WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2020
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
Fast action
to possible
threat
Two hours.
That’s how much time elapsed between the phone
call that alerted the Baker County Dispatch Cen-
ter to a possible threat of a shooting at Baker High
School, and the Baker City Police Department’s
arrest of the 16-year-old boy, a BHS student, who
allegedly made that threat during a phone call to a
national suicide hotline.
That two-hour span, by the way, was, quite literally,
in the middle of the night. The call to the Dispatch
Center was at 11:39 p.m. Sunday. Police arrested the
teenager at 1:39 a.m. Monday. He was driven to a
juvenile detention center at The Dalles.
It’s diffi cult to imagine a scenario that would better
illustrate both how seriously the police department
treats such threats, and how capable it is of respond-
ing to them.
This is reassuring.
It’s not clear whether the teenager was serious
about carrying out his threat to shoot people at the
school and to take his own life, or whether he had the
ability to do either.
But the police, by arresting the boy more than
six hours before classes started Monday morning,
ensured he would not have a chance.
Baker School District Superintendent Mark
Witty, in addition to thanking police for their rapid
response, also noted that school offi cials work with
New Directions Northwest to help students deal with
mental health issues.
Ideally the student will get that help.
It’s encouraging that he did call a suicide hotline.
Verizon has other options
We support the Planning Com-
mission’s decision to deny Verizon’s
application for a 70-foot cell tower in a
residential area because their decision
was based on the criteria set forth in
the Baker City Development Code
(Code). We support maintaining local
control using our local Code to guide
how our city develops. We urge Verizon
to withdraw its appeal and instead
explore the abundant alternative sites
that exist in the community that avoid
residential areas. The technology has
value but not if it means surrendering
local control to a multi-billion dollar
corporation.
Some background on this appeal.
The permitted height for a cell tower
inside the city limits is 50 feet and
restricted to lots zoned Industrial or
Commercial. Any height greater than
that requires a conditional use permit.
In 2015 Verizon proposed a 100-foot
tower on a remnant industrial lot in
a high-density residential area. The
tower was denied because the height
did not meet the criteria set forth in
the Code. In 2019 Verizon proposed a
70-foot tower on a different remnant
industrial lot in the same area. The
Planning Commission again denied
the application for the same reasons
as in 2015. Now Verizon is appealing
the Planning Commission’s decision
to deny it a conditional use permit.
It is using phrases like “violation of
the Federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996,” “signifi cant gap in service,”
and “prohibiting provision of wireless
service.” These statements are not true
and we want to set the record straight
on Verizon’s appeal points.
Verizon states that the Planning
Commission’s decision violates the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Not true. The 1996 Act states in
Section 704 (7) that local government
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
Letters to the editor
• The Baker City Herald will not knowingly print false
or misleading claims. However, we cannot verify the
accuracy of all statements in letters to the editor.
• Letters are limited to 350 words; longer letters will be
edited for length. Writers are limited to one letter every 15
days.
• The writer must sign the letter and include an address and
phone number (for verifi cation only). Letters that do not
include this information cannot be published.
• Letters will be edited for brevity, grammar, taste and
legal reasons.
Mail: To the Editor, Baker City Herald,
P.O. Box 807, Baker City, OR 97814
Email: news@bakercityherald.com
authority is the fi nal authority in the
placement, construction and modifi ca-
tion of personal wireless service with
one limitation: a cell tower cannot be
denied based on the environmental ef-
fects of radio frequency emissions. The
Planning Commission did not make its
decision based on radio frequency emis-
sions but on whether the application
met the Code criteria.
Verizon states: “Although there are
residential zoned properties in the
area, the City Council has already de-
termined that the telecommunication
facilities are a compatible use for this
area by zoning the property General
industrial.”
Not true. The City Council did not
zone the property General Industrial.
It is a remnant General Industrial
property. The issue is the tower’s pro-
posed height, not the tower. A condi-
tional use permit is required for any
telecommunications tower over 50 feet.
Once over 50 feet all relevant sections
of the Code must be evaluated and a
site-specifi c decision made based on
the criteria.
Verizon states that the Planning
Commission erred in denying the Ap-
plication based on the location of the
site, visibility, aesthetics, and compat-
ibility with the surrounding uses.
Not true. The Planning Commission
is required by Code section 4.4.400
to consider these factors when decid-
ing on a request for a conditional
use permit. Therefore the Planning
Commission evaluated and denied the
application appropriately based on an
assessment of the site and surround-
ing area.
Verizon states that the Commis-
sion’s decision would “prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting” the provision
of wireless service.
Not true. The Planning Commis-
sion’s decision is not a blanket denial
of cell towers but one decision about
one particular site because the applica-
tion did not meet the Code’s criteria for
this particular site. Cell towers already
exist inside the city limits.
Verizon states there is a signifi cant
gap in service coverage.
The information they provide is
complicated, the coverage maps are
of poor quality, and when questioned
they tell us to trust their staff. Yet poor
as the coverage maps are they suggest
good coverage and minimal change
with the addition of another tower.
