Our Town

Connecticut’s Department of Economic and Community Development has just dealt a severe blow to the future of affordable housing in Greenwich. By accepting the town’s argument that Greenwich has met the requirement to build 24 units of affordable housing in exchange for the former Cos Cob power plant site, the state has given its blessing to the town’s do-nothing affordable housing policy. The town has been rewarded for its failure to address the need for affordable housing. Far from rejoicing over this waiver, the town should hang its head in shame.

Let’s review the history. Twenty-three years ago, on July 7, 1987, the state conveyed the Cos Cob power plant property to the town for $1 with the requirement that 25% of the site be used for low income, moderate income, or senior housing. The remainder of the site was to be used for “public open space.” Without the affordable housing requirement, the state legislature would never have agreed to convey the land to the town for a dollar.

Unfortunately, the state gave no time limit for meeting the affordable housing requirement. Ten years passed. Nothing happened. On July 8, 1997, exactly ten years after the town acquired the property, the state legislature amended the original legislation at the town’s request. The 1997 Connecticut General Statutes Special Act 97-20, which amends section 5 of the 1987 Connecticut General Statutes Special Act 87-101, retains the requirement that the town se 25% of the property for low income, moderate income, or senior housing, but allows the town to use the entire site for “public open space” if the town has provided equivalent housing units on other property in town on and after October 1, 1997.

The determination as to whether or not the town has met this obligation was left to the state. The Commissioner of Economic and Community Development could waive the housing restriction on the use of the property if he, or she, determines that the town has provided “on or after October 1, 1997, housing units on other properties in said town which are equivalent to the housing units required under this subsection.” If the town is not in compliance with the provisions of this legislation, the property reverts to the state.

Again, the legislation gave no time limit for coming into compliance. Another thirteen years passed. During that time the deteriorating power plant was finally demolished and plans for open space and recreation began to take shape. But no plan to provide 24 units of affordable housing elsewhere in town was ever put forward. The housing requirement was conveniently forgotten.

On March 9 of this year the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a plan to turn the former Cos Cob power plant site into a park that includes an athletic field. P&Z thereby gave the town a green light to move forward with a plan that uses the entire site exclusively for recreational and open space purposes.

But before the town could proceed, the state had to waive the requirement that 25% of the site be used for affordable housing. And for this to happen the state had to be convinced that the town has provided equivalent housing at another location. Alas, the state bought the argument that the town has created or preserved 97 affordable units since 1997.

The town claims to have met its housing obligation by counting special needs and senior congregate living units that were developed by private, non-profit organizations without town involvement. Oh, yes, there was federal community development block grant money allocated to these projects by the town over the years, as there was also for upgrades to existing Housing Authority units. But at the time these private non-profits applied for block grant money, there never was any indication that these units were intended to meet the town’s affordable housing obligation at the Cos Cob power plant site. At the time, that would have been a laughable notion. It is an argument that the town has made only in retrospect, in order to shirk its obligation.

In truth, the town has done nothing to create any new units of affordable housing since 1997 and has never developed an alternative plan for the 24 units that would have met the housing requirement on 25% of the former power plant property. The town and the state have made a mockery of the legislation as it was originally intended. But with the passing of nearly a quarter century, things are forgotten.

The state’s waiver may allow the town to finally move forward with a plan for the power plant site after 23 years. But, in granting this waiver, the state has permitted the town to take a giant step backward. Affordable housing has fallen by the wayside.

The right thing for the town to do would be to develop a plan that will produce much needed additional affordable units because this is right for Greenwich, not because of any state requirement. But let’s not hold our breath. If the town didn’t come up with a plan for 24 units in the 23 years that there was a state requirement, what hope is there for the next quarter century?

The Housing Task Force, which has been meeting at 8 a.m. every other Wednesday morning since  March, is currently in the process of hearing status reports from its subgroups. These groups are engaged in a review of the housing action items outlined in the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).

At this week’s meeting, task force members heard status reports from the zoning regulations, transit-oriented and Housing Authority subgroups.

This review and research into different aspects of affordable housing  has been a learning process for many of the Housing Task Force members.”It certainly has been an education for me,” said Mike Warner at yesterday’s meeting. Warner, an RTM representative to the task force, gave the status report for the zoning regulations subgroup.

Referring to POCD action item #3.11 – consider zoning regulations to require a percentage of multifamily development units as moderate income housing – Warner said there was general agreement among the members of his subgroup that “the town should propagate regulations with incentives for developers.” However, there was no consensus on specifics such as whether or not “it was viable or workable for our town to have developers contribute to a housing trust fund.” There was also a question as to whether or not “it makes sense for the town to endorse a homogeneous subgroup,” such as seniors, or young professionals.

Bill Finger, BET representative to the task force, gave the status report for the transit-oriented subgroup, which met with Town Planner Diane Fox and considered affordable housing in relation to train stations and bus routes. The town’s train stations, except for the Riverside station, lend themselves to mixed use development, according to Finger. The boundary for development is defined in terms of a 15 minute walk to the station. Subgroup co-chair, Ken Rogozinski, a community representative to the task force, said that some type of mixed use will most likely be necessary, as “the numbers don’t work otherwise.”

