Our Town

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

On Tuesday (March 9), as expected, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the town’s plan to turn the former Cos Cob Power Plant site into a park that includes an athletic field. This is a green light for the town to proceed to develop the entire property of approximately 9.7 acres exclusively for recreational and open space use.

The main issue of contention during the public comment period on Tuesday concerned lighting at the park. Riverside residents on the other side of the Mianus River, across from the proposed park, wanted a “dawn to dusk” park without lighting. In the end, the Commission approved a plan that allows lighting only in the parking lot for safety reasons, but not inside the park.

While lighting was the big issue, it is interesting to note that the really big issue of affordable housing was a non-issue. Earlier in the approval process the Planning and Zoning Commission did raise the question of the state’s affordable housing requirement for the site. The town submitted written answers to this and other questions posed by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Here is the written answer to the question on affordable housing: ” This has been discussed with the Town’s legal department and director of community development. Further correspondence with the State Housing Authority to be completed by the Office of the First Selectman.”

Apparently this was a satisfactory answer.

The fact that the state requires the town to use 25% of the property for low or moderate income housing, or senior housing, has been conveniently overlooked. This state affordable housing mandate is still in force, but the town is acting as if this is not the case. This attitude is unwittingly reflected in today’s (Thursday March 11) Greenwich Time report by Frank MacEachern on Commission approval of the park plan.

MacEachern writes that, while the state originally required the town to build affordable housing on the site, “…in 1997 the two sides agreed the site wasn’t appropriate for affordable housing because of the contamination from toxins and its location abutting the Metro-North Railroad.”

In other words, according to this version of things, the state affordable housing mandate simply went away in 1997. In gaining approval for this park plan, without any accompanying affordable housing plan, the town is in fact acting as if the requirement for affordable housing has indeed gone away.

But this is a far cry from the truth.

The state conveyed the Cos Cob Power Plant property to the town for $1 nearly 23 years ago, on July 7, 1987. The original legislation required 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” purposes. It seems fair to say that the state legislature would never have agreed to turn the property over to the town without the affordable housing requirement.

In 1986, in anticipation of the town’s acquisition of the property, First Selectman John Margenot appointed a committee to recommend a plan for the Cos Cob Power Plant site as well as for the Mianus Pond which the state also turned over to the town in 1987. Having served on this committee, it is my recollection that the housing plan for 25% of the site eventually called for a low density development of 24 units.

However, nothing moved forward over the next 10 years. The old, ever-deteriorating power plant continued to dominate the site and was not demolished until 1999-2000. Any plan that there may have been for affordable housing fell by the wayside. It became increasingly apparent that, if and when the town ever developed the property, it would be exclusively for recreation and open space. The contaminated fly ash was given as the reason why there should be  no housing there, although, if there were no fly ash, I am sure another reason would have been found.

On July 8, 1997, 10 years after the town’s acquisition of the property, the state legislature amended the original legislation at the town’s request. The 1997 CGS Special Act 97-20, which amends section 5 of the 1987 CGS Special Act 87-101, retains the requirement that the town use 25% of the property for low, moderate, 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 the housing obligation is up to the state. According to the legislation, only the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development has the power to waive the housing restriction, and only if the Commissioner 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.

Clearly, if the town goes ahead with the park plan approved this week by the Planning and Zoning Commission without having the state approve an affordable housing plan that meets the original housing obligation, then the town is not in compliance with the state mandate.

Last year the Town Attorney espoused the highly questionable position that the town has already met its housing obligation for the property. In making his argument, he counts special needs and senior congregate living units that were developed by private, non-profit organizations without town involvement and that, at the time of development, were never intended to meet the town’s obligation to provide affordable housing at the former Cos Cob Power Plant site. The after-the-fact argument that the town was involved in developing this housing because some of the funding came from federal Community Development Block Grant money is a flimsy one.

It will be a sad day for the future development of any affordable housing in Greenwich if the state buys the town’s argument that the affordable housing requirement for the former Cos Cob Power Plant site has already been met. In the meantime, the town cannot go ahead with its plan for a park and an athletic field on this property without violating the provisions of the legislation under which the property was acquired.

The Planning and Zoning Commission may have approved the park plan. But it is hard to see how the town can go ahead with a plan to use the entire property for recreation and open space without also obtaining state approval.

All indications are that on Tuesday evening (March 9) the Planning and Zoning Commission will grant final approval for a coastal site plan on “a 9.678 acre property located at 22 Sound Shore Drive in the R-6 zone,” so described in the tentative agenda for the Commission’s Tuesday meeting. This 9.678 acre property is otherwise known as the former Cos Cob Power Plant site. The plan for the property, according to the Commission’s agenda, includes a turf field, playscape, open air pavilions, walking trail and amphitheater.

