FALLS VILLAGE — The 90 members of the Class of 2022 heard passionate speeches from their classmates as they celebrated the 83rd commencement at Housatonic Valley Regional High School (HVRHS) on Thursday, June 16.
The ceremony took place under a very large tent on the grass in front of the school. The graduates, faculty and some family members filled the tent and many more spectators brought chairs and watched from outside the tent.
HVRHS Principal Ian Strever noted that the graduates had spent a significant part of their high school years “in a mask, as the COVID-19 pandemic caused disruptions in school procedures.
“Two years of the pandemic could not suppress the indomitable energy of teenagers.”
And presaging what was to follow, Strever praised the graduates for exercising “their First Amendment rights on an unprecedented scale.”
He also noted the Class of 2022 set a new record, with over $500,000 in scholarships and awards.
Salutatorian Avery Tripp’s speech was a true stemwinder.
Flatly contradicting the stereotype of her generation as “lazy and phone-addicted,” she said “We will be the ones to change the world, which is in desperate need of reform.”
She described the probable reversal of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion as “mind-blowing and devastating.”
“We have made far too much progress to regress in such a drastic manner.”
Tripp said if the abortion decision is overturned, that would open the door for restrictions on or abolition of same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and the availability of contraception.
She was equally voluble on the subject of gun control and school shootings.
“Education does not matter if the process of education gets you killed.”
She urged her classmates to “stay angry until the change you want actually occurs.”
Essayist Hayley Considine remembered her ninth grade embarrassment when, after an uneventful first day of high school, she accidentally broke a bottle when getting on the school bus.
She said she was scared that she would be judged and laughed at then, and later, because of her sexual orientation “as a bisexual woman.”
“I will not let the ignorance and hatred of those who know nothing about me bring me down again.”
Guest speaker Michael Baldwin (Class of 2000), clearly a favorite with the graduates, began by mentioning he had just got married the previous weekend. This got a loud cheer.
Baldwin said when he arrived at HVRHS, “I had no idea who I was.
“I felt unbelievably average.”
He was also coming to terms with his sexual orientation.
He described “an intense amount of shame and self-loathing. I had a secret that could not be voiced.”
“High school is just the beginning,” he continued. “I didn’t know that I’d marry a man and then tell everyone about it at the Housatonic commencement ceremony!”
“Give yourself permission to ride the voyage of self-discovery,” he urged the graduates. “I failed Life Skills, and years later was asked to be the graduation speaker — so anything really is possible!”
Valedictorian Josie Marks said her class grew up “sheltered by the privilege and safety of the Northwest Corner.”
She said it is her generation’s turn “to combat our country’s hypocrisy as it claims to stand for equal protection under the law.”
Among the things she vowed to fight for was abortion rights, saying abortion had never been an issue until white male doctors and the Catholic Church made it so.
She issued a “rallying cry,” saying the “liberties of all minorities are at stake.”
“As a woman and a member of the LGBTQ community, I am petrified.”
She urged her classmates not to be indifferent to such issues.
“Instead of moving on, take action.”
Valedictorian Josie Marks urged her classmates to take action against hypocrisy and injustice. Photo by Hunter O. Lyle
Members of the Class of 2022 walked out for the 83rd commencement ceremony at Housatonic Valley Regional High School on Thursday, June 16. Photo by Hunter O. Lyle
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.