The focal point for affordable housing development is probably the Post Road, Finger said. He speculated that housing development along the Post Road would not present the same issues that it would in other parts of town. It would be spread out and not in any one neighborhood.

Noting the high cost of real estate in Greenwich, Finger said that it was difficult to provide enough of an incentive for private developers to produce affordable housing. Therefore, the use of town-owned land is a critical element in making such housing possible in Greenwich. Given the importance of town-owned land in creating affordable housing, Finger said that members of the Housing Task Force need to begin discussions with the Town Properties Task Force. He also suggested that public-private partnerships might be the answer. Task force chair, Nancy Brown, agreed, saying that public-private partnerships were an important focus.

Bernadette Settlemeyer, the Housing Authority representative to the task force, referred to POCD action item #3.7 – encourage subsidized housing in areas that are served by transit and owned by HATG - and pointed out that enhanced development of existing Housing Authority properties is consistent with the suggestions made by the transit-oriented subgroup.

The Housing Authority has a plan for such enhanced development at its Quarry Knoll and McKinney Terrace properties, but does not yet have the votes on the current Board of Selectmen to move this plan forward.

Settlemeyer gave the report for the Housing Authority subgroup. She said that before addressing the 5 POCD action items relating to the Housing Authority, the subgroup felt it necessary to educate itself regarding Housing Authority operations and the developments the agency owns and manages. To this end, Settlemeyer arranged a tour of several HATG developments to which all task force members were invited.

Settlemeyer’s report provided the occasion for a lively discussion regarding the Housing Authority.

Margarita Alban, the Planning and Zoning Commission representative to the task force, described the Housing Authority as a successful model. “This is a model that works,” she said.

But task force member, Kathy Derene, a community representative, disagreed. She called the tour of the Housing Authority properties “eye opening” and said she was “appalled” by the condition of the buildings, particularly at Armstrong Court. “There is a beautiful garden in the back,” she said of Armstrong Court, “And a filthy hallway in the front.”

Alban held to her position. “I was very impressed, relative to my expectations,” she said.

Other task force members pointed out that all Housing Authorities face problems in finding funding to do upgrades and major capital improvements, particularly with aging buildings such as Armstrong Court. Settlemeyer noted that the Armstrong Court stair towers are scheduled to be painted using Community Development Block Grant money, but that painting has been delayed until the necessary lead remediation is done in the stair towers, also with Community Development Block Grant money.

“We live in a very privileged world,” Alban said. “When we move to another world we need to adjust,” the implication being that we shouldn’t apply unrealistic standards where the circumstances are less privileged.

Settlemeyer disagreed and suggested that the maintenance standard for the Housing Authority should be raised. Although the Greenwich Housing Authority is a high performing agency by HUD standards, Settlemeyer said that the government standard is lower than what ours should be. “We should have a standard that is not different from that for market rate housing,” she said.

Brown cautioned about generalizing from one stairwell in one building at Armstrong Court. At the same time, she said that the way families live today is very different than it was in the 1940’s and 1950’s, the era in which Armstrong Court was built. “This housing has become outmoded,” she said.

Alban repeatedly called for research leading to a discussion of “best practices.” She said that it was important for the task force to look at existing models to see what works and what doesn’t.

In response to Alban’s call for a discussion of “best practices,” Settlemeyer distributed an op-ed article on Stamford’s approach to affordable housing written by then Stamford mayor, Dannel Malloy,which Settlemeyer sees as “a very, very exciting story” and a model for what can be done. Settlemeyer said that she will set up a meeting with Stamford.

“There are models,” Brown said, “And the closest one is Stamford.” At the same time, Brown cautioned that Stamford is a city and speculated that “if we just look at Stamford, people will dismiss it.” She suggested that the task force look at other communities, in particular Fairfield and West Hartford, which are often considered demographically comparable to Greenwich.

Settlemeyer disagreed, saying that Greenwich already has more affordable housing than most other towns in Connecticut and is more advanced in its thinking .

“There’s passion here,” Alban said during the discussion. “That’s good,” she said. “We’ve got passion. That’s important.”

An article in today’s Greenwich Time describes Belle Haven as “home to not one but two billionaires and some of the town’s priciest real estate.” It is true that this private waterfront community has long been an exclusive enclave. Around the turn of the last century, wealthy industrialists were transforming Greenwich potato farms into expensive summer estates. This is the era in which Belle Haven has its origins.

But there is a little sliver of Belle Haven history that few people today know anything about, including, I would imagine, the millionaires and billionaires who now live there.

Last night, as I was leaving a meeting of the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC), I encountered my friend, Easy Kelsey, with a group outside Town Hall. Easy runs Kelsey Farm, a venerable Greenwich riding institution on Lake Avenue that her mother, known as Sis, started many years ago.

