Category Archives: Op-Eds

Op-Ed: Save Our Beautiful Dark Skies From The Threat Of Light Pollution

Posted on by
3

Editor’s Note: This Op-ed was submitted by Alan Sheiness of Lyme, Conn.

How often have you stopped to notice how wonderfully bright and alive the stars are in our peaceful town of Lyme, especially once turning off one of our ‘major thoroughfares’ like Rte. 156 or Brush Hill Rd.?

That dark sky up there is a part of our world. It is as much a gift to us as are the forests, the trails within those forests, the rivers and waterways, and everything else that makes Lyme special.

As part of the Sustainable CT effort (sustainablect.org) we seek to inform the public about light pollution and how to arrest its insidious spread across our region.

What do I mean by light pollution? Light pollution is what occurs when a preponderance of lighting, and poorly-designed lighting fixtures, create a glare both locally and across entire swaths of geography, which renders the night sky as a dim shadow of itself. 

The universe is ours to behold just for the simple act of looking up at night. Except, in so many places all over the country and indeed the world, light pollution is removing those vistas much as deforestation and asphalt and other aspects of modern life remove the natural wonders that are part of our terrestrial consciousness. 

Guarding against light pollution really comes down to two simple principles: do not light what does not need to be lit, and when you do need to light something, do it with a source that is effective and efficient.

Our little town, because of its almost non-existent commercialization and heavy forestation, is indeed a miraculous enclave from the typical onslaught of ineffective lighting. We need to keep it that way. 

We can do so by ensuring that all new lighting projects, residential and commercial, take light pollution into account, protecting the night sky, no different than protecting a watershed or any other natural habitat. To the extent that existing installations are night sky-unfriendly, we should consider replacing those fixtures over time with ones that do a better job pointing down with an efficient light source. 

Our environment makes Lyme what it is, and we can be a leader in the sky just as we are on the ground. Please endeavor to learn more about the beauty of the night sky and the threat of light pollution.

A great place to start is here: International Dark-Sky Association.  Also, you can experience the splendor of our night sky first-hand, with experienced astronomers as your guide, by signing up for future observing sessions hosted by the Lyme Land Trust at lymelandtrust.org. 

That look up there is through a window into our universe, and it should be our intention to keep that window pristine for ourselves and our future generations.

About the author: Alan Sheiness is a 10-year resident of Lyme, Conn., and treasurer of the Lyme Land Trust. Among other interests, he is a life-long astronomy enthusiast and astrophotographer. He has documented lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, the Venus transit of the Sun, a Mercury transit of the Sun, many of the planets, star clusters, and nebula; all admittedly decidedly amateur in result, but rewarding nonetheless. Sheiness is a promoter of dark skies and interested in establishing a new Astronomy Society in Lyme as an adjunct activity within the scope of the Lyme Land Trust. Contact him at alan.sheiness@icloud.com.

Op-Ed: Connecticut May Have ‘Reopened,’ Be ‘Returning to Normal’– But Don’t Criticize the ‘Still-Masked’

Posted on by
Reply
In May, Connecticut’s COVID-19 protocols for masks and face coverings were relaxed to coincide with newly-modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, and the new, less stringent, rules then became effective statewide. 

Masks are not required for anyone outdoors, and the “vaccinated” are not required to wear masks indoors. Conversely, the “unvaccinated” must still wear them indoors.

Masks, however, may still be required in many settings, including healthcare facilities, public transit, and facilities that house vulnerable populations. Businesses and government offices have the option to require that masks be worn.

You can review these new rules in detail at: https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/Covid-19-Knowledge-Base/Latest-COVID-19-Guidance

Despite all that, there are good reasons why some of the “fully vaccinated” may not embrace this “return to normalcy”. You will recognize them both by the masks that they may still wear, and their adherence to the old social distancing guidelines.

Is this excessive caution, or just an abundance of caution? 

“Who was that masked man?’ (The Lone Ranger; 1949-1957)

Unfortunately, people with autoimmune diseases (e.g., Type 1 diabetes, lupus, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis), and organ transplant recipients, who take immunosuppressant drugs, may manifest a significantly reduced antibody response to the COVID vaccines. The National Institutes of Health estimates that nearly 23.5 million Americans (about seven percent of the population) suffer from an autoimmune disease; and the prevalence of those diseases is rising. 

Connecticut has heart and kidney transplantation centers at both Yale New Haven and Hartford Hospitals. Each year, about 2,000 heart transplants are delivered in the United States; and the number of kidney transplants has increased annually since 2015, reaching nearly 25,000 in 2019. Yale New Haven Hospital is the largest kidney transplantation center in New England.

