More cell towers could be beneficial for rural residents
I was recently reading the Dec. 6 paper about the city fathers denying the Verizon cell tower to be built within the city limits. Kind of late to give positive feedback for a cell tower, but living out in the wilds of Baker County, outside the city limits, I happen to live 10 miles out and cell service along the lower limits of the Elkhorn Mountains is just about obsolete. True, a lot of trees can block signals, but with another cell tower somewhere along the lower hills west of Baker City could just be an improvement, especially in an emergency when landlines may be cut off along with electrical power. So, I understand to not have something big like a metal tree in your backyard is disturbing to your eyesight, but some people need the extra height for safety reasons. We do have a vast amount of large hills surrounding this city, so why not put a tower on top of a couple of them? Driving into Boise, Ontario, or other places along the freeway, there are numerous cell towers all within view of each other, but not around this valley. I happen to like hunting and exploring the forests and streams of this beautiful area, but cell service is pretty much nonexistent outside the freeway corridor, and since I usually hunt alone, getting hurt and not being able to reach help via the cell phone system means I don’t bother to carry one with me, just more weight and space. I would hope this letter can be addressed to the various cell phone operating companies that neglect the people that live in the remote areas.