To the Editor:

I am writing as the owner of the property at 182 Main Street, now occupied by Bella Fleur and Remedies. I have been a resident, grew up there, and have known the village for 75 years.

I acquired this current property from the late pharmacist Gil DeLucia, owner of Altamont Pharmacy for 50 years. Gil and Anne DeLucia hired me as a pharmacy student, even though they had already contracted another student, Jackie Walters, and hiring me was a considerable financial sacrifice to them.

This employment enabled me to cover my college costs and continue in school.That decision to support me may very well have confined their future to the upstairs apartment, and contributed to keeping the Delucias from their dream of owning a house in the village.

Altamont has always been a village and community known for the caring and thoughtfulness of its residents, with its leadership watching out for and protecting its citizens. Many families when I was growing up in the ’40s and ’50s struggled with income insufficiency.

Quiet donations of food, clothing, money, and needed employment were often somehow provided to residents. Some of that altruism is present today, and still makes the village a caring and safe place for families to live and kids to grow up.

That is the Altamont I have known, throughout my 75-year experience with the village. That kind of place took care of me, and my family, and that was an important part of who I was then and who I became in later years — a place of exceptional consideration of others, and a safe place to call home and to come home to.

Altamont is a village with a history of knowing each other and supporting each other. This consideration by others was often over their own personal interest. Is this still true today or have we lost what we held onto for so long over considerations that are more short-term and self-interested?

The current question, one that could have a serious impact on the kind of village we have in the future, is: Can a cell-tower-enhanced service justify the concerns of the citizens of the village at large? The fact is there are several serious negatives on the quality of life in the village.

To begin with, the cell tower site within the village is not the only tower location that can serve the village. Enterprise Consulting Services can find an alternative location. Here are my chief concerns:

— 1. The safety concerns or even the perception of such concerns are real issues for the village and need to be openly considered;

— 2. The debate on approval requires an open forum regarding the negative impact. Many residents may not even recognize the tower is being considered, let alone the negative impact on the village;

— 3. The tower commands a power position over the village like a giant steel and light beacon unbecoming for an historic village. It would remain a modern eyesore that will be noted by every village citizen and those who enter and leave the village; and

— 4. Some might say it is hardly seen, but a 120-foot tower requiring night lighting ends up like a landing beacon at the airport.

Village character and esthetics are negatively impacted. Altamont is the most complete, maintained and historically intact municipality in the entire Capital District.

The issue of cell tower impact on health is a lively debate. It reminds us of the high-tension wires, which were offered as safe and then found to be detrimental. Many states and communities will now not allow high-tension wires near schools or villages.

These are my major health concerns:

— 1. There are no comprehensive combined studies that assure us of no harm;

— 2. The advancement of 5G will be a multiple of current power and there are no studies of its present or future safety;

— 3. The size of the tower and future additions, including a doubling of the number of telephone and microwave installations, increases visibility and impact. The new 5G high frequency is of particular concern as this technology magnifies and exposes the village to the possibility of contamination;

— 4. Proximity to residences under or near the positioning of the tower deeply concerns residents including those who reside in our family home on Helderberg Avenue. This close presence recognizes no residents will be outside the impact of the tower in the village due to the current plans for placement of the tower; and

— 5. The village is transitioning with young families with children, about whose safety we are particularly concerned.

The village has been a magnet for young families due to Altamont Elementary School’s national recognition as Blue Ribbon School. Do we want to deter future young families moving to Altamont when they see for themselves this looming presence?

The reality of public opinion, and the real cost to homeowners in the village will be told in the value of their properties.

Green supporters, environment advocates, and voters have already demonstrated their deep concerns by aggressively avoiding tower proximity regardless of service payment.

Health concerns are a real issue, not to be taken lightly as they are seen as a significant detriment and concern to village residents. A clear, well-studied set of facts, from multiple well-respected investigators have universally concluded that cell towers lower property values.

There are numerous aggregated studies listed on Google by concerned environmentalists, real-estate associations, and multiple government agencies. Many have resulted in legal action.

Many of these studies discuss reduced real estate values. The loss of property values can be up to 20 percent for near in locations. While there are variations in property value reduction, the overwhelming  conclusion is that cell towers reduce real-estate values, substantially for close-to-tower locations.

All of Altamont will certainly be impacted due to the tower placement near the center of the village. Real-estate values are dramatically impacted by proximity to cell, microwave, and the future higher impact of 5G radiations from the cellphone towers.

Why are we subjecting our residents to the risks of a tower given limited nominal benefits to the village?

Thomas Sands

Indianapolis Indiana

Editor’s note: Thomas Sands wrote on Tuesday, after the planning board approved a special-use permit for the tower on Monday, “This does create a recognition that the process for approval of the tower lacked full transparency.” See related story.