Further, while more than 174 million Americans have received at least one vaccine dose — about 65 percent of the adult population — there are still significant gaps at the local level. To illustrate that point, CDC data indicate that less than 30 percent of the population is fully vaccinated in nearly 1000 counties, many of which are rural and economically disadvantaged and concentrated in the Southeast and Midwest. The data also demonstrate a common political link to those shunning vaccination. 

In contrast, 60 percent of the Connecticut population has been fully vaccinated, and two-thirds of residents have received at least one dose.

Note that a single dose of a two-dose vaccine will provide some protection, but not nearly at the level achieved after the second dose. Of course, medical and public health professionals recommend getting fully vaccinated, especially now, with the continued emergence of troubling mutations.

And so, as much of the country emerges from masking and social distancing, under-vaccinated pockets in the U.S. still threaten to bring the virus roaring back; and, last Thursday, CDC Director Walensky announced that the number of COVID-19 cases in the United States has increased 10 percent, certainly fueled by the hyper-transmissible (i.e., highly contagious) delta variant spreading among the unvaccinated.

Although recent data indicate that our current vaccines are still effective at preventing severe COVID-19 caused by the delta variant that would require hospitalization, there is a concern that the vaccines might lose their effectiveness if new variants continue to evolve and spread in the unvaccinated.  

We need to get all Americans vaccinated. This is neither new information, nor partisan politics. I am not suggesting that everybody masks-up again. I do, however, want you to be aware and remain safe.

As you might have guessed, I am one of those “fully vaccinated,” who still wears a mask in a very crowded areas, and washes my hands frequently. 

Blanche Dubois, in the Tennessee Williams play, A Streetcar Named Desire, may have actually had the right vaccination message: “Whoever you are, I have often relied on the kindness of strangers.”

Editor’s Note: Thomas D. Gotowka, who wrote this op-ed and lives in Old Lyme, writes a regular column for LymeLine.com titled, ‘A View From My Porch.’ His entire adult career has been in healthcare.

Op-Ed: Since Lyme-Old Lyme Schools Have Been Open All Year, Why Has OL Park & Rec. Summer Camp Been Cancelled?

Posted on by
1
Editor’s Note: This op-ed was submitted by Melissa Chapps of Old Lyme. It was updated May 10, at 1:40 p.m.

Being the only school district in the region to offer full-time, in-person learning, from the start of the school year, Old Lyme chose to be “all in”. In doing so, we have been the leader in how it is possible to safely reopen. We have been the model, not only to our neighboring towns, but to the State as a whole. We were the example for other towns to follow. We understood that this was vital for our children’s educational, social, and emotional development and pledged to do whatever it took. Hence with the tremendous effort of our entire community – our citizens, administrators, teachers, parents, and, most importantly, our children – we have gone above and beyond to make it happen.

Thus, with Connecticut recording not only its lowest COVID-19 positivity rate in weeks, but also the highest vaccination rates in the country, we were going into summer with a sense of confidence and optimism. The State is reopening, school sports have resumed, restaurant and social gathering restrictions lifted, masks mandates eased. Our new normal was emerging. And after such a challenging year, and the State’s emphasis on local, affordable summer programs, and making the accessibility of such options a top priority, children were looking forward to summer day camps …well, that is, except if you live in Old Lyme.

After being the leader all school year, and after our children proving that they can succeed indoors, Old Lyme now says that the risk of COVID-19 exceeds the benefits of offering its Parks and Recreation Summer Day Camp. The reality of it is they never seriously gave it much consideration to begin with. 

This lack of endeavoring was most evident in the recent Old Lyme’s Parks and Recreation Commission meeting as constituents were turned away and told that they could not physically attend a meeting that was listed as public on the town website, with the location listed as Meeting Hall on the town calendar, and verbally told by the Selectmen’s office that they could appear in person. We were shut out, left to watch from the windows, directed that we could only call in, as the Commission met inside, unmasked, in a room filled with empty chairs. To say we were bewildered was an understatement.

We were there for our children to show support in the reinstatement of the Summer Day Camp. And while we are thankful that the Commission insinuated that they are now open to entertaining ideas, it is marked by great skepticism. The fact that the Summer Day Camp program was not a top priority months ago is a shame and a true let-down by our leadership. We never imagined that our town, which proudly stood as a model all school year, would stop now, as the entire rest of the State paves the way. Our communal efforts thrown to the wayside. As parents, the thought that Old Lyme would not run its Summer Day Camp never even crossed our minds. The idea that we would abandon our “all in” philosophy just because the school year is over was unfathomable. That should have been reason enough to make sure it happened. 

