Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
There was a time when bathroom humor involved something other than computers. Those were the good old days. Now it involves (ahem) workload. Recently a retired friend of mine visited his replacement at his former place of employment and discovered that the poor guy received “gifts� of computers from management. New laptops for the office, for his car, (hopefully when the vehicle ain’t movin’), computers for his home and well, probably for the john, too. It appears that the computer revolution has invaded man’s last bastion of peace, contentment and privacy and, oh yeah, they’ll get around to waterproofing them for the shower.
The recession takes part of the blame for this because of the job insecurity that allows management to squeeze their employees to work harder while rewarding themselves generously. The majority of the blame goes to the Gordon Gecko management style of American corporations. This country’s working class hasn’t had a crueler more corrupt collection of executives since the robber barons of turn-of-the century America. Upscale execs probably have computer free bathrooms, hell, it’s in their contracts.
These days, coffee at Starbucks is a mere technicality, second to the laptops and text messaging. On a Sunday afternoon a woman waiting on the line in front of me explained while she “texted� that she was checking her office mail and sending business messages on Sunday, on line for a latte ... right!? I asked her what she’d do on the beach and if she ever simply relaxed in a hammock with a drink in her hand, listening to music?! She appeared to be confused by the question. She was workin’ but it was Sunday and I was “hangin’ out,� hey, you remember “hangin’ out?� It’s a relaxing thing to do, goes well with coffee, tea, beer, or bourbon, it’s a nonwork thing. A jazz combo’s recording can be added, icing on the cake of tranquility.
While visiting a friend on Cape Cod, I wandered into a tag sale at a small beachfront hotel. I met the manager/owner as he stared sadly, longingly at a friendly old piano that centered the beach-front room. “You selling the piano?� I asked. Poor guy almost cried. “Wonderful memories,� he answered. “We gathered around it, sang, had some drinks around the piano, but I can’t fight these changing times.�
He explained that he was having the building rewired because hotel guests worked on their computers in the cocktail lounge. The piano music was disturbing them. They also used laptops out on the beach. He was redesigning the hotel for guests who were totally involved in working on their computers. His eyes watered as he spoke. Moment of silence. I walked out to the beach.
A warm sea breeze brought back a memory of Manzanillo, on the Sea of Cortez, west coast of Mexico, my girlfriend and I had rigged up a couple of hammocks beneath a scanty palm leafed overhang, drinking rum punch, sea breeze, sea gulls, just “hangin’ out.�
I’m reminded of a quote from the great artist/writer James Thurber. He said it was impossible to explain to his wife that while he was standing, staring out of the window, he was working. One of the great creative talents of the 20th century was standing, working, thinking, staring out of a window and thinking creative thoughts. Mr. Thurber knew how to “hang out.�
Bill Lee lives and draws in Sharon, Conn., and New York City.
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.