Our Town

Affordable senior housing has been at McKinney Terrace, in the former Byram School building, for almost a quarter century. This housing has always met a neighborhood need.

Half of the 55 residents currently living in the 51 senior apartments at McKinney Terrace lived in western Greenwich prior to moving into this senior housing. They come from Byram, Chickahominy, Pemberwick and Glenville. The rest come from other parts of town – central Greenwich, Cos Cob, Riverside, Old Greenwich. Only two people currently living at McKinney Terrace were not previously Greenwich residents. One was employed in Greenwich but lived in Port Chester and the other was a victim of Hurricane Katrina.

Like residents of all the Housing Authority developments, McKinney Terrace residents lived in Greenwich, or else worked here, prior to moving into the housing. Those who live in the Housing Authority’s senior developments are typically long time Greenwich residents. Many are town natives.

The Housing Authority, faced with long waiting lists for both its senior and family housing, has developed a plan to build additional senior units at McKinney Terrace. This will not only help to meet what will be a growing need for more senior housing as our population becomes increasingly older, but will also allow for the redevelopment of the Housing Authority’s Quarry Knoll property to include much needed workforce housing.

The plan is to add 21 new senior apartments to the existing former school building and to build a separate building with 35 senior apartments on the 3.97 acre property. This would be a net gain of 54 units as 2 units in the old building would be eliminated. The addition to the existing building will also include new meeting rooms that would be open to the larger Byram community.

There will be no negative developmental impact on the Byram community.

Although the plan requires a redrawing of the boundary between the current R-6 and R-PHD-E zones to incorporate 173,705 square feet of property into the R-PHD-E elderly zone that is now in the R-6 zone, the plan is in complete conformity with the existing elderly zone. The total number of senior units that will be on the site, including the 56 new units, will be 105, well below the maximum number of units that would be permitted in the elderly zone. The floor area ratio and the percentage of lot coverage will also be well below the limit the zone allows, as will the number of bedrooms.In other words, the proposed development is less dense than the zoning permits.

Because this is senior housing, there will be no impact on the school population at the western end of town. And because of its location just off the Post Road, set apart with open space buffers, this additional senior housing at McKinney Terrace would be barely noticeable to much of the Byram community.

From a strictly planning and zoning perspective, the McKinney Terrace expansion does not present any serious obstacles to approval. It may have been in anticipation of a favorable response that the Housing Authority went before the Planning and Zoning Commission this past October, hoping to have all planning and zoning related issues resolved before going to the Board of Selectmen, thereby strengthening its position.

However, this was not a wise move. While the Housing Authority had developed its own legal arguments bolstering a procedural decision to go to Planning and Zoning before going to the Board of Selectmen, this course of action went contrary to the customary procedure according to which the proposal should have first gone to the Board of Selectmen. This served to create even more antagonism than already existed among the opponents of the plan. And the timing in October, during a heated political campaign, was not good.

As might have been predictable, the Planning and Zoning Commission threw the hot potato back to the Board of Selectmen, finding that “the application for MI and site plan are incomplete and deficient in that the certified owner of the property – town of Greenwich – has not given approval or authorized the HATG to use town-owned land for construction of additional elderly housing by the Housing Authority on this property.”

The Planning and Zoning Commission further instructed the Housing Authority to go to the Board of Selectmen for municipal improvement approval before returning to Planning and Zoning for P&Z municipal improvement approval. The Housing Authority would have to have this approval from the Board of Selectmen and return to the Planning and Zoning Commission no later that February 27.

From a political and practical point of view, it is clear that the Housing Authority always needed to first get municipal improvement approval from the Board of Selectmen as well as the First Selectman’s signature on its application to Planning and Zoning. Then, assuming there is Planning and Zoning approval of the housing plan, the Housing Authority must return to the Board of Selectmen for an amendment to its lease with the town.

However, the Housing Authority has withdrawn its application, probably uncertain about the wisdom of going before the Board of Selectmen at this time.

