To the Editor:
First, thank you for the coverage of this proposed facility. Wireless infrastructure is required for the lifestyle that we have communally and commonly adopted, even if not all agree. As an AT&T wireless customer, I can confirm their coverage in the area is not good, often barely a single bar. I infer AT&T knows this well and this facility is the plan or part of a plan to address their current coverage limitations. It is a simple fact that infrastructure like this must be maintained and upgraded overtime.
Your article mentions the location of the proposed new utility pole is on E Burnside St. It would have been great if your article included the zoning for this specific address in order to gather and report on the pertinent facts given its coverage of neighbors’ “residential” perspective.
I struggle to understand how this is considered residential when Burnside is such a major thoroughfare. The neighbors’ concern, specifically Georgia Krantz’s, strikes me as a classic example of NIMBY-ism. The comment about—never would have bought the house had she known—is over the top and frustrating to read; as if Georgia didn’t realized her recently purchased home is “kitty-corner” to a major thoroughfare that produces significant noise at volumes vastly exceeding noise I’ve ever heard from a static (no moving parts) cell tower. Visually, the difference as far as I can tell from your coverage, is at most 30 additional feet on a pole in a location that has a myriad of vertical objects, both natural ones like trees and anthropogenic ones like other utility and power line poles.
I am all for due process and giving the public a chance to comment, so your coverage of the MTNA’s stance being purely about following the process is appreciated and a stance I share.
Matt Deniston
Editor’s note: Letters to the Editor are to be less than 300 words. The Southeast Examiner reserves the right to edit for length or content.