Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
‘If I abandon this project I would be a man without dreams
and I don’t want to live like that.’
— Werner Herzog, referring to “Fitzcarraldo�
A 1982 movie Werner Herzog wrote and directed, “Fitzcarraldo�, depicted the obsession of one man to build an opera house in a jungle in Peru, certainly not an ideal environment for such an activity. While Music Mountain founder Jacques Gordon didn’t face the same obstacles in realizing his dream as did the main character in Herzog’s movie, envisioning a concert hall atop the mountain in Falls Village during the Great Depression took no less faith in the power of dreams.
Music Mountain, the geographic entity, can still be a daunting climb, whether on foot or by vehicle, especially in any kind of challenging weather. When the concert hall and other buildings at the top of the mountain were in the process of being built before Music Mountain’s 1930 opening, as noted in the story in The Lakeville Journal (Aug. 28, 1930) describing the music hall’s debut concert and reprinted in last week’s issue of this newspaper: “In order to transport the building materials up the mountainside an old road out of Falls Village had to be almost entirely rebuilt.�
It was clearly a project that would only have been undertaken by the most dedicated of visionaries. The 120 acres of land which crowns the mountain became home to the annual music festival, which celebrated 80 years of music there this summer, because Gordon had a vision, and he persevered and overcame whatever obstacles stood in his way to realize it.
Current Music Mountain president, Jacques’ son Nick Gordon, has carried on the dream of his father with his own impassioned love for music and a true commitment to the communities surrounding the mountain. He opens the concert hall famous for its acoustics and the beautiful grounds annually for regional events such as area student concerts and community picnics, in addition to keeping the music festival alive, new and varied as the years have gone by.
In its 80 years, Music Mountain has been a fantastic resource for both those in the Northwest Corner and those in the world of music. It provides a place to play music which has stunning pastoral views and a peaceful quality that comes from being suspended above the outside world in a truly idyllic setting. Here, surely, musicians must find a special sort of inspiration.
Thanks go to the Gordons, the musicians and to all the many dedicated volunteers and supporters for keeping Music Mountain a vibrant cultural center in the region for the past 80 years. It’s an extraordinary and world-renowned venue, which should maintain the Gordons’ dream by remaining for 80 years more, and beyond.
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.