The Galena tower debate has come to stand for much more than a mere cell tower. The story has now picked up certain mythic qualities. Some of the healthiest dialogue offered has come from spokespersons both for and against the tower, who occasionally contradict themselves in papers and public meetings.
Some see Idaho Tower as Atlas, not shrugging her epic efforts; though others perceive her as Medusa and avert looking reason in the face, suspecting it will crush their logic into gravel.
Suddenly, the Forest Service supervisor has selected a special path for redesignation, with the secret motive of making the tower impossible, until the Mayan calendar ends. And using Labyrinthal language that only the most adept of Minotaur attorney’s can follow without strings. Meanwhile, Homeland Security prepares to shift Atlas onto his own back, with an improved plan, to foil us all, by paying two Princess Bride government factions to swordfight it out, at the edge of the reception area cliff, near chirping beetles.
While some who claim they are indigenous Idahoans, say that they prefer living in the Flintstone ages versus the digital; we should examine the motives of others speaking against the tower, as several hold animosity against former associates, or competitors from other fields, who could benefit by better communications.
Citizen angst against the tower sometimes stem from dissatisfactions within, which the fuming ones project, gnashing their dragon’s teeth, to channel harsh sound bites onto the tower.
Whatever the outcome, people will discuss the results of this battle for decades. Astute Idaho historians should include this chapter in state history textbooks, so our grandchildren may gain clearer perspectives than we have.
To harmonize history books, ITD should install a historical sign at Galena overlook, commemorating the multifaceted tower. To appease earth-muffins and water sprites, they could mount it smack-dab next to the new Galena landline phone, to soak up less sacred SNRA space.
Letter 4: http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/719828.html