Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Jim found himself in the same predicament again and again. He was constantly trying to make it up to people for disappointments he felt he had caused. “I’m always disappointing people, and then running around trying to fix it.” In his childhood, there had been a pattern in which his mother was constantly disappointed in him and he was sure that “un-disappointing” her would win her affection; at that age it felt like life or death to him. That was a long time ago, but Jim, in his mid 40s now, still found himself disappointing and “un-disappointing” his friends and co-workers.At work he was in demand and his co-workers were constantly asking for his advice and help. He was always saying “yes” to projects and requests for extra research, and serving on various internal think tanks. But he found himself overwhelmed, overscheduled and dropping the ball when it came to returning e-mails and on general follow through. He felt people were constantly thinking that he had forgotten about them or that they were a low priority for him.He couldn’t live with leaving people in a bind, so much of his time was spent running around trying to make it up to them. It was a vicious cycle because the more time he spent fixing things, the less time he had to follow through on his promises. Subconsciously, it appeared to be working perfectly for him, though. Making it up to co-workers he had disappointed felt better than just following through in the first place, or being honest and saying “no” when he was overextended. The storyJim was clearly replaying the whole disappoint, un-disappoint scenario of his childhood. This was his story. Un-disappointing his mother translated into getting the love he needed for his very survival as a child. As an adult, on an unconscious level, he was setting up situations where he would disappoint people so he would be able to make it up to them. To Jim, getting approval from other people depended on this story playing itself out. Your “story” is what allows you to survive in life; it is who you think you are, and without it you might feel threatened. People can go through their lives with a story about themselves, constructed from childhood, which they will constantly recreate situations to prove that the story is true. AwarenessJim knew that this pattern of constantly saying “yes” when he could not follow through, then disappointing everyone, and finally trying to fix everything, was not working for anyone. The process of talking about how it repeatedly played itself out in so many ways, and tracing its origins, helped Jim understand the bigger picture and take more control.With this new awareness of his “story,” Jim was able to start cutting back on saying yes when he was overbooked and setting himself up for disappointing everyone. He knew that his survival and happiness did not depend on being able to continually make it up to everyone. ActionI suggested to Jim that he say “no” to a request that he knew was going to land in his e-mail that week. He was able to do it, and experienced a sense of relief when it was received very well. He continued to choose specific situations where he could make better choices in not disappointing his coworkers. With each one, it got easier as he began to realize that it was safe for him to choose that new path, that he would survive without all the disappointing and un-disappointing. What is your story? Seldom does a story built from childhood experiences continue to work in your favor later in life. Becoming aware of your story is the first step to undoing your subconscious need to live it over and over. Brooke Loening is a life coach in Sharon who works with individuals, and runs weekly coaching groups on achieving growth in career, health and relationships. To make column suggestions, e-mail him at bloening@snet.net.
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.