While the Commission asserts that the risk of COVID-19 is far too great for the Summer Day Camp, these same concerns are obsolete when it comes to sports. The fact that so much energy has been, and continues to be, focused solely on ensuring the safe resumption of sport programs and the “fair” usage of our town facilities, from lacrosse to soccer to rowing, is hypocritical. The notion and seemingly justification, of having 225 children playing lacrosse, albeit not all together at the same time, but instead having contact with other children, from other communities, in the playing of such games, while advocating for the equal distribution of playing fields, even calling out other town’s “unwillingness”, thus necessitating us to play throughout the region, and then coming back into our schools and our community is “safer” than running our Summer Parks and Rec Day Camp is nonsensical.

And that is just one sport – it does not even take into account all the hundreds of contacts from all the other sports, from players to spectators, and consequential other points of contact from restaurants to stores, wherein the numbers in totality are virtually immeasurable. But then the Commission has the audacity to imply that contact tracing is only an impediment to the Summer Day Camp – this defies logic. It shows a true lack of rationale and undermines what is even of the Commission’s stated concern. 

The Commission then tried to briefly, and selectively, talk COVID facts, again with only reference to its effects on the Summer Day Camp, as if sport programs are somehow immune. They brought up outdated and inaccurate data, while mentioning recent articles in the paper about other towns, the same towns that we play all our sports in and vice versa. Perhaps they did not realize that in doing so they are not only undermining their agenda against the cancellation of the Summer Day Camp, but they are belittling our remarkable accomplishments, for yes, our neighboring towns have struggled, but this should only strengthen the call for our local Summer Day Camp.

And perhaps they are not aware that many of us actually work on the frontlines and know the real data firsthand. They also failed to examine the toll COVID-19 has had on our children’s mental and emotional health – and how the research overwhelming demonstrates that the continuation of social and enrichment programs, such as the Summer Day Camp, is so desperately needed throughout the summer.

As such, we would like to offer some viable options to implement to ensure the successful and safe reopening of our Summer Day Camp. We can look at the actions our schools and of our children who have proven they can do it – and no, we do not have to worry about them “hugging” as one Commission member tried to use as an excuse. Our children have exemplified all school year they have what it takes to make this possible. We can also look to how our neighboring towns, who once looked to us, are running their programs. We present these options as a starting point and welcome the Commission to build upon them:

  • Push back start date and end date by 1 week
  • Reduce/Limit the number of attendees
  • Restrict residency in that Old Lyme Parks and Rec. Summer Day Camp would be for Old Lyme residents only, and Lyme Parks and Rec. would have to run their own program separately for their residents
  • Use cohorts wherein children are grouped together by grade groups with limited number of children per group
  • Utilize all the town facilities, not just the high school, but all schools and parks
  • Have a large pavilion-style tent for rainy days activities while splitting/rotating gymnasium usage at said locations
  • Require that all employees must be vaccinated
  • Utilize and collaborate with the Ledge Light Health District for contact tracing and inquire about PPE needs and availability
  • Require not only that all children wear masks, but they must provide backups
  • Increase enrollment cost – even though our surplus from last year should cover much of any added expense
  • Ask for volunteers and community involvement of participating families; The residents of Old Lyme have a strong communal foundation, and many would happily give their time and/or resources, donate PPE and cleaning supplies, and more – this is supported by the over 130 signatures collected in support of running our Summer Day Camp 

In closing, we think it is important to note that we are in no way trying to suggest that sport programs should not run, but instead we are trying to uphold equality for all programs. The Parks and Recreation Summer Day Camp was the only safe, affordable, and consistent program for the children within the community, to stay within the community all summer long. And the only sustainable option of those children who do not play sports. By sending our children to different weekly camps throughout the region, it is not only significantly more costly, but we are also expanding our exposure and putting our children, their families, and the community at undue risk

As a community we should stand together and acknowledge the social, emotional, and psychological impact that all our local programs have on our youths. They need this now more than ever. 

It is our hope that we can work together for the betterment and empowerment of our collective community.

Let us be “all in” together.

Op-Ed: Faculty, Staff at Lyme-Old Lyme Schools Deserve Cash Bonuses

Posted on by
2

Editor’s Note: This op-ed was submitted by William Fitzgerald of Old Lyme. 

In Old Lyme, we claim to value education. Now is the time for us to step up and show we mean it. The Board of Education recently put out a request to crowdsource gifts for teachers. While this gesture is well-intentioned, it’s not enough. Our school staff – every adult who worked in the building, from the custodial crew to maintenance to the kitchen staff to guidance counselors to admin assistants to tech staff to teachers and admins – stepped up under the most challenging conditions this country has seen in a generation. Their effort and care deserves cash bonuses.

