Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
The national atmosphere has shifted. I hear a lot of talk proclaiming that real Americans are white, male and Christian. Coupled with hate crimes aimed at Asians, Blacks, Latinos, women and other minorities, intolerance and hatred are raising their ugly head.
I have seen a lot of change in my 84 years. Born in New Orleans I witnessed segregated schools, bathrooms, fountains, seating on public transportation. My father resigned his diplomatic post in the Nationalist Chinese government so we could grow up as Americans with the opportunity to freely forge our own lives. Moving to Chicago at the age of 11, I later found out my father had to engage the help of the local Presbyterian minister to buy our house. It was an all-white neighborhood. I saw the great white flight as our neighborhood changed when middle class African Americans purchased homes. My father was called in the middle of the night by realtors asking him to sell the house. He finally said he would for $150,000. The calls stopped. My father said, “No one is going to chase us out of our home.”
I witnessed my father working very hard to build low-income and affordable housing in Chicago’s Chinatown, especially elevating living conditions for the elderly with his senior apartments. I witnessed my mother being one of the first women financial advisors working for Investors Diversified Services, the precursor to Ameriprise.
I witnessed the change in civil rights and women’s rights, especially with the passage of Roe v. Wade. I witnessed Title IX where women could compete in sports. I also witnessed the push back against women in leadership positions. My PE classes in 1970 were boys and girls separately. I purposefully made sure they got the same lesson plan. When classes were combined after Title IX I made sure both boys and girls had leadership opportunities, not just boys, and that the teams were fair. At the end of my teaching career, I began to see acceptance, equity as normalcy when girls and boys, women and men worked together. We’re going in the right direction but still have a way to go where you are respected for your abilities, not what you look like.
Fast forward to today, I’m seeing the continuation of open discrimination based on gender, race, and religion. Being an American to me means acceptance — our right to be here, our right to thrive, our right to just be. Freedom to make decisions over our own body, to choose whom we want to marry, to contribute our talents to community, state, and country to make our nation a better place for all. Freedom to vote and choose our leaders, to peacefully assemble and express our opinions in the written and spoken word — all guaranteed by our Constitution. Opportunity for self-determination. Respect for who we are no matter our differences. Lately, labels have become the norm — wise or unwise. Am I a Chinese-American? Or just an American? Can I be an American and still celebrate my ethnicity without bringing suspicion of my loyalty? America is strengthened by the talents and contributions of people from around the world. I have grandchildren who are Chinese, English and German. This is what makes America. There is no other nation in the world like ours. I am proud to be part of this great experiment and call myself an American.
What does it mean to you to be an American?
Jo Loi is a 5th generation American who lives in Lakeville.
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of The Lakeville Journal and The Journal does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
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.