Planning and Zoning approval of this coastal site plan could be construed as a green light to finally move forward after the passing of so much time. It has been almost 23 years since the state conveyed the property to the town for $1 on July 7, 1987.

It should, therefore, be very good news that we are finally taking this step. The possibility of having a new playing field in place by the summer of 2011 is most welcome. After all, the town desperately needs more fields.

But wait a minute. Not so fast. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

The coastal site plan application makes no provision for the affordable housing that was supposed to be built on this site. But this application is not the complete plan. Technically, it is an application “for placement of earthen cap” and “stabilization of existing shoreline for remediation.” Such a plan for “capping” the site is required by the state for remediation approval. This is what the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to act upon. The application has been framed in such a way that the housing issue is not before the Commission.

There is an irony here. The town has come up with a “capping” and remediation plan for state approval that includes recreational and open space uses of the property with no mention of affordable housing on the site and no provision to build housing units elsewhere. And yet, the state legislature would never have turned this property over to the town in the first place were it not for the requirement that a portion of it be used for low and moderate income, and/or senior, housing. Affordable housing was the driving force behind the state’s conveyance of the property to the town in 1987. This seems to have been conveniently forgotten.

The original state stipulation in 1987 was that the town use 25% of the site for low and moderate income housing, or for senior housing. The remainder of the property was to be used for public open space purposes. Unfortunately, the legislation gave no time frame for developing the land for these purposes. After 10 years, on July 8, 1997, at the town’s request, the state legislature amended the original legislation to allow the town to provide ” on or after October 1, 1997, housing units on other property in Town which are equivalent to this requirement.” Another 13 years have passed since that amendment. And still there is no plan for equivalent housing on other property in town.

Last year the Town Attorney took the strange position that the town has already met the housing requirement for the former Cos Cob Power Plant site. This is a highly questionable premise. In the first place, he considers the 40 bedrooms at the Parsonage Cottage senior residence as counting toward meeting the obligation in spite of the fact that Parsonage Cottage had already opened its doors prior to the October 1, 1997 date. He also counts special needs units developed by Pathways since October 1, 1997 as well as the units at the Hill House senior congregate living facility, also developed after the October 1997 date. But these units were developed by private, non-profit organizations without town involvement.

The legislation clearly states that the town should provide equivalent units to meet the requirement. At no time did the town ever claim that Pathways and Hill House were meeting the town’s obligation to provide affordable housing on the former Cos Cob Power Plant site while these private, non-profit organizations were planning and building their housing. Such an idea never entered anyone’s head. To claim so now, after the fact, is absurd, based only on the flimsy argument that these non-profits used federal Community Development Block Grant money as part of their funding packages.

In any case, the Town Attorney’s opinion is of little consequence. According to the 1997 amended legislation, the obligation to use 25% of the site for affordable housing can only be waived by the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development and only if “he determines that the Town has provided” the equivalent housing units elsewhere in town. In other words, only the state can rule on whether or not the town has met the requirement. And it is likely to be quite clear to the state that the town has not met this requirement.

Perhaps Planning and Zoning approval of the coastal site plan on Tuesday will not be a green light to move forward after all. If we want our much needed playing field, maybe it behooves us, after 23 years, to finally come up with a plan for affordable housing. Or maybe we should do this in any case, simply because it is the right thing to do.

Most people in town probably do not know that Greenwich is partnered with Afula, a city in northern Israel’s Jezreel Valley. It is a partnership worth knowing about.

The Greenwich Jewish community is one of 13 Jewish communities in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, a group known as the Southern New England Consortium, that fifteen years ago entered into a special relationship with Afula and the Gilboa Region in Israel. This relationship grew out of  ”Partnership 2000″, a program created by the Jewish Agency for Israel in cooperation with the Jewish Federations of North America,which includes the UJA Federation of Greenwich.

“Partnership 2000″ is intended to connect Jewish communities throughout the world with specific cities and regions in Israel, creating sister-city relationships. The program is designed to enable Diaspora communities to have relationships with Israel that are tangible and result in collaboration and friendships at individual, organizational and community levels. These are partnerships among equals, not relationships between benefactors and beneficiaries. Each partnership is led by an independent steering committee with co-chairs from both Israel and the community abroad.