Currently, the district site lists 306 people. Let’s assume, for the sake of overestimating, that the full number of people supporting our kids in the district is 350. Estimating high, paying each staff member a bonus of $1,000 would cost $350,000. A bonus of $2,000 per person is $700,000; and a bonus of $3,000 per person is just over a million dollars.

We have the money to do this. The current budget contains a little over 1.7 million dollars in unspent funds “returned” to Lyme and Old Lyme. Returning “unspent” money is an annual ritual; between 2017 and the current budget the district has refunded amounts ranging between $647,000 and $1.7 million (see footnote, below). This money is cash that has already been taxed from the townspeople, and allocated via budgets. The towns or the district could pay every staff member a $3,000 bonus and still leave $700,000 of that 1.7 million untouched.

If the school board wants to solicit matching donations from community members, the contributions could potentially be routed through the Lyme Old Lyme Education Foundation, where these community contributions could be a tax writeoff. This assumes that the LOLEF would be willing to serve in this role, but it seems a natural extension of their past work and aligned with their general mission.

Given what things have been like since March 2020, I can’t imagine that our school board and superintendent would want to do anything except show our school staff that they are appreciated via this one time cash bonus. Frequent objections to doing something different include that it’s too hard, or that there isn’t enough time, or that the politics of the budget process are too complicated.

However, our teachers, our admin staff, our custodians, our kitchen staff, our tech staff did not have the luxury of these excuses. Their work was unreasonably hard, and they did it. They did not have adequate time to plan for the continual shifts and disruptions caused by Covid – and they showed up and excelled. Our staff had to navigate the impacts of the political quagmire that marked our national response to Covid – and they showed up and made it happen, under circumstances that were and continue to be unreasonably difficult and complex. 

The commitment, professionalism, and follow through of our staff should be matched by this board, and the town selectmen.

In January, in the middle of the current pandemic, this school board committed nearly 2.5 million dollars for an artificial turf field. If we can afford millions for fake grass, we should be able to afford thousands for actual people.

Pay school staff a one time bonus for their work during the pandemic. We have the money, and they earned it.

Author’s footnotes:

School budgets listed on the Region 18 district website go back to the 2019-2020 budget, which allows us to see “returned” funds starting on 6/30/2017.

The budget overview pages are here:

Carry over funds from 2017 and 2018:

  • 6/30/2017 – $1,101,399
  • 06/30/2018 – $804,212

Carry over funds from 2019:

  • 06/30/2019  – $647,155

Carry over funds from 2020:

  • 06/30/20 – $1,725,886

The district has not yet released a projection of unspent funds for the current fiscal year ending 6/30/2021, but if past patterns hold there is potentially an additional $650,000 to $1.1 million dollars in play.

 

Op-Ed: Systemic Racism and Old Lyme — Past, Present and Future

Posted on by

COMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED ON THIS ARTICLE, BUT THE 20+ SUBMITTED CAN STILL BE READ.

This op-ed was written by the ministers of the First Congregational Church of Old Lyme:- Rev. Steven R. Jungkeit, Ph.D. (Senior Minister), Rev. Laura Fitzpatrick-Nager (Senior Associate Minister), and Rev. Carleen Gerber (Associate Minister.)

As the death of George Floyd, and now Daunte Wright, once again dominates the news cycle, so too local communities throughout the United States are called to continue the work of addressing the inequities and injustices caused by systemic racism.  Thankfully, in many places, that work didn’t begin with the death of Mr. Floyd – it has been happening all along.  Still, the horrific footage of that event, together with the killing of Daunte Wright, underscore both the urgency of the work, and the sheer scale of it.  The roots of systemic racism run deep, and they are pervasive.  Those roots run deep throughout the entire country, but they are especially pervasive in local communities.  Old Lyme, Connecticut, is not an exception.

To say that a community (or a country) is afflicted with systemic racism is not the same as attributing racist behaviors to individuals.  While it might be true that some individuals do exhibit racist behaviors, and while it is also true that most people possess unconscious biases in need of examination, systemic racism is far more subtle.  It has to do with who benefits most from our economic system, our educational institutions, and our business practices.  It has to do with the availability of health care, and the location and availability of housing.  It has to do with transportation and environmental resources.  Countering systemic racism involves discovering where blockages toward racial justice exist, and then doing the hard work of reshaping and reforming those structures in order to create communities that are inviting, fully responsive to the diverse needs of those who live there.