“Easy and I were classmates at Greenwich Academy,” I said to Jan Dubois, Chairman of the Greenwich Housing Authority, who had also been at the CDAC meeting and was walking with me as we continued on to the parking lot after greeting Easy. As I spoke these words, I remembered that Easy and I had not only been classmates at Greenwich Academy, but had also attended Mrs. Teal’s Classes together in Belle Haven.

While I was telling Jan last night about Mrs. Teal’s Classes, I realized that the history of this little school has been lost. No one even knows that it ever existed. This morning, seeing Belle Haven mentioned in the paper, I remembered this thought from last night and decided to do a brief blog posting in order to revive this history.

From 1948 until 1954 when I entered Greenwich Academy in 7th grade, I attended a very unusual school. Known as Mrs. Teal’s Classes, it was located in John and Isabelle Teal’s large Victorian house at the corner of Mayo Avenue and Otter Rock Drive in Belle Haven. Isabelle Teal, an imposing woman, had started the accredited private elementary school many years earlier when her children were young and home schooled. I would guess that would have been sometime in the 1930’s. She closed her school and retired in 1954, at the end of my 6th grade year.

Mrs. Teal’s Classes was,in a sense, an old-fashioned one-room schoolhouse. The students from all 6 grades, which amounted to only a handful of boys and girls, were taught in one room of the house. Mrs. Teal, who was the school’s only teacher, had turned this room into a classroom with a large blackboard, bookshelves and school desks. I remember the room as having pale green walls and a wooden parquet floor.

Each grade had only 1 or 2 students. As I recall there were never more than 5 in any one grade, and all study was highly individualized. Mrs. Teal, who had a large desk of her own in one corner of the classroom, would take students into the living room for private tutorials. This spacious living room was also the setting for school plays and joint music classes in which all the students participated. Mrs. Teal would pound the keys of her grand piano with great exuberance while we sang. In June 1953, we all sat on the floor in Mrs. Teal’s living room and watched coverage of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on the television.

Recess was on the back lawn, or on the wrap-around porch if it was raining. School let out at lunch time. There was no homework. Some, but not all, the students in Mrs. Teal’s Classes lived in Belle Haven. Some, but not all, were very rich.

“The committee couldn’t come to consensus on the meaning of consensus.” This was an observer’s comment overheard after the most recent meeting of the POCD Housing Task Force.

Members of the task force spent approximately one hour – a full 2/3 of the one and a half hour meeting- discussing procedural matters. After considerable discussion, and a withdrawn motion, the task force postponed a vote on the procedure for coming to agreement on any given recommendation. There appeared to be a lack of agreement about how to come to agreement.

Should the task force strive for a general consensus among its members in which any recommendation would require a higher standard for agreement than may be the case with a simple vote? Or would a vote with a majority of one suffice? Or should the requirement be a 2/3 “supermajority?” Or a slightly smaller 60% majority?

What should be the denominator? All those present and voting? All those serving on the task force, whether present or not? What about ex-officio members? How many voting members are there on the task force?

These were among the questions that remained without definitive agreement.

A proposed rule regarding the frequency with which task force members might be allowed to speak also generated much discussion. When should someone be allowed to speak again – after 3 people have spoken, or after 4 have spoken?  Toward the end of the meeting, the task force finally did adopt what they called a “3 after me” rule with 2 dissenting votes.

Early in the meeting, William Finger, the BET representative to the task force, cautioned members not to get “bogged down in procedural things.” He asked that the committee move on, saying that there were “more important things to talk about than how frequently people speak”.

His plea seemed to fall on deaf ears.

A half hour into the meeting, Nancy Brown, the task force chair, noting that too much time was being given to a discussion of how to come to agreement, repeated the plea that  task force members move on with the agenda.

First Selectman Peter Tesei arrived around this time to address members of the task force. Indicating that he was puzzled by the task force’s inability to move beyond these procedural questions, he asked if this may not just be a way of avoiding the substantive issues. He too, asked that the task force move on and said he did not understand why getting a general consensus should be “such a big issue.” He said this was an ad hoc committee with no legal authority. The task force is advisory. Its recommendations, which could include a range of opinion, may or may not be accepted and acted on.

Tesei said all that is expected of task force members is to do relevant fact finding and come up with recommendations that follow-up on each of the housing action items in the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) that was approved last June by the RTM. If there is no general agreement that these are items worthy of consideration and that this is the way to proceed, then the task force “might as well pack up and go home.”

Brown concurred with Tesei, saying that the task at hand was to take up the POCD action items on housing.

Other members of the task force wanted to continue a discussion of procedures and move ahead with a vote that had just been taken off the table. The motion that was withdrawn called for a vote on what would constitute agreement. Some of these members felt that the task force had already done a considerable amount of substantive work and that the group now needed to agree on procedural matters.

Brown countered by saying “we have done very little,” and that in spite of the work that had been done, especially with regard to housing supply, there was still a “heck of a lot more that we have to do.”

