Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
David Lindsay-Abaire’s “Good People” is about being down and out in Boston and why some people get out of the ghetto, and others do not. In the opening scene, with some of the best writing in the play, Margie Walsh (Frances McDormand) tries hard to avoid being fired for chronic lateness by her supervisor/friend, Stevie (Patrick Carroll). She bobs and weaves around the complaints (she says she has a daughter who is retarded), all to no avail. Stevie says he has orders to fire her or be out of a job himself. Margie, facing eviction by her landlady (Estelle Parsons, not able to show much of her considerable talent in a minor role), decides to contact an old flame, Mike (Tate Donovan), a man she hasn’t seen in many years. Mike is a fertility doctor. The awkwardness of two lovers meeting after such a long time is beautifully written and well played. Hanging over the action is that the retarded daughter “was born prematurely,” so, like the gun that is dropped into the action ready to explode in Act III, you know right away that there is going to be an announcement about the father. Margie and Mike talk about the old days, how Mike almost killed a black kid who wandered into the neighborhood, and probably would have, but for Mike’s father who just happened to look out the window and then ran out to stop the battery. Mike says he has no job to offer but then gets talked into inviting Marge to a party that he and his wife are giving the next night. There will be lots of doctors there and maybe, Marge says, a chance for a job. Marge later is told that the party has been canceled but she thinks this is a lie and shows up at Mike’s house anyway. Marge meets Kate (Renee Elise Goldsberry), Mike’s African-American wife, and indeed the party was canceled due to the illness of the couples’ daughter. There then follows a very long scene, the center of the play, in which Kate learns of the long-ago affair between her husband and Marge. This, along with, of course, that announcement about who is, or is not, the father of Marge’s daughter. The action owes a lot to Edward Albee’s “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” It’s too bad that “Good People” is brought down by some of these plot shenanigans because there are many interesting issues raised in the play, such as why does Mike escape his lower-class roots? Because his father looked out the window? And why is Marge incapable of taking any action to help her daughter? How do the poor get by in these crueltimes? Does Marge’s equivocation about the paternity make her a good person? What does it mean to be a good person? Is Stevie one because he lends Marge money though he fired her? What about Mike? He helps people become parents, but he sleeps around. One very compelling reason to see the play is McDormand’s performance. She is shifty, manipulative, angry, bitchy, funny and more. It’s a treat that will stay with you. The rest of the cast is good; John Lee Beatty’s set and Dan Sullivan’s direction are first-rate. So, it seems this is a play with ambitions that is humbled by some cliches. “Good People” runs at the Samuel J. Friedman Theater in New York City through May 8.For tickets, telephone 212-239-6200.
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.