The future of affordable housing in Greenwich is in the hands of the three men who sit on the Board of Selectmen. They have the power to make it possible for a sound, well-thought-out affordable housing plan to move forward. Or they can effectively kill this plan, thereby dealing a severe blow to the larger cause of affordable housing in Greenwich. If the McKinney Terrace plan does not go forward, it is likely that there will be no significant new affordable housing built anywhere in Greenwich anytime in the foreseeable future.

That would be a shame.

The members of the Board of Selectmen need to hear not just from certain vocal people in Byram, but also from the many Greenwich residents who want to see our town make a greater effort to meet our affordable housing needs. Moving forward with the McKinney Terrace expansion can only benefit the people of Greenwich, including the Byram community.

Our town has a long history of support for affordable housing going back to 1946 when the town established the Greenwich Housing Authority in response to a shortage of affordable housing for returning World War II veterans.

Since 1946, the Housing Authority, the town’s chief developer of affordable housing, has created 708 affordable units, seventeen of which are subsidized units in a predominantly market rate housing complex. In addition to these subsidized and market rate units, a total of 821 apartments, the Housing Authority operates Parsonage Cottage, a 40-bed congregate living facility for the elderly and administers more than 300 Federal Section 8 vouchers that subsidize rents in the private market.

Housing Authority Chairman, Jonathan DuBois, estimates that the Greenwich Housing Authority owns and manages housing for about 2,600 Greenwich residents, or 4% of our town’s population.

However, in spite of the number of Greenwich residents who live in subsidized housing and our town’s long history of support for affordable housing, this general community support almost never translates into support for a particular proposal on a specific site, especially in recent times. The NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) factor inevitably kicks in.

The most recent NIMBY outcry comes from the Byram community. These loud cries give the false impression that an inordinate amount of affordable housing is being foisted on Byram and that this is a burden that should be shared by other parts of town.

The facts do not support this argument.

The only Housing Authority units in Byram are on the former Byram School property that the town leased to the Housing Authority in 1988 for $1 a year for 99 years. These consist of 51 senior units in the renovated school building (McKinney Terrace II) and 21 family units on the larger property (McKinney Terrace I).

These 72 affordable units on the former Byram School property are less in number than the Housing Authority units at the eastern end of town – 80 family units at Adams Garden in Riverside.

By far the greatest concentration of affordable housing is in central Greenwich. There are a total of 378 units at Wilbur Peck Court, Quarry Knoll I and II, Agnes Morley Heights and the Town Hall Annex. There are an additional 17 subsidized units at Greenwich Close, which also has 113 market rate units, making a total of 508 housing units in central Greenwich that are owned by the Housing Authority.

Even if the 144 units at Armstrong Court in Chickahominy and the 17 scattered site units at the western end of town are added to the 72 units in Byram, for a total of 233 affordable units in western Greenwich, this is still well below the number of units in central Greenwich.

The current Byram outcry stems from the Housing Authority’s proposal to expand its McKinney senior residence by adding 56 new senior apartments at that location, with a net increase of 54 units. This proposal for the Byram site is a key component of a larger plan to add to our town’s affordable housing stock. The Housing Authority, which has long waiting lists for both its senior and family housing, with a wait of up to 3 years for family housing, cannot move forward with its plan to create additional affordable units unless the critical Byram piece is in place.

Land cost presents a major obstacle to the production of affordable housing in Greenwich. To make housing affordable, the town can provide a land subsidy as with the lease at the former Byram School. The Housing Authority can also find ways to redevelop its existing properties, something that makes sense, not only because this does not require a land purchase, but also because of the age of some of the developments.

The Housing Authority has done an in-depth analysis of its properties in an effort to determine the best avenues for redevelopment. The Authority has determined that the property at Quarry Knoll I, senior housing developed in 1962, is the most obvious candidate for redevelopment. This central Greenwich property with small aging bungalow apartments is underutilized. Better and more efficient use can be made of this property that would allow for much needed workforce housing as well as senior housing.