This was the 7th meeting of the Housing Task Force since it first met on February 22 to receive marching orders from the First Selectman. At that time, Tesei and Brown asked task force members to familiarize themselves with the housing action items in the POCD as this document provides the basis for what the task force is to report on. Task force members were expected to have an initial report on the status of the POCD action items ready by the end of May, in time for the First Selectman, as chair of the Plan Implementation Committee, to give his first report to the RTM at its June meeting. This report will incorporate the information received from all four task forces.

Here it is the end of May, and the June meeting of the RTM is at hand. The First Selectman has received initial reports from all the POCD task forces, and will soon give his first report on the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations of the POCD.

Expected to provide a summary of the status of each of the housing action items in the POCD, the Housing Task Force at the end of May is in a position to report only that it has met seven times and that these action items are under discussion, and include in the report some kind of narrative of discussions held on various topics. Such narrative is bound to reflect little agreement.

At their initial meeting in February, the members of the task force seemed to agree with the First Selectman that one POCD action item that could be implemented right away was to begin working with our state legislators to change the median income in 8-30g of the state statutes, the affordable housing appeals procedure, from the state median to the area median. The state median income is too low to provide an incentive for developers to use the provisions of this statute for affordable housing in Greenwich. The Stamford-Norwalk Statistical Area median income, which is higher,would be more feasible.

But it is not clear that such agreement still exists. Any narrative of task force discussions on the subject will reveal that there are those members who would prefer the statute remain unworkable in Greenwich.

The inability to come to consensus on the meaning of consensus may be just a metaphor for a task force made up of members with very divergent agendas.

The Planning and Zoning Commission at its May 18 meeting took no action on an application for final site plan and special permit approval to replace the Bella Nona Restaurant at 371 East Putnam Avenue in Cos Cob with a 2,379 sq. ft. Chase Bank that includes drive-thru facilities. The hearing on this application was held open.

Since no action was taken, we cannot yet gauge the effect of a newly adopted zoning regulation.This regulation makes banks and bank drive-ins subject to a special permit process as well as site plan approval. The Commission adopted this regulation in response to issues raised, and comments received, regarding the proliferation of banks in town.The regulation was designed to address resident concerns about such things as adverse traffic impact on neighborhoods, the effect on local businesses and on the foot traffic needed to support these businesses as well as the effect on the retail street scape.

In her staff comments at the February 23 public hearing on this proposed zoning amendment, Town Planner Diane Fox recommended that the Commission approve the new regulation, saying that “requiring a special permit would allow off site issues (such as traffic) to be analyzed by the Commission as well as ensuring that the local business zones continue to provide a variety of goods and services to serve the local neighborhood residents and do not end up as bank zones only.”

Peter Berg, Chairman of the RTM Land Use Committee, is among those who have expressed concern about the ever growing number of banks in town, particularly in Cos Cob where there are 9 of them, either existing or on the drawing board. Berg’s analysis shows that, while Cos Cob has the lowest household income of the 5 Greenwich zip codes, it has the most banks per thousand households. From this, he concludes that the banks are not specifically targeting Cos Cob residents since this is not the part of town where the money is. Rather, he sees the proliferation of banks in Cos Cob as an indication of the extent to which Cos Cob’s village center is being eroded.

Berg contends that the growing number of banks in Cos Cob reflect the fact that Cos Cob is losing its village character and is instead becoming the new central business district for the whole town, while downtown Greenwich, historically our central business district, has instead become a regional center that no longer serves primarily Greenwich residents. Letting downtown Greenwich become a regional center has led to what Berg calls ” retail sprawl.”

Approval of a Chase Bank at the Bella Nona location, in Berg’s estimation, would undermine certain goals in the town’s new Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). These are goals that, in the words of the POCD, call for the protection and enhancement of “well-defined neighborhoods and village centers” as well as the encouragement of “retail, residential, dining, cultural institutions, light business centers and other businesses that provide a variety of quality of goods and services for our residents.”

In Berg’s estimation, putting yet another bank in Cos Cob will hasten the erosion of the neighborhood and village center and reduce the variety of goods and services within the neighborhood. As a result, there will be increased traffic as Cos Cob residents drive elsewhere to meet their shopping needs, while residents from other parts of town drive to Cos Cob for their banking needs. Berg spoke on May 18 against approval of a new Chase bank in Cos Cob, as did land planning expert, Eric Brower.

While the new special permit zoning process for banks gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to exercise judgment regarding the non-site issues that might impact the neighborhood, such as those issues raised by Berg, it is questionable that this process will serve as a deterrent to banks.

Chris Canavan, owner of Greenwich Automotive Services at 111 West Putnam Avenue, the service station at the corner of Dearfield Drive opposite the Greenwich Library , is not very optimistic about the deterrent effect of the new special permit process.”There are no teeth in the regulations,” he says. While agreeing that the special permit allows for more scrutiny, he says that ” in the end they will get the permit, and it will make the business more valuable.” According to Canavan, the banks are not asking for exceptions. They are applying for what is allowed under existing regulations. Only a significant change in the regulations, he says, will curb the trend.

The property on which Canavan operates his business was sold last week to a developer. Canavan does not know who the developer is but says that the anchor tenant of the new development is expected to be Chase Bank. The contract has been signed, and Canavan must soon vacate the property as it is slated to be bulldozed and remediated.

