A new proposal for a 35-metre-high telecommunications tower in Ganges brought out impassioned public opposition, but there were few clues from Salt Spring Local Trust Committee on how it plans to ultimately respond.
The installation should improve wireless voice and data service in Ganges and along Fulford-Ganges Road, according to a description submitted by proponent SLI Towers, who seek to erect the tower on Knott Place off Rainbow Road — not for a specific operator, they said, but potentially any or all of them.
“The tower is required to address continually increasing demand for wireless voice and data services as high-quality data and voice services have become essential to local residents,” according to the proposal, adding the location was chosen “as there is a great need for coverage in the area.”
Islanders who turned out to speak at the LTC’s meeting Thursday, Nov. 6 all expressed worries about environmental health issues they said were associated with electromagnetic radiation such towers produce. But for their part, local trustees’ conversations centred on whether the proponent was aware of existing LTC protocol, which calls for First Nations consultation for any new antenna siting.
The protocol — built around Salt Spring’s “Strategy for Antenna Systems” — asks proponents to work with the Islands Trust early in the process to identify known and potential archaeological sites and obtain a list of First Nations rights and title holders; it recommends First Nations consultation early and often, and calls for significant reporting and notice specifically surrounding Indigenous interests nearby.
A resolution directing staff to bring that protocol to the proponent’s attention was the sole formal motion concerning the tower — a preliminary bit of feedback that likely reflects the LTC’s advisory role in the approval process.
“I know the last time we had a [tower] proposal before us, we hadn’t officially adopted our protocol, but that was done,” said trustee Laura Patrick. “Our standing resolution requests an applicant to do a number of items.”
“The standing resolutions say the proponent ‘will’,” noted LTC chair Tim Peterson. “To my view, [the protocol] is sort of the bare minimum that these types of proponents should be required to do in terms of consultation with First Nations.”
Both agreed the LTC wanted to see documentation from SLI Towers that the protocol had been followed; but like municipalities, the Islands Trust has no explicit authority over decisions on the location of telecommunications antenna structures, as that power is reserved by the federal government.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) has a consultation process, and local governments typically reply with a statement — either of concurrence or of non-concurrence — to ISED regarding siting and design.
This process recently played out when SLI Towers approached North Cowichan’s municipal council regarding a similar 35-metre tower it plans in Crofton; that council voted to send a statement of concurrence in August.
On Salt Spring, ISED approved construction of a tower for Rogers Telecommunications on Channel Ridge in 2023, over what had become opposition from the LTC; trustees had rescinded a statement of concurrence for that project and tried unsuccessfully to trigger a dispute resolution process.
“We certainly heard from members of the public,” said Peterson Thursday. “But when dealing with federal regulators, to simply state ‘we don’t want it anywhere’ is not well received; there may be some opportunity to identify better sites.”
The nearest relevant tower, according to SLI Towers’ application, is the Channel Ridge monopole, now shared by Rogers and Telus; the report briefly discussed “co-location opportunities,” referencing smaller rooftop towers in Ganges and Fulford Harbour, but noted the two 49- and 65-metre towers on Mount Tuam were not close enough to enhance coverage near Ganges, nor to provide “coverage speeds residents have come to trust and expect.”
SLI Towers characterizes itself as a proponent of such infrastructure on behalf of “all national carriers and wireless internet providers.” Its parent company, Steward Logistics, noted five years in the “new site acquisition, amending and extension agreements, municipal and land use approvals, site planning and project management” industry on its website, and that in that time it executed over 200 new tower and rooftop agreements for its clients “with a 98 per cent success rate.” The company lists offices in Etobicoke, Ont. and Palm Beach, Fla.
I find it hard to ignore the irony in this situation. Everyone expects reliable cell service for day to day life and especially for emergencies involving fire, rescue and police. Yet the loudest voices opposing this tower are the same small group that tried to block the upgrade on Canvasback Place. The community paper was quick to amplify their complaints then and it seems to be happening again.
The larger community needs dependable coverage. This proposal supports safety, communication and basic modern infrastructure. The Local Trust Committee continues to drag the process into unnecessary theatre even though they ultimately have no authority over federal telecommunications decisions. The focus should be on what benefits the whole island rather than the same recurring NIMBY objections.
I wonder – who benefits from constant upgrades? Who benefits from the switch to 5G and beyond? Is it really the end user who needs this relentless push towards better connectivity and greater bandwidth, or is those entities who control the back ends of our devices to harvest data and track our every move?