A Millerton love story

Mary Howard and Louise R. Black at their home in Millerton.
Natalia Zukerman

Mary Howard and Louise R. Black at their home in Millerton.
As we celebrate Pride Month, the love story of Mary Howard and Louise R. Black stands as a testament to the power of love at any age. The couple found each other later in life through the unlikeliest of places: Match.com.
Louise R. Black was born in Astoria in 1939 and raised in Elmhurst, Queens. “It was a great place to grow up,” she recalled. “A lot of people from foreign countries. We just had so many friends from all over.” Mary Howard was born in Alexandria, Virginia in 1942 and spent her formative years in Endicott, NY. Her life has taken her through Washington, D.C., Eugene, OR, and Mount Vernon, NY, where she lived for 31 years and ultimately met Louise.
In 2002, they both joined Match.com, a platform that neither initially embraced with enthusiasm. “I met a lot of females that I just thought were not interesting at all,” said Louise. But upon reading each other’s profiles, something clicked. Mary shared, “I wrote an ad that said I don’t care whether they’re tall or short, fat or skinny. I’m looking for somebody who has some genuine interests of their own that they’re pursuing.” Louise added, “And I said pretty much the same thing.” Their connection was immediate, leading to a memorable first date at an Indian restaurant, an establishment they frequented during the years they lived together in Louise’s apartment in White Plains.
Before meeting Louise, Mary had been married to a man for 30 years. “And happily married,” she added, noting that she had always harbored feelings for women. “I had had feelings for women from a very young age,” Mary explained, “and the marriage was, frankly, over and done with.” Mary and her ex-husband, whom she met as a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, had a daughter together and are still very good friends. Their daughter, who lives in Brooklyn, married a woman and Robert, her ex, conducted the ceremony.
Of her daughter’s sexuality, Mary shared, “My husband and I both just understood that that’s what was happening from a fairly young age for my daughter. She never, you know, made a declaration about it. That’s how it was. It all seemed very natural.” She added, “And the gal that she’s married to now is really very delightful.”
“I love her ex-husband,” Louise added. “We all get along so fabulously well.”
Mary and Louise’s affinity for the Hudson Valley runs deep. Mary, who spent 30 years as a sociology professor at Brooklyn College, conducted extensive research in the area. “The Hudson Valley was kind of the cradle of civilization in many ways,” she noted. Louise’s family owns an island above Saratoga Springs in Fort Edward and the family would spend time up there in the summers when she was little. “It’s 7 1/2 acres and it has a house on it and now my nephew lives across the river.” The couple still go visit from time to time even though the nephew has really “made it his man cave,” laughed Louise. Though she spoke of the house fondly, her memory is scarred by the significant environmental degradation from GE’s pollution. Beginning in 1947 and continuing until 1977, GE intentionally dumped approximately 1.3 million pounds of highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the Hudson River from Fort Edwards and the neighboring plant in Hudson Falls (now closed). GE also polluted the soil and groundwater under its plants and in the surrounding communities. Louise recalled, “I was about 7 or 8 years old, and I walked out the door of the old house and the river was pink. I screamed for my father, and he explained that it was pink because ‘those are all dead fish belly up.’” GE didn’t close the plant for several years and Louise experienced the “pink” water phenomenon several more times. “It was really sad because we swam in the river, we’d bathe in the river, wash our hair in the river. It was all so wonderful.”
This impactful experience has led Louise to be particularly mindful of the environment as she tends to the gardens at their home in Millerton. The couple have planted numerous trees, native plants, and butterfly bushes and would never dream of using pesticides. About their move from White Plains, Louise shared, “I had always been in apartments, and I decided I wanted to live in a house. So, we came up and we had a lot of fun riding around up here.” The couple knew they wanted to be near the river but weren’t yet set on a town. Every time they came up to look at properties, however, they ended up at Irving Farm in Millerton to regroup.
“We’d have coffee, and we’d cross things off our list,” Mary said.
Louise added, “I finally said to Mary, ‘You know, we keep coming back to this town every time, maybe we should go look at that house again.’” The couple purchased their house in Millerton in 2007.
Their life in Millerton is full of creativity and community. Louise paints, while Mary crafts handmade birdhouses. In her professional life, Louise was a gym teacher and athletic director at Scarsdale High. “I was the first woman straight out of college that they ever hired,” she shared. But her passions have always extended beyond sports to painting, dancing, singing, and acting. The couple now participate in local art shows and open studios and take care of the upkeep of their home themselves. “This horseshoe neighborhood is just incredible,” said Louise, describing the welcoming community they’ve found on their street and in the village. As of now, their plan is to stay in their house and if need be, hire caregivers to come in and help. “Right now, we still do all the work out here with a young man who comes every Thursday. He does the stuff that’s impossible,” said Louise. “He spends four hours and he’s tall,” Mary laughed.
The couple had a commitment ceremony in Provincetown, Massachusetts in 2009 but they haven’t legally married. Louise shared, “I would like to have done that because I haven’t been married, but Mary wasn’t for it.”
“As a sociologist, I know that signing all those legal papers has an effect on people,” Mary laughed. “Things are not the same after and if you are like we are, you know, we’re reasonable, we discuss with each other what we want or don’t want and that kind of stuff. And then there’s no need, it seems to me.”
The couple have joint and separate accounts and a will delineating the legal rights for their shared property. Said Louise, “We are in a situation where we can provide adequately for ourselves, and we don’t require assistance.”
Independence has always been important to both Mary and Louise but as they age, they find they need one another in new ways that deepens their bond. For years, people have called them “The Divas” including their friend, the singer, Suede. “She called us that first,” said Louise. “We have it on our license plate! And then we also have…” Louise paused and turned to Mary for help remembering. “What do we have on our other license plate?”
“MaLou,” said Mary with a smile. “You know. Mary and Louise.”
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.