Canavan has operated his business on this site for 27 years and says that the property has been used continuously as a gas station and service center for more than 60 years, since 1949. He was unsuccessful in his bid to acquire the property from TD Bank, its most recent owner. In a memo to his customers, Canavan says that “no retailer can outbid a bank trying to buy/lease the property with a desire to occupy Greenwich space at any cost.”

Although Connecticut towns may not limit the number of banks within their borders, or institute distance requirements between banks, Canavan says that there are examples of zoning regulations with more teeth. Bronxville, NY, for instance, has passed a regulation that prevents banks, insurance and real estate brokers and travel agents from occupying first floor retail space in the General Business Zone. Another possibility would be to allow only ATM’s at the street level.

At Canavan’s urging, many Greenwich residents – his estimate is at least 500 – have signed, or sent, a petition letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission asking that the zoning regulations be strengthened  ”to stop the destruction of our town’s retail areas by banks in particular.”

There is no indication that the Planning and Zoning Commission intends to adopt any other regulations concerning banks.

In addition to the Chase banks planned for the Bella Nona location in Cos Cob and his gas station site opposite the Library, Canavan notes other Greenwich locations targeted by banks. Approval has been given to People’s United for a drive-thru at the former Ku restaurant site in Cos Cob. Banks have their eye on the two gas stations at the corner of Indian Field Road and East Putnam Avenue. The Rusty Oxer truck service business at Valley Drive is being sold to a bank. And the new building on West Putnam Avenue in front of Polpo Restaurant is seeking to have a bank occupy some of its space.

Canavan, who is taking over the Shell station across from Whole Foods, predicts long lines of cars at that service center and a disruption of traffic on the Post Road when his current business closes and as more gas stations are taken over by banks. “At the rate we are going, there won’t be a gas station left in town,” he says. He will be moving the emissions testing operation currently located at the Shell station to 269 Delavan Avenue in Byram.

This proliferation of banks in Greenwich, often with the same bank having multiple branches within minutes distance of each other – there are already 4 Chase bank branches within walking distance of Canavan’s gas station where now a 5th branch is planned – is a phenomenon that seems to be going counter to the national trend.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (March 3, 2010) cites data showing that U.S. banks and savings institutions are opening fewer retail branches and closing more of them. This makes sense in an economic environment reeling from the recession. According to the Wall Street Journal article, banks such as J.P.Morgan Chase and PNC Financial Services Group that have acquired other banks “are closing hundreds of branches as they absorb their purchases and get rid of overlapping branches.”

Another factor influencing the closing of bank branches – the wave of the future – is the growth of online and mobile-phone banking. According to the Wall Street Journal article, Bank of America plans to reduce the size of its branch network by 10% because of this shift to online banking.

“We have to embrace change,” Canavan says, “But we also have to plan for change.”

But this may be easier said than done, particularly when the market is the driving force. Right now, the highest and best use for certain properties in Greenwich may be for the owners to sell to a bank. But this proliferation of banks in Greenwich may be just a passing phenomenon.Tomorrow these bank buildings may very well be white elephants.

How might local zoning regulations best plan for such very specific and market-driven change?

It has been almost a month since my blog postings from the Holy Land. The passage of so much time has diminished my ability to tap into the intense energy of that extraordinary and exceedingly complex place, but I will try. Now, during this week of Passover, I find myself reflecting back upon our 10-day interfaith endeavor in Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel. As often happens, not surprisingly since Jesus was crucified at Passover, this week of the Jewish Passover coincides with the Christian Holy Week that culminates today in Easter.

My husband and I were part of an interfaith group of 27 people who traveled to Israel this past February. Our group, led by Rabbi Mitchell, “Mitch,” Hurvitz of Temple Sholom and the Reverend Jim Lemler of Christ Church, was almost evenly divided between Christians and Jews and included 10 children and teenagers. We prayed together as we visited both Jewish and Christian sites.

Rabbi Mitch Hurvitz and the Reverend Jim Lemler at Talpiot with Jerusalem in Background

We shared many beautiful moments and were fortunate to have an outstanding guide, David Keren of the Fuchsberg Jerusalem Center for Conservative Judaism.

All my blogging from Israel was descriptive in nature, with little personal reflection or analysis. I just described what we did each day, getting more and more behind as the days went by. There was so much I left out.  I take the time now, during Passover, on this Easter Day, to record some retrospective thoughts and more personal reflections as I include places we visited that I did not have time to write about in earlier blog postings.

As I wrote in my first blog posting from Israel, we arrived in Jerusalem on a Friday afternoon and went directly to the lookout point in the Talpiot neighborhood of the city, a spot with a panoramic view of the Kidron Valley and Jerusalem’s Old City. It was an hour before sunset. Shabbat was at hand. We gathered in a circle and prayed together as we would many more times over the next 10 days.

