Perfect Storm
THE PERFECT STORM
June 5th article in the Greenwich Time by Susan Haigh: Housing inventory rising, affordable units still needed.
Leading state economist, Don Klepper-Smith, finds that while there is a rising number of housing units now available resulting from the economic, real estate and banking downturns, still the number of affordable and workforce units in the state needed to first attract and subsequently keep a youthful and vibrant workforce is woefully insufficient. The resultant industry exodus could prove disastrous for the state economy which is already struggling from the real estate market collapse.
June 12 article in the Greenwich Post by Ken Borsuk: Town character is at stake, Housing: Study says town is short on affordable units.
Following a 14 month-long study, the United Way of Greenwich’s Housing Task Force concludes that the town of Greenwich has a dire need for affordable and workforce housing units and the town needs them now. 1st Selectman Peter Tesei’s response to the study was characteristically tepid as he told the Post that “the information is beneficial, but putting solutions into action will require time and work”. This, of course, is political double speak for “back burner.” Mr. Tesei, a Republican who ran for 1st Selectman with no other platform than to keep Greenwich Greenwich, is like other conservatives here in Greenwich, wary of change and nostalgic for halcyon days. Thus, 14 months for a study is nothing. Heck, affordable housing can be forestalled for years without much trouble. Meanwhile, time, unbeknownst to Tesei and other Republicans, continues to move forward.
June 18 lead editorial in the Greenwich Time: Heating assistance must be a priority.In a unseasonably penned editorial, the Time warns us that the US Congress “must start thinking about boosting federal assistance for low income households to help with home heating bills this coming winter.” Further, the piece points out that LIHEAP, the low-income home energy assistance program, is already fiscally strained, and with the precipitous increase in fuel costs across the country, we had best steel ourselves against an economically challenging winter. Citing wasteful spending on dubious weapons programs and other “earmarks,” the editorial chides that come winter time we will have wished we spent our dollars more prudently on keeping the needy and elderly warm.
June 30, 2008 lead article, front page Greenwich Time: Byram resists more housing.Byram does not want more affordable housing and those residents opposed to the plan of expanding McKinney Terrace near Western Middle School think the housing authority should look elsewhere. But where? If one were to simply look at where there is the most space available, backcountry makes the most sense, but our 1st Selectman states that backcountry affordable housing is a “non-starter.”
A storm is brewing in Greenwich, Connecticut coming this winter. Like it or not there are going to be repercussions from the Bush/Republican policies of financial disregard for common men and sense. As health costs climb, energy costs climb, and the un-fessed-up-to recession deepens, people are going to lose their homes. Not just theoretical “people,” but real people, people you know, people you talk to, people you see daily and say “hello” to, you know, people.Record foreclosures in real estate are not theoretical. They happen daily, and they happen in Greenwich.
As billions of dollars drain from our economy into the sand dunes of Iraq, Main St. USA sucks financial wind. Successful professionals will still be fine, but the cop who keeps your streets safe, the teacher that hugs your child at the end of the school year, and the nurse who comforts your mother after her bad fall on the front stone path, they have a very thin safety net. Already, two thirds of those who provide services for the town of Greenwich live outside of Greenwich, and as the June 12th article states, those folks are spending $150 dollars a month on gas and other commuting costs. Those remaining in Greenwich are spending well over the recommended 30% of their income on housing.
The quickest way of making sure that Greenwich disappears for good is to do nothing. Like our 1st Selectman’s stance on affordable units, if we simply put our heads in the sand a while longer, the problem will go away. And in one sense, Mr. Tesei is right. The need to build affordable units will no longer be our problem; rather we will have a homelessness problem. Count on it. A significant number of Greenwich residents, those the town does not acknowledge, will no longer be able to house themselves.