Old Lyme, along with the entirety of the Connecticut Shoreline, has a long history of systemic racism that has gone largely unnoticed and unaddressed.  Historical research discloses that the wealth of the town was built through trade with the West Indies, islands where slaves were worked to death on sugar plantations.  Barrel staves were made in Old Lyme, which were then shipped to Barbados from the Lieutenant River and the Connecticut River.  Molasses, converted from the cane sugar harvested by enslaved Africans, came back in those barrels, which was then converted into rum.  Communities all over Connecticut supplied the West Indies with agricultural products, which were then converted into molasses, and then rum, and then the purchase of human beings.  Old Lyme, together with other Connecticut towns like Old Saybrook, Wethersfield, New London, and many others, played its part in that global relay system.

But Old Lyme didn’t simply profit from a slave society that was far away.  It was a slave society.  We can document as many as 160 enslaved people – and likely more – that lived in this town alone.  Many, if not most, of the towns along the Connecticut Shoreline have similar numbers.  The first minister of the Congregational Church in Old Lyme owned at least one enslaved person, named Arabella.  A prominent member of the town in the early 18th century sold a three year old child, named Jane, away from her mother, writing in the deed of sale that she was sold in order to have and to hold, to be possessed and enjoyed.  The largest slave holding family in New England, the DeWolfs, built an integrated empire of slaving in Bristol, Rhode Island in the 18th century, but they got their start in Old Lyme – one of the early family patriarchs is buried in the Duck River Cemetery.  At least three enslaved people lived on the site where the Congregational Church now stands.  At least five enslaved people lived in the house that now serves as the parsonage.  Several more lived on the site of the town library.  More still lived at the site of what is now the Florence Griswold Museum.  That’s merely a handful of the human beings who were enslaved in Old Lyme.

But it’s not only enslavement that occurred in Old Lyme.  Redlining did too.  Property records exist from the mid-20th century that prohibit the sale of houses or land in Old Lyme to people of color.  Such records raise questions about precisely what is meant when contemporary residents deploy language about “preserving the town’s historic character.”  What does “character” mean, precisely?  Can that “character” be separated out from the history of systemic racism that took place in Old Lyme?  Given the evidence of systemic racism in Old Lyme, are there not aspects of the town’s “historic character” that we might wish to address, change, and overcome?

The Resolution on Racism as a Public Health Crisis currently before the town’s Board of Selectmen is a way of publicly acknowledging the ways structural racism adversely affects the bodily, emotional, and spiritual well-being of people of color, an acknowledgment that should not be controversial.  Passing it would acknowledge that structural racism exists throughout our country, including in places like Old Lyme.  It would send a clear message to the people of color and minorities who do live in the town that local leaders actually care about their well-being.  It would do the same for the people of color who work in town, but live elsewhere.  But more than that, passing the resolution would send a signal to those living in other communities that Old Lyme understands the conditions that far too many people face in Connecticut and in the wider United States.  Finally, it would help to acknowledge this town’s complicity in the very formation of structural racism, a complicity in which it is not alone.  Sadly, failing to affirm that Resolution declares the opposite: the desire to retain the town’s “historic character,” together with all that phrase implies.

Passing a resolution is a largely symbolic activity.  Still, we believe such passage would be a substantive step toward lasting change.  But clearly more work is needed if we are truly to address the inequities that have existed in Connecticut, and in Old Lyme.  That work would include a public education program to learn the history of enslavement in Old Lyme.  It would include building a curriculum that would teach that history to our children.  It would include an active campaign to invite people of color to live in our community, and to take part in our educational system.  And it would include a commitment to building affordable housing, which, it should be noted, would also benefit many within this community who already face precarious housing.

We believe it is time for Old Lyme to lead on issues surrounding structural racism.  The murder of George Floyd and the murder of Daunte Wright, together with the public reckoning that such violence has unleashed, has created an opening toward greater honesty, empathy, compassion, and justice.  Mr. Floyd’s death, and Mr. Wright’s, is nothing short of a tragedy.  Indeed, it is more than that – it is a national emergency.  With that tragedy and with that emergency, we have an opportunity to work toward a greater and more inclusive public good, one in which towns like Old Lyme become the hospitable and welcoming communities that we most deeply wish to be.

Editor’s Notes: We welcome comments on any article published on LymeLine.com but we would like to remind readers that our policy on comments states that you must provide your first and last name, and an email address that we can verify. Comments will not be published under a pseudonym. Personal attacks on anyone or any group or organization, especially on other commenters, are not permitted. Also, we will not publish comments that are abusive, defamatory, indecent, libelous, obscene, off-topic, pornographic, profane, threatening, unlawful, vulgar, or otherwise objectionable.