Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
NEW HARTFORD — It is not often that an individual of any age can become highly successful competing at an elite level of a sport they love.
It is rarer still for each member of an entire household to find themselves nationally ranked as top athletes in their sporting field of choice.
But one New Hartford family has achieved just that.
Jena Hinman Keller and her two sons Blake, 8, and Brody, 6, are ranked among the top competitive water skiers in the nation.
Last month, all three took part in the 2010 Eastern Region Water Ski Championships in upstate New York, with both Keller and Blake finishing first overall in their age groups, and Brody — participating in his first regional tournament — earning a solid third-place finish overall for his group.
The strong showing meant all three qualified to compete this week in the GOODE Water Ski National Championships in Wilmington, Ill., which began Sunday, Aug. 8, and runs through Aug. 14.
It will be the first time Keller — a veteran competitive water skier who, like her two boys, has been skiing since she learned to walk — will be competing together with Blake and Brody on a national level.
“It’s a lot of fun that this is an experience we can share together,� the Northwestern Regional High School graduate told The Journal during a break from training at The Pond in Avon last Thursday, Aug. 5.
“And by competing together, it’s a great thing to help keep me motivated and interested in the sport,� Keller, who is also a former history teacher for the Region 7 School District, said.
In water skiing, most competitors earn points through their performance in three different events: jumping, slalom and “tricking.� Tricking is just what it sounds like: Skiers are graded on their ability to do as many tricks as possible in a set period of time.
“You have two 20-second periods to do as many tricks as you can,� Blake said.
Because of their young ages, however, neither Blake nor Brody’s groups currently include jumping as part of their division’s competition. But Blake started to practice his jumps earlier this summer, and he said he is looking forward to taking part in the event soon.
“I really like that feeling of when you are up in the air,� he said.
Brody said his favorite part of skiing is the slalom.
“I like that feeling of when I’m coming around the buoy,� he said.
Although this will be Brody’s first nationals, last year Blake finished third overall and Keller won her division.
Keller and Blake’s success at last year’s national tournament is not just a testament to their skill, but also their ability to successfully train and prepare themselves during a much shorter water skiing season.
Living in New England means that the family can only water ski from the late spring into the early fall, while those who live in warmer climates are out on the water all year long.
“Our season is a lot shorter because of the weather,� Keller said. “So, we just do it more intensively for a shorter period of time.�
During the winter months, all three snow ski, with both boys enrolled in the youth racing program at Ski Sundown in New Hartford.
“To be able to do something at this elite a level gives you something more to focus on,� she said, adding that through the years she has been able to meet many people and travel to places that she would not have otherwise.
Now, she said, she is excited to see that her own children will be able to share in some of the same experiences.
“You just aren’t going to get these kind of opportunities in other sports,� Keller, who now manages the Riverside Nursery & Garden Center in Collinsville, said.
She and her younger brother, Dana Hinman, both skied competitively all through their youth and young adulthood, with a great deal of success. Of course, it helped that one of the country’s best water skiers at that time was their father, Tom Hinman, who himself earned the title of national champion.
“It’s just something we’ve always done,� Keller said.
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.