Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
NORTH CANAAN — At Geer Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, COO John Horstman and the Board of Directors are looking past the slow economy and planning for the future. They feel confident that their services will always be in demand.
Offering a top-rate facility and staff has always been a goal; another goal is to have beds (and rooms) available when people need them. And now that keeping every bed filled is also something they need to do to survive financially, they are continuing with upgrades that will make the facility more comfortable — and more attractive.
The latest upgrade to the 35-year-old center has just been completed, in the physical therapy department.
Some of the differences are subtle. New windows have been added, for greater energy efficiency.
Carpeting gives a measure of quiet and warmth to the workout center. Central air conditioning is a welcome improvement over the old window unit. A therapy room that has nearly doubled in size is slowly being filled with new equipment.
“Before, it was very hospital-like,� said Director Mike Mangini. “Now it’s relaxing and comfortable, which makes a difference in how receptive people are to therapy.�
And it’s not just about recovering from injury or surgery.
On a recent day, Jenny Gebo of Sheffield went through her shoulder exercises, and tried out a new cage-like machine called TrueStretch. The machine allows any muscle to get a gentle and effective stretch without the discomfort many find when lying down for therapy.
It’s not her first rehab session at Geer.
“I cut hair, here and at Noble [Horizons],� she said. “I need to be able to keep my job for at least a few more years. These guys always fix me right up.�
The staff includes physical therapy assistants Paul Faggioni and Rachel Philp, and office coordinator Patty Tatsapaugh.
Mangini said people come seeking relief from pain that keeps them from doing their jobs or favorite activities. He climbs in the machine and mimics a golf swing.
“We have patients do that so we can get very specific about what hurts and why,� Mangini said. “It’s called functional rehab, because we are restoring the function their body needs to do what they need and want to do.�
The most noticeable change is the new, dedicated entrance. Gone are the days of coming through the main lobby and down a long hallway. It’s perhaps ironic that the most exciting part was based on common sense.
“People come here because of mobility issues. That they can now pull right up to the door just makes sense,� Mangini said.�We have people coming in on crutches and with mobility issues, so the sidewalk has radiant heat. That was the idea of the head of maintenance, Scott Beecher. It was such a simple but effective idea. When the weather is bad in the winter, we turn the heat on at night, and the sidewalk is always clear when the first patient arrives the next morning. It’s just one more thing to promote safety.�
The center has been renamed the Dr. Carl Bornemann Therapy Center, in honor of the man who long served the community as a physician and remains a dedicated member of the Geer Board of Directors.
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.