The charitable organizations which house them and thus hide that ugliness from our immediate vision will become over run. Renters once ok with their situation will find they can’t heat their homes, can’t afford car payments, can’t make mortgage payments, can’t function any longer, and they will stress Greenwich social services in a manner never before experienced here. The result will be Greenwich will no longer be that idyllic town of yore, but a tough little city with real city problems.There are alternatives however.
We need to construct actual solutions to imminent problems as opposed to avoiding the problems by denying their existence. Our First Selectman, Peter Tesei refuses to deal with the reality of affordable housing. By stating that backcountry affordable housing is a “non-starter” he merely fesses up to pandering to his wealthy Republican constituency. When he says, “People don’t want to see greater density,” the word “people” actually means “the wealthy white people that financed my campaign and voted for me.” The spurious argument that backcountry is too remote “from town services and public transportation” is laughable. The reason there are no services is the populace that lives in backcountry doesn’t want those intrusions into their bucolic existences and they want insurance against “unwanteds” moving into their part of town. Let us be realistic for once and call it as we see it.
I understand there is no p.c. words for “segregationist,” “caste system” or “racism.” Those are words of the times past and foreign lands. Instead, we have cloaked those terms in disguises of municipal finance, public transportation, and infrastructure. However, once the loud objection is finally over, and Tesei and others have finally grown hoarse from screaming about the unfairness and mudslinging of those terms, stop and observe objectively. Where is the public housing in this town? Who lives in those parts of town? What is the racial make-up of those who live in those parts of town? What is the racial make-up of those who live in those “non-starter” parts of town? What is the financial make-up of those who live in “non-starter”-ville? What is the financial make-up of those who live in “perhaps that is the right place for public housing”-ville?
This isn’t rocket science. You already know what to expect from an objective inquiry of this sort. A disproportionate percentage of those in “starter”-ville (as opposed to "non-starter"-ville) are people of color. A disproportionate percentage of those in “starter”-ville have lesser incomes. This is no mystery. This is reality. Now, what we must ask ourselves is: are we pleased with this outcome, and if we are, why are we?
Perhaps a more important question is: what we think of when we read the word “we?” Once we have identified with whom it is we identify ourselves, we can begin to understand why we make the decisions in voting booths and town meetings that we do make. Ask yourself, just this one time, are you happy that people of a different color and class live apart from you? If so, then ask yourself truthfully, why? Are you afraid the poor will eat the rich or the black will eat the white? Are you afraid you will be ridiculed for a foreign sounding accent or a difference of culture? Are you simply more comfortable around your “own kind?” These are real feelings. They are not to be dismissed and then disregarded with disgust, but rather talked about, dealt with, and approached in a forum of openness and honesty. It will only be then that we can assess the damage our racist and elitist attitudes have done to our town, and by larger but logical inference, our country. Only then we can address the problem and perhaps remediate it.
Our first order of remediation should be to develop affordable housing, and lots of it. We need teachers living here, with us, we non-teachers, I mean. We need cops. We need laborers, young people, start-up merchants, civil servants, immigrants. Affordable housing is not simply a clump of units which rent out for reasonable amounts. It is a civic invitation, and it is a declaration of openness and acceptance. It is a removal of the cloak, an unburdening of disguise, and a statement of acknowledgement of truth. We have real issues that can no longer be held up in 14 month-long studies only to be met by the 1st Selectman with a “We need to study the issue further.” As a town we are going to have to decide, do we deal with the impending energy/housing/homeless crisis or do we stick our heads in the sand with Mr. Tesei and simply resolve to keep some change readily available for those with rattling cups on Greenwich Avenue this winter, because that solution will keep everybody in their proper place. We simply need to make sure we don’t lose our place in the line of race, class, and culture. It would a shame, then, wouldn't it to see one of "us" jangling change in a paper cup at the bottom of Greenwich Avenue near the movie theatre. An absolute shame.
June 5th article in the Greenwich Time by Susan Haigh: Housing inventory rising, affordable units still needed.
