Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
GOSHEN — State Sen. Andrew Roraback (R-30) announced Oct. 20 that he is running for the congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Chris Murphy (D-5). With the announcement (made at the town hall in his home town of Goshen), Roraback ended months of speculation over whether he would try for the Republican nomination for the 5th Congressional District, which includes the Northwest Corner (including Torrington) and extends east to the cities of Waterbury, New Britain and Meriden, and south to Danbury.Roraback delivered a brisk speech explaining why he has decided to run.“I’m an optimist,” he said. “I believe in the essential goodness of the American people.“But we are at a critical point. Unemployment is high, despair is growing.”He noted that public approval of Congress is very low. “Sad to say, it’s with good reason. “The common-sense pragmatism of a New England Republican is in short supply.”In a phone interview Sunday, Oct. 23, Roraback laid out his positions.On the economy, and specifically about the “stimulus” spending that the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have used to try and revive the national economy, Roraback declined to be a Monday morning quarterback.“I don’t think it is of great value to look back and spend time critiquing failed policies.”“The American appetite for stimulus spending is in short supply,” he continued, especially when people do not see tangible benefits.He said that as he travels the Northwest Corner asking if citizens believe “the money Washington spends reaches your house or community, very few people say ‘yes.’”On taxes and tax reform: “We should be open to any plan that has the twin virtues of simplicity and fairness. Government has to be very cautious about raising taxes in a time of economic duress.”He noted that,“It’s hard to love jobs and hate the people who create them. We have to recognize that the people who make decisions [about creating jobs], a lot of them are on the sidelines because they are unsure of what the future holds.”On the announcement Sunday that U.S. forces would be out of Iraq by the end of the year: “It’s regrettable that the administration is unable to solidify a relationship with the Iraqi leadership such that soldiers there could be given a basic package of protections, which is vital to the mission.”On energy policy, Roraback began with the furor over the federal Energy Department’s loan to Solyndra, a green energy company that went bankrupt. “How can you not be totally disillusioned by that? I’m a big believer in clean and alternative energy, but it has to be market-based, able to stand on its own two feet. Government can play a role as a catalyst but it can’t be a crutch.“There has to be a balance between responsible environmental protection and taking advantage of domestic sources of supply. The alternative is further dependence on foreign sources.”On man-made climate change: “There is ample evidence to suggest that both human and natural factors are having an inpact on climate change.”And on so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation: “The issue has to be looked at globally. We should be very careful about asking America to be the leader” and not apply the same standards to the rapidly growing economies of India and China.Asked if the federal government has become too big and intrusive, Roraback replied, “The framers intended some limitations on the reach of federal powers. We have allowed the federal government to grow in a way which is burdensome.”And on himself: “If people are looking for a center-right person, whose record shows he is in step with the vast majority of people in the 5th District, then I am your candidate.”It’s a crowded field. Also running for the Republican nomination are Justin Bernier, Lisa Wilson-Foley, Mark Greenberg and Mike Clark.On the Democratic side, there are four candidates: Chris Donovan (speaker of the state House of Representatives), Elizabeth Esty, Dan Roberti and Mike Williams.
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.