Two weeks ago, during a 10-day interfaith trip to Israel, members of Temple Sholom and Christ Church visited the Emunah

A Building at Emunah Children's Center, Afula

Children’s Center in Afula, Greenwich’s sister-city. And this past weekend, a group of 18 young people from the Emunah Center visited Greenwich accompanied by the Center’s Executive Director, Shlomo Kessel. The dancing and singing group, known as the Emunotes, gave performances after the Purim Megillah readings at Temple Sholom on Saturday night and Sunday morning. Kessel did much of the Megillah

Shlomo Kessel Reading the Megillah at Temple Sholom

reading on Sunday morning. That morning, the Emunotes also gave a performance in the Parish Hall at Christ Church during the Church’s coffee and education hour.

This was the group’s third visit to Greenwich.

The Emunah Children’s Center was opened in 1949 to provide a home for children orphaned during World War II. No longer a home for orphans, it is a residential community for children and teens at risk. It serves between 180 and 190 young people, ages 4 through 18, sometimes as old as 19, most of whom can’t live at home for one reason or another. Only 3 or 4 of the children are orphans. The rest have at least one living parent. Some do live at home.

Emunotes Dancing in Aisles at Temple Sholom During Purim

Kessel, the Executive Director, welcomed our interfaith group and gave us a tour of the Center when we visited  exactly 2 weeks ago today, on Thursday, February 18. He described Emunah as providing a “therapeutic quilt” for the children and teens. “Many tragic circumstances bring the children here,” he said. The children come to this therapeutic environment from a variety of backgrounds. Some are Israeli born, others came to Israel as immigrants, mainly from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union. Some are not Jewish. Many of the children come from single parent families. Many  have behavior problems, and many of the parents, particularly those from the former Soviet Union, have substance abuse problems, mostly with alcohol.

The Center works with parents and tries to involve them in its programs.  ”We have a Mom’s and Dad’s Club,” Kessel said.

“How do we know that we have succeeded ?” Kessel asked. The measure of success is “How these children will raise their own children.” Kessel said that the Center strives to help the children and teens deal with the fears that prevent them from forming meaningful relationships with significant others.

Emunotes Performing at Christ Church

The Center, with a staffing ratio of 1 staff member for every 2 children, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, has an annual budget of $2.1 million. Between 60% and 65% of the funding comes from government sources. The rest is raised from private sources, mostly in the United States. Kessel said that much of his time is spent in fund raising.

The UJA Federation of Greenwich has been providing financial support to the Emunah Children’s Center in Afula through designated gifts since 2004 as part of the “Partnership 2000″ program in which Afula is a Greenwich’s sister-city. The Federation also supports the Ha Emek Medical Center that serves Afula and its surrounding area.

The Emunah Children’s Center also receives financial support from Temple Sholom. “This is Kids in Crisis in Israel,” said Rabbi Mitchell “Mitch” Hurvitz of Temple Sholom. He said that there are a number of Temple Sholom families for whom this is an important place for charitable giving, or tzedakah.

Jared Making a Mezuzzah Case in Emunah Center Art Room

Relationships such as the one Greenwich has with the Emunah Children’s Center in Afula constitute what the Jewish Agency for Israel calls “a living bridge” between sister communities. Other “Partnership 2000″ programs that contribute to this link include the Young Emissary Program which brings students who have just graduated from high school to the United States for a year, allowing them to defer military service for this period of time. This is the fourth year that Greenwich has participated in the Young Emissary Program. This year the emissaries are Or Geisinger and Hamutal Zimberg. The Jewish Agency views the Young Emissary Program as a “flagship program” that constitutes a “2-way living bridge.”

Afula, an urban center known as “the Capital of the Jezreel Valley,” has a population of 40,000. A third of its residents are recent immigrants to Israel who come mainly from Ethiopia and the former Soviet Union. It is only 8 miles from the West Bank city of Jenin, and has in the past been the target of terrorist attacks. The larger Gilboa Region has a population of 23,000 and is made up of kibbutzim, moshavim, Jewish villages and Arab villages. Forty percent of the Gilboa Region’s population are Arab Israelis.

When we visited the Emunah Center two weeks ago, the children were making Purim masks and artifacts for the Emunotes to sell during their upcoming visit to the United States. The Emunotes also sell CD’s of their singing performances.

When asked in an interview what he hoped the children would get out of performing tours such as this, Kessel replied that these performances “build self-esteem.” Saying that it was an important element in their “empowerment,” he went on to tell the story of a little girl who was in the audience during a previous Connecticut tour. She had bought a CD and was waiting for the Emunotes after the performance because she wanted them to sign the CD. “I want the stars to sign my CD,” she told Kessel.

Kessel said that it meant so much to the teens to be considered “stars,” because “they have not had the opportunity to experience success” in their lives before this. Their school work improves as a result, and their families are proud. “It is a life changing experience,” he said.