A Hard Day's Night

It has most definitely been a Hard Day's Night for countless Mahwah residents and town officials who have been working like a dog; but not all are sleeping like a log.

While Mahwah’s cell service nightmare may finally be coming to a conclusion, a small handful of residents remain who inexplicably, continue to fight simple math, basic science and common sense. For more than a decade Mahwah has been embroiled in prolonged dialogue - and occasional battle - over providing a service so basic, that even people living in third-world countries and remote areas of the outback have it.

To recap, the question of precisely where to locate a cell tower that serves the greatest number of people in Mahwah, has been in dispute for years. What has NOT been in dispute is the ideal location for that tower. Fire station #3 located on Rozanski Lane has always been the best place for the tower, as defined by the greatest overall coverage. Additionally, the land is owned by the township, free from easement and access issues, and unquestionably, serves the greatest number of residents who currently have limited service, or no service at all. There are other available options, but none of them check as many “boxes” as the location on Rozanski Lane, including a site controlled by the Board of Education as well as another that would have placed the cell tower atop the Nilsen Water Tank near the New York border. It is for these reasons, that Mayor Roth brought in an independent consultant to opine and advise on the best location. While substantially all previous analytical evidence and data point to Rozanski Lane as the optimal location, the Mayor did the right thing by removing the “noise” and past mayor/council battles from the discussion to produce a new, independent, transparent and final report.

The consultant Mayor Roth selected to produce this report, could not have been more competent or eminently qualified, having received degrees from both The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wharton School as well as having nearly thirty years of experience in the field of cell technology, including hundreds of consulting assignments on exactly this topic. Dr. Bruce Eisenstein, a professor of electrical engineering led a three hour discussion that was scientific in nature, with little to no consideration for aesthetics, cost or Mahwah towns codes & ordinances – though he was able to speak with authority to many of those topics. As expected, the consultant’s findings were entirely consistent with nearly all past reports and suggestions for tower placement. His presentation to the council in an open, public forum was articulate, informative and entirely conclusive in the eyes of many – including those that were still undecided.

The ultimate decision now rests with Mahwah’s Town Council. They must consider a number of factors including: coverage, safety, cost, health, future technological advances and aesthetics before making a final decision. While these are all valid, the decision making process should be based largely on scientific analysis while taking into account a “weighting” for each factor. This process is referred to as the PMI Technique (Plus Minus Interesting) which is similar to a simple SWOT analysis. PMI is a derivative of the basic “pros and cons” technique, but more scientific. It is used to evaluate available options by drawing a table with three columns to measure the plus (or positive effect) of the various alternative in the first column, the negative effect in the second column, with the third and final column for other expected eventualities - either positive or negative. These effects should be “weighed” for greater clarification as some could be more subjective than others. For example, “improved cell coverage” should always have a much greater weighting than “aesthetics”. This doesn’t mean that coverage will always prevail over aesthetics. It means that coverage is more important than aesthetics - which should be taken into account during the decision-making process. For an even greater (and exaggerated) explanation, if for example, 100 people are able to realize better cell service if a new tower was placed on site “A”, but the tower would be located in the middle of a separate 500 home development, then the greater weighting of "coverage" would be more than offset by the exceptionally large number of people adversely affected by the negative "aesthetics" of poor placement. Decisions in both the public and private sector are made every day using this simple methodology. It’s clean, quick, scientific and leaves little doubt as to what the right decision should be.

The decision as to where to place a cell tower in Mahwah should employ the same analysis. While it may sound glib and simplistic, the needs of the many in this particular exercise, outweigh the needs of the few. The number of residents adversely affected – monetarily or otherwise - by the placement of this tower, is significantly and overwhelmingly smaller than the number of people who stand to benefit from new cell service. This alone should provide enough evidence to justify placing the tower at Rozanski Lane. However, in fairness, the PMI method should also consider the “next best” alternative and should be evaluated before making an informed and final decision. If for example alternative “B” provides the exact same coverage but with less overall impact on aesthetics vs. alternative A, then alternative B should be considered a viable option. This however, is where the weighting of other related factors – such as “safety” or “cost” – come into play. If, as we heard, 80% of all 911 calls are made by a cell phone, then a great deal of weight must also be placed on the number of residents who would NOT receive cell service, if alternative B were selected for the placement of the tower.

All the available data– both past and present – indicate that the best spot for the placement of a cell tower, is Rozanski Lane. And if it wasn’t enough that nearly 100% all the mathematical and scientific evidence create a compelling enough argument to immediately and unanimously select the Rozanski site; consider the electorate. The percentage of people in the United States who believe the world is flat is actually greater than the percentage of people in Mahwah who think the cell tower should go somewhere other than Rozanski Lane. This alone doesn’t necessarily mean that the “majority wins”, but it makes clear beyond any reasonable measure, that the overwhelming majority of those in Mahwah with little or no cell service, should be provided for.

A very wise man recently reminded of two very important points regarding the role of government in society. First, it is not the role of local government to provide cell coverage to its residents (unless it becomes a question of public safety). That role should ultimately reside within the private sector including cell service providers and cell tower manufacturers. It is however, the role of government – local, state and federal – to provide for the continued safety and well-being of the people they were elected to serve. Second, it will always be the role of government to protect the minority against the political tyranny of the majority. These are both worthy of deliberation but should not be considered in a vacuum. The majority isn’t always right, (see Presidential elections of 2000 and 2016) and the minority isn’t always wrong (see Presidential elections of 2000 and 2016).

I firmly believe that the role of local government is to make decisions that befit both the greater good and the greatest numbers. But when considering alternatives or the negative implications to those that may be adversely affected by this decision, I would look to consider the long-term benefits offered to a large number of residents who will have cell service – forever, against a small number of residents, facing what looks to be a short-term inconvenience.