Cellular Phone Towers Elicit Violent Reactions

A 21st century version of an Old West range war has arrived at the doorstep of George and Kathy Culp. Instead of cattle and sheep, the dispute centers on the couple’s decision to let a cell phone company put a 250-foot tower on their raspberry farm.

It’s turned serious: Someone fired four bullets into their ranch house last month, with one of the slugs barely missing a sleeping teenager. A fifth bullet pierced their sport-utility vehicle.

Left on the windshield was a note that read: “Your lives are in danger unless the cell tower is stopped.” It was signed “an agent of Coalman Road Neighborhood.”

Arguments over where to place cell phone towers have been going on for years, but experts say this is the first time it’s turned violent.

The Culps have added floodlights outside their house and now send out their guard dog to patrol the property. They also are sleeping in parts of the house with more protection from gunfire.

“We’re not really sleeping very much at all. We feel so vulnerable--it’s like we’re out in the open here,” George Culp said Tuesday. “We lock the doors at night and are just hoping that if they come back we get a look at them.”

The Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department said it has no suspects in the May 30 shooting, which injured no one.

Many of the Culps’ neighbors don’t want the tower, which has not been built. They say it would be an eyesore in this rolling scenic countryside near Mt. Hood, something that could lower their property values.

The disputes are nothing new.

In New York’s Adirondacks, environmentalists worry about the towers spoiling the picturesque scenery and have suggested they be designed to look like pine trees.

The Ohio Supreme Court got dragged into a dispute in that state about townships, zoning districts and towers.

And 100 miles southeast of Sandy, meetings have turned highly emotional over some proposed towers that would block homeowners’ views of the Cascade Mountains.

As cellular companies look to fill gaps in service between cities, it is often scenic places such as the Coalman neighborhood in rural Oregon that are being targeted.

The Sandy case, however, is the first time Jeffrey Nelson of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assn. can remember a disagreement turning violent.

“We’ve never heard of something like this,” he said. “We’re obviously sad for the family but very happy nobody has been hurt.”

Nelson said he believes disputes over towers have actually calmed down in recent years as courts and regulatory bodies have helped clarify what kind of control local governments have over tower placement.

The Culps said they knew many of their neighbors disagreed with their decision to sign a 30-year lease with American Tower Corp., but they did receive approval from the county’s land-use hearings officer.

One neighbor, Judy Todd, said an attorney told them they would be wasting their money if they tried to appeal.

In addition to concerns about scenery and property values, some residents worry about potential health hazards from the microwave radiation transmitted by towers.

Some said they just wanted the tower moved farther away from a subdivision--and the nearest home, 200 feet away.

“It’s right on top of them,” Janet Wilson said. “This is a residential neighborhood.”

The Culps said neighbors have stopped waving to them, while others just turn their back. Many residents also showed up at various public meetings to voice their displeasure.

“I feel like the neighbors got their say,” Culp said. “I thought they had more than their just opportunity to have their say.”

Nelson’s group estimates there are almost 82,000 antennas in the country but fewer towers.

A very small percentage are “stealth antennas,” Nelson said--disguised as flagpoles, silos, hidden in buildings and church steeples.

“People want wireless phones,” he said. “They want service when they want it and where they want it.”