We spent Shabbat in Jerusalem where, in the afternoon, we walked the stations of the cross in reverse order, beginning at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre which is generally accepted as marking the place of Jesus’s crucifixion. Here, while the Reverend Lemler led us in prayer that was focused on sharing and learning, the  bells of the Holy Sepulchre began a loud, incessant ringing, heralding the procession of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem that takes place every Saturday afternoon. With the pealing of the church bells, Rabbi Mitch remarked upon Jerusalem’s “cacophony of sounds” where church bells ring while the chants of the muezzin from the minarets blend with the Hebrew sounds of Jewish prayer. We recalled the start of Shabbat on Friday night at the Western Wall where throngs of Jewish worshippers welcomed the Sabbath Queen in joyous song and dance at the Kotel.

The need for reconciliation and healing was a theme that defined much of our prayer during our time together in the Holy Land, as if our coming together in this interfaith endeavor could play some small part in the larger task of tikkun olam, the repair of the world.

There is so much to repair and so many wounds to heal.

View of Tel Aviv from Old City of Jaffa

Our interfaith experience that began with the welcoming of Shabbat in Jerusalem ended a week later in Tel Aviv with Havdalah, the ritual that separates Shabbat’s sacred space in time from the rest of the week. Shabbat in Tel Aviv is very different from Shabbat in Jerusalem. The two cities are worlds apart. Tel Aviv, a modern European-style city founded 101 years ago by secular Zionists, is culturally far removed from the ancient city of Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, where Jewish, Christian and Moslem passions converge, the religious tension is palpable. By contrast, Tel Aviv is a completely secular city.

My husband and I spent part of Shabbat afternoon on the promenade that runs along the Mediterranean to the Old City of Jaffa. It was a beautiful day, warm and sunny, the temperature well into the ’80’s.

People were out strolling, running, rollerblading, walking dogs, pushing baby carriages, biking, talking on cell phones in many languages – Hebrew, Arabic, English, Russian, French, Spanish. All manner of dress could be seen – Palestinian women with scarves covering their hair, some older women in long black dresses, Israelis and tourists in shorts, or blue jeans, an occasional skirt. A few men and boys wore yarmulkes, most were without. Noticeably absent were so-called “Black Hats,” also referred to as “ultra-orthodox” religious Jews. This is in sharp contrast to Jerusalem, with its large religiously observant population.

The normalcy of the Tel Aviv promenade on a sunny Shabbat afternoon belies the many divisions and tensions that beset this land. Not far from where my husband and I were sitting were the remains of the Dolphinarium beachfront discotheque where 21 teenagers were killed and 132 injured in a Hamas suicide bombing 9 years earlier, on June 1, 2001, a Friday night. It was in the face of increased suicide attacks such as these during the Second Intifada that Israeli plans to fence off the West Bank took shape. Construction of the ’security fence’ began in 2002, with the first phase completed in 2003. Without a doubt, this ’security fence’ has made life much safer within Israel in recent years, while also making the West Bank and the more than 2 million Palestinians who live there more remote. The West Bank, its Palestinian population, as well as its more than 250,000 Jewish settlers, are far removed from the everyday life of the average secular Israeli.

But is this safety that the ’security fence’ provides a true security? How can this unilateral separation lead to a long term solution? Indeed, the prospect of a true and lasting peace remains elusive.

In 2004, I accompanied my journalist husband on an assignment to Israel. I took notes for him during interviews for a story about the fence. I remember a professor at Haifa University, a demographer, talking about the importance of this fence, or “wall” as he referred to it. It should be “a wall so high that even eagles would not dream to fly over,” is the quote I have in my notes. This may reflect the view of many secular Israelis that Israel should detach from the West Bank and wall out the Palestinians for self preservation, not only from a security point of view, but also from a demographic one. This is Israel’s dilemma: how does it remain both a Jewish state and a democracy. This is the most compelling argument for a two-state solution.

At the same time, reflecting yet another of the many divisions in Israeli society, there are those, particularly religious Jews and Jewish settlers, who oppose the fence and any two-state solution. There are those who believe that Israel must never give up the West Bank because it is an essential part of God’s promise to the Jewish people, Judaea and Samaria, the land promised to Abraham and his descendants. There are many holy Jewish sites on the West Bank such as the tombs of the Matriarchs and Patriarchs in Hebron, Joseph’s tomb in Nablus and Rachel’s tomb in Bethlehem.

Although I have seen many parts of the security fence in different places in Israel during other visits, I had not yet seen the barrier in Bethlehem. This was our interfaith group’s only encounter with the fence, in this case truly a wall. It is one that approaches the professor’s description of a wall “so high that even eagles would not dream to fly over.”

Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem

“Jerusalem – Bethlehem, Love and Peace” is what it says on a mural painted on the Israeli side of the prison-like security wall that separates the West Bank from Israel at Bethlehem. The words are attributed to the Israeli Ministry of Tourism. The graffiti on the Palestinian side have a different message, with Israel depicted as the Bird of Terror: “To Exist, To Resist,” “Viva Palestina Libre,” “Fresh Jewce Says this Wall Sucks.”

