a voice as the April 1st vote was. The April 1st vote should have sufficed.
Anna Vaughn April 23, 2014 at 08:22 AM
I very much agree with this comment.The April 1st vote should have sufficed.
Bronwyn Della-Volpe April 24, 2014 at 12:47 PM
Point well taken. While the Town has been "guaranteeing" that there will be at least 75Read Moresp aces available to the public, if is now clear that there is no mechanism in place to assure us that guarantee. Town officials, including Police Chief Smith, admitted that there will not be on-site monitoring of who parks where and for how long. While there may be some spaces available, it is misleading to say these spaces will be guaranteed when anyone - even Brightview residents, visitors and staff - can use the spots at any time for as long as they like. All this IF the garage is built. As many of you now know, a petition voids the town-wide vote at the polls which defeated the garage in every precinct and by a strong double-digit margin, with nearly 5,000 Wakefield residents voting on April 1st. We now have to go to Town Meeting to re-vote on this same issue. But what about hose who made it to the polls but aren't able to make it to TM? What about those who can't sit or stand for long periods of time at a TM? There isn't an absentee ballot for TM either. How can we accommodate those residents who WANT to cast a vote but can't get to TM? This hardly seems like a fair way to treat those who cast their vote at the polls on April 1st.
Carol Ann May 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM
God Bless maybe you can split the rental with another mom.
Carol Ann May 20, 2014 at 12:06 PM
theres plenty of houses for rent in the Mendon area.
See more »