MAY 5, 1997
Reply on Ring Hill tower
In reply to your editorial about the [proposed] cellular phone tower on Ring Hill (April 28), why shouldn't I be emotional? How would you like to have a 300-foot tower hovering over you for the rest of your life?
I declined an offer to build a 150-foot tower on my property that abuts the King County Dump, site of the commercial tower. You do not have to pay my tax increases while my property is being devalued due to the tower's presence.
The time between the first notice and the first meeting was obviously a hurry-up deal, less than two weeks. No notices were sent to the Saybrook Development, also an impact area. Juanita residents, impacted by a 100-foot tower, found that the land use notice was erected on the wrong property. Should we ignore such suspicious activities?
You mention "NIMBY" as if all development, no matter how disastrous, should be allowed in my backyard. This brings to my mind "INYBY:" in your back yard, not mine.
Why should we taxpayers become lawyers, engineers, geophysicists, molecular biologists, and all kinds of specialists just to prove the government wrong in laws designed by the government? A recent TV health advice mentioned a research project that found certain people possess genes that are unusually susceptible to cancer. I am sure the so-called experiments denying any impact on a person's health from those towers do not include these people that are susceptible to cancer.
There are other elevations that will not impact so many homeowners. Apparently law allows government to choose where and when it will subsidize the private cellular phone corporations, all at taxpayers expense. Commercial buildings are not allowed on residential Ring Hill, so why should a commercial tower be allowed?
I ask you: Would the county government build and pay for the upkeep of a trout farm for me? No! It should be the same for private phone companies.
George F. Slusser, Woodinville