Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
MILLBROOK — An educational event focusing on finances, put together by Cablevision, on Thursday, May 27, brought together Advanced Placement (AP) economics students at Millbrook High School with local and state politicians, camera crews and MSNBC financial experts.
The morning assembly on financial literacy featured senior AP students presenting their own research on the stock market, personal investing and saving for college to juniors who will be taking AP economics next year. The financial literacy program was created as part of Cablevision’s Power to Learn initiative, which provides telecommunications services along with multimedia educational content to parents, teachers and students in 5,000 K-12 schools.
Trent Anderson, who admits to having “the best job at Cablevision� as vice president of education, explained that the program affords students the opportunity to learn to make financial decisions. State Sen. Steve Saland (R-41) advised the 50 current and future AP economics students gathered in the auditorium that “prudence is the watch word,� and that “all difficult questions should be given to [Assemblyman]Marc Molinaro (R-103).� Molinaro joked that he was an “AB student in high school, not an AP student.�
The program began with a video of Mad Money’s Jim Cramer urging students to “sock money away� and if you don’t have money to try following and trading stocks like fantasy baseball. Students Jonathan Campbell and Jarred Hoyt presented their research on stocks and trading styles followed by presentations on investment opportunities and financing a college education.
Through a live conference call line to MSNBC in New York, the student audience had the opportunity to ask questions of financial expert Sharon Epperson just before she had to go on the air.
“Is now a good time to get into the stock market?� asked one student.
“It’s a great time,� she replied, emphasizing that students would be holding for the long term. Opining on the recession, Epperson said there were some signs of job creation and economic improvement, but that there was still a ways to go. Epperson saw the best job prospects five years from now when these students will be graduating from college in the areas of health care, education, green products and services and entrepreneurship.
The students saved their best questions for politicians Saland and Molinaro.
“Are there creative ways to fund education without raising taxes?�
Molinaro responded that property taxes are regressive and outdated and that financing of public education is way behind the times. He also stressed that the expense side of education should be looked at, for example, along with more flexible school days and consolidation.
Asked how badly off New York state was, Saland said, “Our job is to incentivate [sic] job creation.�
Molinaro characterized the state’s position as “perilous� and argued that you can’t solve problems with old ideas.
Another student asked what cuts could be made to services. Saland pointed to Medicaid, where New York spends 70 percent more than the average state. Molinaro wants to streamline programs and change the way the state does business rather than just cut programs.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
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.