In a rush to judgment, some observers have twisted the telecommunications debate into sensationalist sound bites. Citizens who are trying to preserve the city's quality of life have been called "Wi-Fi wusses" and other infantile names, while the serious issues they are raising are being left behind.

These issues are as fundamental as preserving the city's control over its zoning and land-use policies, and protecting property values and the rights of homeowners.

I would like to clear up a number of misconceptions. First, this is not just a health issue. Whether or not someone believes there are health effects from the radiation, homeowners may not welcome unsightly antennas, or new 25-foot towers appearing overnight in their front or side yards, as is already happening in some communities around the country where the citizens have not been vigilant.

Second, were the proposed new telecommunications ordinance to be approved as written, all public involvement in the placement of antennas would be eliminated. With a single application for a franchise, a company could install hundreds of antennas or towers anywhere it pleases, on any roads or sidewalks, with no signs posted, no notification of homeowners and no public input.

Third, it is highly questionable whether the city is in danger of being sued at this point. The recent Federal Communications Commission ruling requiring cities to act within 90 days applies to "telecommunication facility siting applications," not franchise applications, and certainly not franchise applications that have not yet been submitted under a non-existent ordinance.

Fourth, these are not the low-power, low-impact facilities that are being advertised. One company, Extenet Systems, has submitted a map to the city showing 87 locations for new antennas in the downtown and northeast areas alone. This document specifies numbers from which it can be calculated that the effective radiated power of each antenna will be 55 to 85 watts. By comparison, a Wi-Fi hotspot is 0.1 watts, hundreds of times less powerful.

The City Council has been presented with a petition, signed by 620 citizens, requesting a moratorium on antennas and towers in order to give the city time to craft an ordinance that better serves our community. The FCC not only permits but encourages this, and has published on its Web site guidelines for enacting moratoria of 180 days or more. Hundreds of cities have adopted moratoria in order to revise their ordinances. Glendale, Calif.'s 17-month moratorium, for example, is presently in effect, as is a one-year moratorium in Agoura Hills, Calif.

Contrary to what is being widely repeated, the FCC does not require cities to award franchises and give up control of the public rights-of-way. Santa Fe's current ordinance requires companies that place antennas on public streets to sign a separate lease for each location, and the 2004 Court of Appeals decision, Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, specifically stated that leases are legal and acceptable.

For examples of stronger, more protective telecommunications ordinances, Santa Fe can look to California's San Diego, Irvine, Huntington Beach and San Francisco, whose ordinances have all been upheld in court, and to Glendale, which is presently drafting a law that builds on these previous successes. San Diego's ordinance requires a separate application for every antenna site; specification of preferred zones and locations away from residential areas; notification of nearby property owners; public hearings on most applications; an appeals process; and city discretion to deny permits.

The City Council will continue this debate on March 10. I urge councilors to adopt a moratorium in order to draft an ordinance that is at least protective of the rights of citizens.

Victoria Jewett, who lives in Santa Fe, is a member of the Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety.