CORNWALL — A beautiful autumn day welcomed dogs and people to Little Guild’s 11th annual Run and Wag 5K in Cornwall Village.
In a fair-like atmosphere of live music played by Relatively Sound, food trucks and booths with local goods, people and dogs gathered before the race set off at noon.
Jenny Langendoerfer, Executive Director of Little Guild, an animal shelter in Cornwall, explained that the Run and Wag 5K is one of their main fund-raising events. “We have to raise seventy five percent of our operating costs. All the money raised by the Run and Wag goes to those costs.”
She went on to say, “The Run and Wag is a premier dog and human race. We are extremely proud of it.” This year she noted they had “79 dogs and 200 human runners and walkers entered.”
Nita Colgate, from Cornwall, was spectating with her dog, Ananda, who was adopted from the Little Guild in December. Colgate said that Little Guild was “absolutely wonderful in post adoption care.” They supplied her with dog food when Ananda ran out and wouldn’t eat his new food, in spite of it being Christmas Eve.
Robert Lindgren with Cecil, a cocker spaniel, and friends Michael Carter and pug Juniper, waited to walk the route. Lindgren said, “Little Guild is wonderful. They do great things.”
Human and canine runners depart the starting line for the 11th annual Run and Wag 5K to benefit The Little Guild in West Cornwall.L. Tomaino
Andrea Fournier came from Barkhamsted with Maverick, a yellow lab. She commented about Little Guild, “It’s a great organization. We had a 15-year-old cat from them. She was the best cat! We like to support them.”
Robert Ghitelman and Sandy Adelsberg of Cornwall were walking with their companions Airedale and Scout. Adelsberg said “The music is a lot of fun and appropriate. Great weather, lots of people came out and there are lots of happy dogs and people.”
At noon, walkers, runners and dogs all lined up at the start and were off on the five-kilometer route.
The first runner, seventeen-year-old Bradley Bozzuto, returned 16 minutes at 16 seconds later. He broke the previous individual record of 16:24 set in 2015.
The first dog-human team to finish was four-time winner, Brittany Telke with her basenji, Mazikeen from Bristol. Their time was 19:02. Brittany said of the run, “The challenging part is that she gets a little distracted (by other dogs) during the second part of the race. But she was better this year.”
Thor and Michael Geschwind, winners in the men’s category for human-dog team at the Little Guild’s Run and Wag 5K. Their time was 19 minutes, 30 seconds. Also pictured is Tara Gres.L. Tomaino
Winners in the men’s team category were Michael Geschwind and Thor the great dane-mix with a time of nineteen minutes, thirty seconds. Tara Geschwind, who also ran, said, “I just love it. I’ve been donating to Little Guild for years and years.”
John Guenther, a former president of Little Guild’s board, came in with a time of 22 minutes. He walks 12 miles daily with the little guild dogs awaiting adoption. He said the event was “A wonderful celebration of dogs and the connection people have with their animals.”
Toby, a husky/chihuahua, wore a costume of bat wings and ran with Kristin Wheeler. “It was hot. He pulled me along with his wings. It was lots of fun!”
This was a sentiment all seemed to agree with, spectators, runners, walkers, and dogs alike.
Toby, a husky/chihuahua mix wore bat wings for extra speed at the Run and Wag 5K on Saturday, Oct. 19 in Cornwall.L. Tomaino
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.