Tower decisions must be made with great care

The work of the Connecticut Siting Council is important. Not just important in the immediate sense, either, but in the sense that its decisions will define the nature of the state’s landscape and environment for generations to come. Therefore, the public hearings run by the council should be structured for open discussion among all those affected by its work. No citizens should be made to feel that their voices will not be heard, or taken seriously, as decisions on cell towers, wind turbines, hazardous and radioactive waste and ash residue disposal are considered. Former Chairman David Caruso, who found resistance to his manner of running the siting council’s meeting on a Verizon cell tower in Cornwall in 2009, stepped down late last month after being accused of inappropriate communications with a lawyer who is the head of Save Prospect, a group opposed to wind turbines close to residential neighborhoods (www.saveprospect.com; see Karen Bartomioli’s story in last week’s Lakeville Journal). Caruso was perceived as dismissive to public concerns by many who attended the Cornwall hearing, to the point that a formal complaint was brought against him relating to his comments during that meeting. The reality is that cell towers are necessary for reasonably good communications in the 21st century, and that wind turbines could be one of the most viable means of alternative energy production. However, that does not mean that every proposal relating to towers and turbines should automatically be approved and that different options should not be discussed. Once a tower is sited and built, it will remain where it is for a very long time. The nine commissioners on the energy and telecommunications arm of the siting council need to be objective and careful in their assessments of every proposal brought before them. They need to listen to environmental concerns and to fears expressed by residents who are in proximity to proposed sites. If the benefits to commercial licensees are the top priority for the council, its members will not be fulfilling their responsibilities to their fellow residents to maintain a certain level of livability in the state. There should be an understanding of the landscape and the flow of each community, and those who live in a place know its characteristics best. Their voices must be heard.Let’s hope the next chairman of the siting council has great patience and is a good listener, running meetings that will give all sides the opportunity to air their concerns and giving the commissioners access to all the facts necessary to make reasonable decisions. If not, it could be that the siting council should be one part of the state’s current regulatory system that Gov. Dannel Malloy should take a look at restructuring, for the good of all his constituents.