Furthermore, the cell coverage has
been excellent even during the 2015
Cornet-Windy wildfi re (a high stress,
crisis situation), the 2017 eclipse, and
the various yearly events where Baker
City’s population and cell use tempo-
rarily increase.
Verizon states that there are no
other feasible sites.
Not true. The lack of feasible sites
is only because Verizon chose to
limit themselves to the bare minimum
search radius despite fl exibility in the
Code. The Code simply requires that
“…alternative sites within a radius
of at least 2000 feet have been con-
sidered” (Section 3.6.300 (C)(2)). The
radius can be expanded. If the radius
is expanded to 2800 feet then options
open up in areas zoned Commercial-
General. If you expand it even further
more options show up. These sites al-
low for greater tower heights and avoid
residential areas.
Editor’s note: This opinion was submitted
and signed by the following residents:
Suzanne Fouty, Ann Mehaffy, Don
Herman, Mary Miller, Barb O’Neal, Mike
Blank, Cynthia Roberts, Gretchen Stadler,
Whit Deschner, Maureen Quinn, Barbara
Meyer, Mike Meyer
OTHER VIEWS
Multiple causes for decline in U.S. cancer death rate
Editorial from The Chicago Tribune:
Cancer remains a dreaded diagnosis, but
there’s heartening news. America is show-
ing great progress against some of the most
deadly forms of the disease, particularly lung
cancer and the aggressive skin cancer mela-
noma.
Researchers have reported the largest-ever
one-year decline in the U.S. cancer death rate,
a drop of 2.2% between 2016 and 2017, accord-
ing to the American Cancer Society. The rate
has fallen resoundingly — nearly 30% — from
1991 to 2017, affecting nearly 3 million lives.
Anyone who lost a loved one to cancer in that
quarter-century can applaud this progress.
What drove the improvement? Both per-
sonal choices and medical advances contrib-
uted, researchers say. Lung cancer is by far
the biggest killer of the cancers, and smok-
ing — which is also implicated in other types
of cancer — has been declining for decades.
There are powerful new ways to diagnose
and treat lung cancer, and even patients with
advanced disease are living longer. “It’s an
exciting time,” Dr. Jyoti Patel, a Northwestern
University lung cancer expert, told The As-
sociated Press.
Skin cancer death rates dropped even more
dramatically, falling 7% annually in recent
years, thanks to improved drug treatments,
the report said.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death
in the United States, behind heart disease. It
still claims too many lives and strikes at our
hearts in personal or public life. (We’re root-
ing for you, Rep. John Lewis and “Jeopardy”
host Alex Trebek.) While treatments have
improved, in many cases their toll on patients
remains too harsh.
The report came with some cautions: Death
rates have increased for some cancers linked
to obesity, including those of the thyroid,
pancreas and uterus, The New York Times
reports. Declines in death rates from prostate,
breast and colon cancer are slowing, though
that follows massive drops of 40% to more
than 50%. There are geographic and racial
disparities in death rates.
On the positive side, the decline in smoking
cigarettes, not-that-affectionately known as
cancer sticks, should continue to pay off for
years to come. The HPV vaccine will continue
its march against cervical cancer. Immuno-
therapy shows great promise.
And researchers keep chasing innovations
in treatment. The Wall Street Journal reports
on an approach harnessing ideas from evolu-
tion and — stay with us here — pest control.
The approach aims to reduce tumors by just
25% to 50% and make the cancer manage-
able and leave some in place, but without
empowering the bad cells that manage to
survive. It’s a philosophy similar to that used
in exterminating bugs. “I think pest managers
are about 30 years ahead of the oncologists,”
Carlo Maley, an evolutionary cancer biologist,
told the Journal.
Cancer is complicated, and the solutions
are too. Bad habits, pollution and complex
risk factors like obesity won’t just go away.
But this record year of improvements shows
that better choices and investment in more
effective — and less destructive — ways to di-
agnose and heal are making a dent. Wouldn’t
it be nice to see The Big C downgraded from
nemesis to nuisance?
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Donald Trump: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania
Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-1414; fax 202-456-2461; to
send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. offi ce: 313 Hart Senate Offi ce
Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753;
fax 202-228-3997. Portland offi ce: One World Trade Center, 121
S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386;
fax 503-326-2900. Pendleton offi ce: 310 S.E. Second St. Suite 105,
Pendleton 97801; 541-278-1129; merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. offi ce: 221 Dirksen Senate Offi ce
Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244; fax 202-228-2717.
La Grande offi ce: 105 Fir St., No. 210, La Grande, OR 97850; 541-
962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885; wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (2nd District): D.C. offi ce: 2182 Rayburn
Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202-
225-5774. La Grande offi ce: 1211 Washington Ave., La Grande, OR
97850; 541-624-2400, fax, 541-624-2402; walden.house.gov.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State Capitol, Salem, OR
97310; 503-378-3111; www.governor.oregon.gov.
Oregon Legislature: Legislative documents and information
are available online at www.leg.state.or.us.