Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Some smart, talented Housatonic Valley Regional High School students were given an unusual opportunity to show their skills at The Salisbury Forum Friday night, May 14, which was held at their school. (See story on front page.) They presented to the adults of their community some very strong opinions, questions and answers, all through the filter of a lens: Two teams of students produced their own documentary films, on topics of their own choosing, relating to their rights as citizens which are afforded them through the U.S. Constitution. The two films which came out of this initiative, “The D-Word� and “No Speech Zone�, were screened at the event.
There were, of course, adults who should be recognized who gave their time to mentor the student teams and gave them the chance to produce the documentaries. The Connecticut Project for the Constitution, Global Village Media, The Salisbury Forum, the administration at Region One and many more all came together to give the students who stepped forward support for this project.
But the real credit for the outcome must be given to the students themselves, who worked very hard to produce 25 to 30 hours of recorded interviews, and who did research and visited with community and educational leaders to learn about their topics. Those many hours of video were edited down to about 20 minutes for their final products, not an easy task.
However, the student filmmakers had to have learned much in the process which could not have been easily communicated in a classroom situation. They were required to remove themselves from their comfort zone and go out into the community to find information on their topics. As Harold Schramm, professor emeritus at Western Connecticut State University and co-founder of Connecticut Project for the Constitution, said in introducing the event on Friday, the qualities of a documentary filmmaker are the same as the qualities of a good citizen.
Those qualities include curiosity, open-mindedness, the ability to understand both sides of an issue and to empathize even if not in agreement with one side or the other. The students who worked on the documentaries will be able to take what they’ve learned and apply it to many aspects of their lives in the years to come, but most especially to their role as active, responsible U.S. citizens.
The two documentaries covered topics that these students will find continue to be relevant in adult life. “The D-Word� dealt with the issue of free speech, and “No Speech Zone� with the issue of information being withheld from high-school students by adults without any discussion. Should students be able to make statements online, from home, that could be seen as insulting or disruptive in school? Should students have been allowed to see the speech given by President Obama at the beginning of this school year, in real time in their classrooms? These were the questions the students sought to answer through this project, and they may well have been surprised themselves by some of what they found.
One clear realization was that as high school students, they are not easily given the chance to voice their opinions openly and honestly in their day-to-day lives. Even as they enter the adult world, these students will find that free speech and open information are not rights that are as automatic as might be expected. The Freedom of Information law in Connecticut is only 35 years old this year, and every year there is some reason to feel that the power of the law is eroding on the one hand, yet on the other hand being upheld by those who firmly believe in the importance of open information.
These students will find in the future that they will need to continue to be vigilant in order to support and maintain their rights as citizens. They’ve made a good start.
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.