For some homeowners, the recent sight of construction activity on Sun City Anthem Drive at Scotts Valley suggested the first phase of the installation of that long sought after traffic signal. But alas, their hopes were dashed as it was soon realized that this was merely preparation for another of those cell phone device strung along the parkway and attached to another light pole.

In the days of the Oversight Committee, it leader Favil West attended to the community’s needs when outside building contractors came knocking on Sun City’s door. For example, when one telephone company wanted to install a cell phone tower, Favil was there at the City’s Planning Commission to let them know about our concerns and requirements. And to press the point even further, when that tower was ready to be installed, Favil was back in front of the Planning Commissioners telling them that the tower received was not the tower that we had approved since the cell detectors were located on the outside of the tower instead of being hidden on the inside as we had demanded and as the City had approved. Did the telephone company merely make a simple but costly mistake in ordering the “wrong” tower or did they ignore what we understood was the agreement on the design of the tower? Never mind. To the consternation of the phone company that was pressing the commissioners for approval of their modified tower, Favil West prevailed on the Planning Commissioners to require the phone company to comply with the original design, which required the company to order a new tower. Apparently the lesson here on communication company's plan to install cell towers in Sun City, Sun City’s preferences and demands could not be easily ignored. Those were the old days, that is, when the Oversight Committee was effective and operational. Today the Oversight Committee is gone and in its place we have the Board of Directors to protect our interests.

Today’s lesson, however, is quite different. Sadly, it seems that today’s lesson comes at the expense and interests of Sun City's homeowners. Having learned their lesson well, telephone companies needing increased cell phone capacity no longer need to deal with, coordinate their efforts with, or get the approval of Sun City. In fact, they have found a convenient way to circumvent Sun City entirely. How come? First, communication companies approach the local government, in our case the City of Henderson, with an offer they apparently cannot refuse. For the use of the City’s existing light poles in the public right of way, the City will derive a continuing income from fees that are generated from the leasing of the equipment to various telephone companies. The City provides the “tower” and the City earns an income for its alternate use.
At least during the day when visibility is not at issue, what Sun City homeowners get in the bargain is an array of cell phone towers serving no other use in daylight hours, with those cell devices (previously dispatched out of sight by Favil West) in plain sight. At night, of course, the street lights are turned on and the cell devices are for practical purposes invisible.

The beauty of all of this, as far as the City and Cox Communications (Cox Business Services) is concerned, is that the entire application and approval process bypassed the City’s Planning Commission. The City approved Cox’ design review request on November 27, 2007, subject to certain departmental conditions. According to the City, staff approval by the Community Development Department enjoy the same entitlement as approval by the Planning Commission. In the absence of an appeal, the approval became final on December 10, 2007.

According to a public relations representative of Cox I spoke with, he was unwilling to share information concerning the intended service providers of the cell service, stating that was confidential information he was not authorized to divulge. He said the service could meet the needs of multiple users. However, other Cox representatives I spoke with suggested that the intended user was Verizon. When I specifically asked about Cricket Wireless, I was told by two Cox representative that Cricket was not one of the intended users.

Pictured below are two among the many types of cell tower options in use by communications companies we were not invited to consider.