Our visit to Bethlehem, birthplace of King David and of Jesus, on the Sunday after our Shabbat in Jerusalem was profoundly disturbing to me. I was remembering Bethlehem from an interfaith trip 20 years earlier when there was no wall. Although that was during the First Intifada, by comparison to what would later transpire, things were fairly peaceful at that time. While there were demonstrations, rock throwing and strikes during the First Intifada, none of which I saw during the interfaith trip 20 years ago, there had as yet been no suicide bombings. The first such bombing was still 4 years away.

In Bethlehem, we visited the Church of the Nativity as I had 20 years earlier when the Christians in that interfaith group sang “O Little Town of Bethlehem” in the church, which has Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenian sections. It is built on the site of what was supposedly the manger where Jesus was born. This is one of the many Christian sites identified by the Emperor Constantine’s mother, Helena, during her visit to the Holy Land in the 4th century. Our guide was a Christian Palestinian, increasingly a minority group among Palestinians in Bethlehem and the West Bank as Christians continue to leave in the face of Moslem dominance.

On the trip to Bethlehem 20 years ago, we also visited Rachel’s Tomb, then a peaceful place in Bethlehem, a small building by the roadside. Some of us prayed there.

We did not go to Rachel’s Tomb on this visit. Rachel’s Tomb is no longer accessible from Bethlehem. Our Palestinian guide pointed out that it is on the other side of the separation wall that surrounds Bethlehem. In response to the escalating terrorism of the Second Intifada, it has been carved away from Bethlehem and turned into a fortress, with access restricted to tourists entering directly from Israel.

The visit to Bethlehem brought home to me how much worse the situation has become with the passing of 20 years, and how far we appear to be from any true and lasting peace. I came away from Bethlehem with a sense of the hopeless.

But now, during Passover, this festival of our Jewish freedom, when we remember our redemption from slavery in Egypt and the promise of a land of our own, I reflect on the meaning of Passover in today’s world as I recall our interfaith endeavor during this most recent trip to the promised land. Passover speaks to us of hope as Easter, with the resurrection’s promise of redemption, does for Christians.

We must never lose sight of this hope. The new Yad Va Shem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, a living memory to those days of deepest despair for Jews, is built like a tent with the richness of Jewish life before the Holocaust on display at one end and the hope for the future at the other. From the dark depths of displays depicting the horrors of the Holocaust, the visitor to the museum comes to the light that is an opening for the future with a beautiful view of the Land of Israel from the balcony at the end

View of the Land of Israel from Yad Va Shem, from the Balcony at the End of the Holocaust Museum

of the exhibit, the Land that was born anew from the ashes of the Holocaust.

This Passover, on this Easter Day for Christians, I recall our interfaith endeavor last month with its hope for tikkun olam, the healing of the world. I recall Jerusalem’s “cacophony of sound” that Rabbi Mitch took note of in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I feel the intensity of the “City of Peace.”  Sacred to Jews, Christians and Moslems, Jerusalem is a tinderbox ever ready to ignite into holy fire, yet ever holding out that promise of peace.

I recall the hopeful words with which the Passover Seder ends: “Next Year in Jerusalem.”

More competitive elections for BET members is not a new topic. Steve Walko is right about this, just as he is right when he observes in today’s Greenwich Time that “the Republican caucus of the BET has consistently requested that the BET elections be competitive,” while the Democratic caucus has opposed the method of election proposed by the Republicans.

The last time this proposal came before the BET was 6 years ago, on March 15, 2004. It was defeated, with all 6 Democrats opposed. I was the Democratic caucus leader at the time. I reproduce here the op-ed piece that the members of our caucus wrote at that time. The six Democrats who signed onto this statement were Peter Berg, Jara Burnett, Kathryn Guimard, Edward Krumeich, Larry Simon and myself.

On March 15th as members of the Board of Estimate and Taxation we will vote on whether or not to change the way in which we are elected.

Since 1939 the Greenwich Town Charter has provided that no political party may nominate more than one half of the members of the BET. In practice this has led to a bipartisan twelve member finance board made up of six Republicans and six Democrats. This bipartisan board was established at a time when the town was steeped in debt and financially corrupt. The board was created to steer the town on a sound financial course and to keep the town’s fiscal policy above politics. For over sixty years the Greenwich Board of Estimate and Taxation has succeeded in this mission.

The BET’s fiscally responsible oversight of town finances has never been called into question. Rather there has been criticism in recent years that this powerful board is not really elected because its members usually run unopposed, leaving the choice of candidates to the party town committees.

The options before us when we vote in March are 1) maintain the status quo, 2) give voter choice by changing to a partisan board of majority and minority representation or 3) give voter choice by keeping a bipartisan board using a model in which each party may put up more candidates than can actually be seated but only one half of those elected may be members of the same political party.

We, the Democratic members of the BET, believe that the town has been well served by this balanced finance board and feel it would be very imprudent to make radical changes to an institution that has presented the town with responsible budgets for well over half a century, kept the mill rate increases low and removed politics from the budgetary process.

