Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Rhonda was always doing things for other people and saying “yes” to requests. Often, she found herself completely exhausted emotionally and physically; sometimes all she could do then was stay home in bed all weekend, watch videos and eat junk food. She told me this cycle had been going on for years and she didn’t understand why she couldn’t change. I reminded her of the instructions we all have heard on airplanes: In an emergency, put your oxygen mask on first before helping your children with theirs, because if you’re gasping for air you can’t really help anyone else.So why wasn’t Rhonda taking care of herself? Like most people, she had subconscious beliefs keeping her from from making healthy choices. We identified the three biggest ones.• It’s selfish to really take care of myself before everyone else.• I don’t deserve to do things for myself.• People really need my help.These beliefs were always running through her head and keeping her from doing the right thing for herself. I asked her for some beliefs that were more true than the above limiting beliefs.• If I don’t take care of myself, I am no good for anyone else.• If I put myself first, I can do more for myself and for everyone else.To help start a new pattern, you need to take action. I asked Rhonda specifically what she could do to take care of herself in the next two weeks. Some of her ideas:• Get a massage.• Leave work by 5:30 p.m. most days.• Take the time to eat a healthy lunch instead of wolfing down a sandwich at her desk.For Rhonda, this changed the idea of self-nourishment from theoretical talk to an action plan that she could actually start on that very week.I asked Rhonda to visualize the new way she wanted to be regarding an upcoming baseball game outing. Instead of calling everyone and organizing meeting places and transportation, she was going to let someone else do it. And instead of running to get food for everyone at the game, she visualized just sitting there and enjoying the game. After the outing, she reported, “It was a new experience to just relax and enjoy myself!”If you are a giver by nature, it is unlikely that you will turn into a selfish monster when you start to make yourself a priority. I have never seen a natural giver stop giving when they started to take care of themselves. This applied to Rhonda as well.The more Rhonda put herself first, the more she came to see that people got along just fine without her help, and didn’t think any less of her when she said no. She noticed that almost no one gave her a hard time when she said no to a request.Remember: If you don’t keep yourself in good physical shape, you might not have the stamina to do everything you need to do and to help other people.If you’re not getting enough sleep, you may not be as alert as you need to be to get everything done.If you’re overworked, things might slip through the cracks in your personal life and reach a crisis point. If you’re doing things for others to the detriment of yourself, you might feel resentful, and this is certainly not the way you want to show up for everyone else. Brooke Loening is a life coach in Sharon who works with individuals, and runs weekly coaching groups on achieving growth in career, health and relationships. To make column suggestions, email bloening@snet.net.
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.