News
Static over Wrentham issue
Top Headlines Residents at the fall town meeting voted overwhelmingly to appropriate $60,000, but bids are expected to range from $80,000 to $100,000 for a 100-foot pole and antenna to be put up near the town's water tank off Rhodes Drive. "It seems clearly $60,000 is not sufficient," public safety communications review committee Chairman Walter Mahla told selectmen Tuesday night. "I am concerned they are going to be quite high," he said of the project's final cost And there may be zoning problems with the proposal. An application is pending before the planning board. "If it is not zoned right, you need to find a place. It is an embarrassment not to have two-way radio communication for police and fire," committee member Michael Clemmey said. Selectmen Chairwoman Mary Dunn expressed dismay that the ongoing problem continues to spur complications. "A lot of questions, we haven't gotten answers to. We have gotten conflicting answers," Dunn said. "What is it we need?" "This is a replay of last year. People didn't have a firm understanding what the money would be all for," said new Selectman Bob Cohen, who lives in the west end. "I want to know people know what they are buying." Cohen suggested taking another look at using the Morse land at The Big Apple where the town's antennas had been on a barn for several years. Morse in recent years erected the town's old public safety communications tower there and Cohen mentioned using that. However, there are questions whether that tower is legal, if the town can put its antennas on it, and if those antennas are now on it - the latter which Dunn said was not supposed to happen. "This is another reason we need it on town-owned land," Dunn said. Mahla agreed the town shouldn't rely on such equipment on private land.
Post Your Comments tmorse wrote on Apr 17, 2008 1:12 PM: " "The tower is legal" "." It is a ham radio tower and has several ham radio repeaters ,radio transmitters , radio receivers, a weather station and cameras. It is my understanding from those who would know, that the town of Wrentham's radio problems are that the mobile radios" transmit" signals from the western part of Wrentham can't be heard , not the “received” signal. It's not that the town "transmitters" signals aren't strong enough, it’s the mobile "transmitters" that are not strong enough. All the town has to have is a strong "radio receiver" in the right place to solve their problems. I don't believe there is any law, ordnance or zoning that the town or anyone has to have to put a receiver anywhere. So if it is legal to put a receiver on an existing tower that works well why should the taxpayers blow thousands of dollars that are badly needed when a simple solution is available. A little rent for space on and existing tower for a legal radio receiver until the town
sorts out it's finanical and communications problems would seem a more practical way to do things. At least the tax payers in the west end to town could have better police and fire protection right away. " publius wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:50 AM: " Getting it right again in Wrentham. Good work people. Another nail in the incompentant leadership coffin known as the Wrentham Board of Selectment. They have mastered "Paralysis by Analyis" " or
|