However, this redevelopment cannot take place if there is no provision to relocate the seniors currently living at Quarry Knoll I. The additional units at McKinney Terrace in Byram would serve this purpose, while adding to our supply of senior housing.

Both the plan for Quarry Knoll redevelopment and the construction of additional senior units at McKinney Terrace can be accomplished within existing zoning regulations.

In theory, a plan that calls for building affordable housing on properties that already have such housing and that does not require any zoning changes should be relatively easy to put into place.

Enter NIMBY.

The additional senior units at McKinney Terrace require an amendment to the Housing Authority’s lease with the town, and this requires the approval of the Board of Selectmen and the RTM. Here NIMBY is very powerful, its outcry a strong influence on our elected officials.

Not that the Housing Authority has done the best possible job in selling this plan to the larger Greenwich community. The plan needs to be better understood by the public in order to build a coalition of supporters.

The Housing Authority made a serious strategic mistake at the outset by confusing their redevelopment plan with the completely separate issue of finding town-owned land on which to build the affordable housing mandated by the state when the town took over the Cos Cob Power Plant. The suggestion that designated open space in Byram be used for that purpose was a fatal one. As a result, the public relations task is to make it clear that the Housing Authority’s redevelopment plan does not involve any designated open space.

A new Greenwich Board of Selectmen is sworn in this afternoon (Sunday, November 29, 2009). Two new Selectmen, Drew Marzullo and David Theis, join our incumbent First Selectman, Peter Tesei. All three members of this new Board are Greenwich natives with deep roots in our community that go back generations. They clearly love our town and will surely have its best interests at heart as they make carefully considered choices in these challenging times.

One of the challenges they face is what to do about our town’s need for affordable housing. More specifically, they can expect a request to amend the town’s lease with the Housing Authority to allow additional senior housing at McKinney Terrace, which will then make it possible to better utilize the Quarry Knoll property in a way that will allow for work force housing.

Let us hope that they will be able to say NO to NIMBY and act in the best interests of the town as a whole, examining the facts and exercising the same leadership shown by past Boards of Selectmen in a long tradition of “caring for our own,” a tradition that goes back to the affordable housing built for our returning veterans after World War II.

After all, these are our very own seniors that we propose to house in Byram.

(NOTE: This is the first of what will be more OUR TOWN blog postings on the subject of affordable housing in Greenwich.)

This is the first posting on “Our Town,” my new Greenwich Time blog.

Everyday life in Greenwich is the subject of the blog. But to my way of thinking, there is not just one Greenwich. There are different social layers that, taken together, make up our town. My blog seeks out this diversity.

Greenwich is not its stereotype: the exclusive preserve of the wealthy, “tony,” the hedge fund capital of the world, Rodeo Drive East. Of course, it may be these things in part, but looking beyond the stereotype, we see that our town is much, much more.

It is fitting that my first posting reports on a Greenwich High School program because the student body of our town’s only public high school reflects the overall makeup of Greenwich, and the program on which I report is about diversity.

This morning (November 19, 2009) I attended the opening assembly for “Names Day” at Greenwich High School, an annual program in which all freshmen are required to participate. The all-day program is designed to combat stereotyping and prejudice. The Connecticut Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been running the program in Greenwich for the past 10 years.

About 15 to 20 schools throughout the state participate each year, according to Marji Lipshez-Shapiro, Connecticut ADL Director of Education, who in 1995 created the program known as “Names Can Really Hurt Us.” Greenwich High School is one of the few schools in the state to participate every year.

Chris Winters, Interim Headmaster, in his opening remarks, referred to “Names Day” as a “tradition” at Greenwich High.

The auditorium was filled to capacity, not only with members of the freshman class who were required to attend. There was also a large contingent of students from the upper classes, all wearing green tee shirts identifying them as part of the “Names Team.” They were the volunteers who helped put the day’s program together, participating in the presentations. They had already been through the program as freshmen.

