Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
ANCRAMDALE — It’s a simple idea really: Join a group of people in your community who are willing to help others in times of need, put your name on a list, create a map of where you live in that community and exchange phone numbers in case a need arises. That’s exactly what Anne Carriere, coordinator of Neighbors Helping Neighbors, has done. She started the group in Ancramdale. She wants to see the idea grow and have other groups start up in neighboring towns and villages, like Millerton.
"We would love to have other people sign up and other areas started. It’s not hard to do," she said. "It’s a very easy concept and it just takes a handful of people to start. I would be willing to help start a group anywhere. All I need is a contact person who is willing to do a little co-work."
The way it works, according to Carriere, is that people sign up on a list with their particular talents or skills. Perhaps someone is a plumber or a gardener or a pet-sitter. Then, when someone in the group needs a clogged drain fixed, or a patch of poison ivy identified or a pet watched, they contact the appropriate person on the list. There’s no obligation that the person on the list has to help out, but if they’re available, and willing to, they do. If not, they don’t. The point is to make life easier, if possible. The group is not meant to take the place of 911 for emergency calls or anything like that. It’s meant, simply, to help participants utilize the skills of those in the group if necessary.
"There’s no compulsion to do anything. You’re not obligated to help. It just depends on whether you are around to get the call and if you have the ability to help. It’s not an obligatory thing," Carriere said. "It’s very informal."
Those in the Ancramdale group range from a local fine artist to a former IBM worker, to a social worker, to a school teacher, to the local postmistress.
"That’s just a small sampling," Carriere said of the group.
And there’s no age restriction, either. Members can range from those in their young ‘20s to those in their ‘70s, for example, as they do in Ancramdale.
"It’s a great idea and it should be very local. I would love to see every post office do it. I know our postmistress is wonderful about it," Carriere said, explaining that some of the group’s materials are posted in the post office. "The concept is a local, neighborhood concept, but we don’t really have neighborhoods up here. This is a rural area."
To help promote the program, Neighbors Helping Neighbors will hold an open house on Sunday, Dec. 10, from 10:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Ancramdale Presbyterian Church. Interested parties can learn more about the program and meet some of its members.
The group is also participating in this Saturday’s (Dec. 2) Christmas tree decorating and lighting at Ancramdale Memorial Park, which starts at 6 p.m. All are welcome.
Additionally, Neighbors Helping Neighbors, along with the help of the Ancramdale Presbyterian Church, is working on a food drive for holiday baskets, to be delivered this December. A food collection box is located inside the church on County Route 8 on Sundays from 9:30 to 10:45 a.m. through Dec. 10, and at the open house on that same day. In addition to nonperishable food items, the church is also accepting monetary donations. If you are in need, or want more information about the food drive, call 518-329-6872.
For more information about Neighbors Helping Neighbors, call Carriere at 518-789-9134.
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.