At the same time we acknowledge the concern voiced by some members of the community that, if we are to be an elected board – and indeed many Connecticut municipalities do not have elected finance boards but rather officially appointed ones – then there should be greater voter choice in the general election.

We oppose the creation of a partisan board because the checks and balances that currently exist would be eliminated and party cooperation on budgetary matters undermined. While theoretically giving voter choice, a partisan board could acutally narrow representation by opening the way to one party rule. Important fiscal decisions would no longer be made in public in a bipartisan, collegial manner, but rather in the majority party caucuses that are closed to the public. Past voting patterns indicate the most likely result would be a board of eight Republicans and four Democrats with the only meaningful candidate choices made by the Republican Town Committee. Ironically, the choice of candidates would be concentrated in the hands of fewer people. In short, a partisan board would provide only a semblance of voter choice at the expense of public discourse and a focus on fiscal matters. It would make fundamental changes to an institution that has worked well since the 1930’s, one which everyone seems to agree does not need fixing.

A bipartisan board elected in a way similar to the Board of Education, on the other hand, would give voter choice without making any fundamental changes to the current structure and functioning of the board. The political parties would have the ability to nominate more candidates than can be seated, but no more than half of the board could be elected from the same party. This model is rally a primary in the general election.

In order to give voters more choice without making any fundamental changes to the current structure and functioning of the board the Democrats are considering a proposal to allow ezch party to nominate not less than six and not more than eight candidates for a two year term to the BET.

The shortcomings of this model are exemplified by past Board of Education elections. In most elections for the Board of Education the political parties have chosen not to offer the voters more candidates than can be seated, and when they have, usually only one of the political parties has chosen to do so. When only one party offers voter choice the effect is to allow the other party to use the extra votes of its members to manipulate the choice of candidates from the party providing choice. To some extent these shortcomings can be addresssed by devising ways to exert pressure on both parties to offer more candidates than can actually be elected.

The partisan model for BET elections will not be adopted on March 15 because the architects of the Charter provisions governing the BET, in their wisdom, were careful to guard against any one party prevailing. Any Charter change initiative requires seven affirmative votes (the chairman’s tie-breaking vote does not come into play). We, the Democrats, will not vote for this option.

The vote then will be on whether or not to forward a bipartisan model for voter choice to the RTM for debate. At this point in time we cannot predict what that vote will be. But in the very act of voting on this item at our March meeting the BET is doing its best to respond seriously and sincerely to calls for voter choice.

It is a serious thing to tamper with an institution that has kept the town on a sound fiscal course and provided responsible financial oversight for over sixty years. When all is said and done we may conclude that the status quo is the best choice. In the words of well-known Republican local columnist Bernie Yudain, in his February 8th editorial: “I see no claims of flaws or failure in the performance of the cavalcade of BET’s over the past 70 years or so. I reluctantly employ the obvious cliche: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

I have reproduced this 2004 op-ed piece just as it then appeared. Actually, the BET just celebrated its 100th birthday.

Every so often we revisit the idea of changing the method of election to the BET. The current chairman is reported as saying he plans to bring the proposal before the BET. I trust the Democrats will again oppose the creation of a partisan board, in spite of the fact that comments by Democrat Drew Marzullo sparked the current debate. Actually, Drew has indicated to me that he is in fact opposed to creating a partisan BET.

As chair of the town’s Affirmative Action Advisory Committee, I would like to take the opportunity to use my blog to help publicize a writing contest that should be of interest to high school students in Greenwich. The AAAC is co-sponsoring this contest with the Greenwich Time in the interest of increasing awareness of diversity issues in the community.

The contest is open to any student who is enrolled in a Greenwich school, public or private, and is in the 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th grade. The writing topic is: What Does Diversity Mean To You?

We have extended the submission deadline to April 16.

Entries may be in the form of short fiction or non-fiction and may not exceed 1,000 words. The judges will assess the submissions for style, originality, clarity and adherence to the theme of diversity.

All entries must be received by 5 p.m. on Friday, April 16. Students should submit their work by email to the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee at the following email address: diversitycontest@greenwichct.org

The body of the email should include the student’s name, contact information (telephone, email and home address), name of the school, grade level, submission category (fiction or non-fiction) and total word count. The work of fiction or non-fiction should be attached in “.doc” or “.txt” format. There should be no name, or any personal identifier, in the attached submission.

All finalists will have their entries published in the Greenwich Time. In addition, gift card prizes will be awarded to the finalists at the Affirmative Action Advisory Committee’s Annual Meeting in May. First place finalists in each category will receive a gift card worth $300. Second place finalists will receive a $200 gift card and third place finalists a $100 gift card.

The following individuals and organizations have provided monetary, or other, support to help make this contest possible: Bethel AME Church, Greenwich Fellowship of Clergy, Greenwich Kiwanis Club, Greenwich YWCA, Law Office of Joel Kaye, Temple Sholom, Hernan and Constance Narea and United Way of Greenwich.

Flyers with contest information are available upon request and have been posted in the Greenwich libraries and in other locations in town.

All inquiries should be sent to: diversitycontest@greenwichct.org