History teacher, Carol Sutton, also in a volunteer capacity, was program coordinator. Lipshez-Shapiro praised Sutton’s work during our interview, seeing her as an unsung hero who is “passionate” and “extraordinarily gifted” at what she does.

Also part of the team responsible for organizing the program were ADL staff members, Sandra Vonniessen-Applebee and Professor William Foster of Naugatuck Valley  Community College who has been moderating the program at Greenwich High School for the past 10 years.

“To be a moderator is an honor,” said Foster, an English teacher, author and poet, in an interview after the assembly, as he spoke of his role in assisting each student get what he or she needs from the program.

Lipshez-Shapiro emphasized that “Names Day” is the culmination of many hours of prior work by the mostly volunteer team. She estimated the time commitment to be a minimum of 6 hours per volunteer.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”

One of the student volunteers recited the familiar childhood ditty at the start of the program, which began at 8:30 a.m. This volunteer went on to say: “The truth is names do hurt” That set the stage for the morning assembly.

As the program continued, Foster said that important words to understand are “ouch” and “oops.” “Ouch is about letting someone know when he or she hurts you. “Oops” is signaling someone that you did not mean to hurt him or her.

A student volunteer team spelled out the rules for the day: ROPES.

“R” is for “Risk”: the risk that students are encouraged to take by telling their story. “R” is also for “Respect” : the respect with which the stories should be treated. “O” is for “Openness”: the openness with which the stories should be told and heard. “O” is also for “Ouch” and “Oops.” “P” is for “Participate”: that everyone should participate. “E” is for “Escuchar,” Spanish for “Listen.” And “S” is for “Safety”; that everyone should feel they are in a safe environment.

Another student volunteer team presented skits illustrating stereotypes, prejudice, discriminatory behavior, blaming a scapegoat and becoming an ally. The freshman class was the target for the purposes of these illustrations.

The program continued with a video and presentations by six student volunteer panelists who told their personal stories about stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination, whether as victim or perpetrator.

The bulk of the two and a half hour assembly, however, was devoted to students who were courageous enough to spontaneously give testimony at an open microphone and tell their own very personal stories to the entire assembly. Since a large number of the students who spoke were freshmen, many of their experiences had occurred in Middle School.

Fifty students told their stories at the open microphone, covering many areas of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. The topics they raised included race, ethnicity, cultural differences, immigrant status, mental and physical handicaps, sexual orientation, cyber-bullying, being learning disabled, being labeled as  a special education student, eating disorders, body image and self esteem. Students spoke both as victims and as perpetrators.A number apologized for the wrongs they had done to others. Some asked forgiveness.

A supportive audience loudly applauded each speaker. There was also enthusiastic applause for the whole program at the conclusion of the assembly.

After a lunch break, the freshmen broke into smaller classroom groups for discussion facilitated by staff and volunteer members of the “Names Team.” The day’s program ended with a concluding assembly in the auditorium. The focus was on how to become an ally.

According to Lipshez-Shapiro, the goals of the program are 1) to empower the targets so that they can stand up to the bullies, 2) to teach the perpetrators empathy so that they understand how words and actions hurt, and 3) to teach bystanders to become allies.

In our interview, Foster described the growth of the “Names Can Hurt Us” program over the fourteen years since its inception. He said it was akin to the “march of civilization.” He went on to say that “These are kids, and look what they carry on their shoulders.” He sees the program as providing an amazing conduit that allows the students “to release some of this.”

Foster takes nothing for granted and sees each session as different depending upon those who participate. “Every kid has something unique to share,” he said. “We give them an option that they didn’t have before.”

I returned home from Greenwich High School today, inspired by what I had seen and heard. I couldn’t wait to begin this first blog posting because I wanted my readers to know how proud our town should be that for the past ten years there has been a “Names Day” at Greenwich High School. There is no question in my mind that the effects of this ADL program are far reaching and long lasting.