Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Praise for new publisher at The Journal
What outstandingly good news that the Lakeville Journal company (now LJMN Media) has given James Clark the titles of CEO and publisher.
I worked with James for nearly two decades at The Lakeville Journal and can say with confidence that there isn’t a job at that company that he can’t accomplish quickly, skillfully, gracefully and diplomatically (a major feat in a small company with so many personalities and moving parts).
Congratulations to the board on recognizing James’ value and rewarding him for all the hard work he has put into keeping our community’s two newspapers alive and vibrant through some very difficult years. Let’s hope that the path is clear now for great success in the future.
Cynthia Hochswender
Lakeville
Clark’s appointment at LJMN is a welcome one
The news that James Clark will now be publisher and CEO of LJMN Media (which was The Lakeville Journal Foundation, but also for so many years The Lakeville Journal Company, and before that, simply The Lakeville Journal going back to 1897) should be welcome to anyone who values community journalism, and is certainly very welcome to me.
Clark’s two-decade career, described in last week’s newspapers in depth, has taken him on a journey that educated him on every aspect of the company, which he has helped to define over that time. The current nonprofit board is fortunate to have him at the helm, as are we who are served by this local media group.
It was a joy to work with him over all those years when I was also there. He is a creative, talented and skilled all-around community journalist and leader, who has been active over the years at the New York Press Association and at the New England Newspaper and Press Association. He cares deeply about the ethics of community journalism and knows how to implement them week to week and year to year. This is not a skill that everyone possesses.
His consistency and strength in keeping the company on a smooth path moving forward is just what it will take, along with the support and hard work of his colleagues, to keep one of this area’s most important resources alive, vibrant and healthy.
Clark is also deeply committed to the communities he serves, volunteering at and supporting nonprofit organizations.
Congratulations to Clark and to all at the company. I wish all the best of success for them, and our communities in the region, going forward.
Janet Manko
Publisher Emeritus
Lime Rock
Thanking everyone for Jumpfest support
As organizer of the Salisbury Winter Sports Association annual Snow Ball Dance, I want to send a big thank you out to the many people who made it happen again this year at the Lakeville Town Grove.
Thanks to Stacey Dodge and her amazing team, the place was decorated perfectly for the event! Also, a big thank you to the many volunteers who always come through to assist me at the event and dozens of local businesses who donated wonderful prizes to the annual Snow Ball raffle.
We had a fabulous turnout and some great music and the crowd danced the night away. We would also like to thank our friends at the Great Falls Brewing Company for their generous support. Without these people and businesses our event would not be possible. See you at our next SWSA event!
John Sullivan
On behalf of the Salisbury Winter Sports Association
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of The Lakeville Journal and The Journal does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
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.