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.”