Leading state economist, Don Klepper-Smith, finds that while there is a rising number of housing units now available resulting from the economic, real estate and banking downturns, still the number of affordable and workforce units in the state needed to first attract and subsequently keep a youthful and vibrant workforce is woefully insufficient. The resultant industry exodus could prove disastrous for the state economy which is already struggling from the real estate market collapse.
June 12 article in the Greenwich Post by Ken Borsuk: Town character is at stake, Housing: Study says town is short on affordable units.
Following a 14 month-long study, the United Way of Greenwich’s Housing Task Force concludes that the town of Greenwich has a dire need for affordable and workforce housing units and the town needs them now. 1st Selectman Peter Tesei’s response to the study was characteristically tepid as he told the Post that “the information is beneficial, but putting solutions into action will require time and work”. This, of course, is political double speak for “back burner.” Mr. Tesei, a Republican who ran for 1st Selectman with no other platform than to keep Greenwich Greenwich, is like other conservatives here in Greenwich, wary of change and nostalgic for halcyon days. Thus, 14 months for a study is nothing. Heck, affordable housing can be forestalled for years without much trouble. Meanwhile, time, unbeknownst to Tesei and other Republicans, continues to move forward.
June 18 lead editorial in the Greenwich Time: Heating assistance must be a priority.In a unseasonably penned editorial, the Time warns us that the US Congress “must start thinking about boosting federal assistance for low income households to help with home heating bills this coming winter.” Further, the piece points out that LIHEAP, the low-income home energy assistance program, is already fiscally strained, and with the precipitous increase in fuel costs across the country, we had best steel ourselves against an economically challenging winter. Citing wasteful spending on dubious weapons programs and other “earmarks,” the editorial chides that come winter time we will have wished we spent our dollars more prudently on keeping the needy and elderly warm.
June 30, 2008 lead article, front page Greenwich Time: Byram resists more housing.Byram does not want more affordable housing and those residents opposed to the plan of expanding McKinney Terrace near Western Middle School think the housing authority should look elsewhere. But where? If one were to simply look at where there is the most space available, backcountry makes the most sense, but our 1st Selectman states that backcountry affordable housing is a “non-starter.”
A storm is brewing in Greenwich, Connecticut coming this winter. Like it or not there are going to be repercussions from the Bush/Republican policies of financial disregard for common men and sense. As health costs climb, energy costs climb, and the un-fessed-up-to recession deepens, people are going to lose their homes. Not just theoretical “people,” but real people, people you know, people you talk to, people you see daily and say “hello” to, you know, people.Record foreclosures in real estate are not theoretical. They happen daily, and they happen in Greenwich.
As billions of dollars drain from our economy into the sand dunes of Iraq, Main St. USA sucks financial wind. Successful professionals will still be fine, but the cop who keeps your streets safe, the teacher that hugs your child at the end of the school year, and the nurse who comforts your mother after her bad fall on the front stone path, they have a very thin safety net. Already, two thirds of those who provide services for the town of Greenwich live outside of Greenwich, and as the June 12th article states, those folks are spending $150 dollars a month on gas and other commuting costs. Those remaining in Greenwich are spending well over the recommended 30% of their income on housing.
The quickest way of making sure that Greenwich disappears for good is to do nothing. Like our 1st Selectman’s stance on affordable units, if we simply put our heads in the sand a while longer, the problem will go away. And in one sense, Mr. Tesei is right. The need to build affordable units will no longer be our problem; rather we will have a homelessness problem. Count on it. A significant number of Greenwich residents, those the town does not acknowledge, will no longer be able to house themselves.
The charitable organizations which house them and thus hide that ugliness from our immediate vision will become over run. Renters once ok with their situation will find they can’t heat their homes, can’t afford car payments, can’t make mortgage payments, can’t function any longer, and they will stress Greenwich social services in a manner never before experienced here. The result will be Greenwich will no longer be that idyllic town of yore, but a tough little city with real city problems.There are alternatives however.
We need to construct actual solutions to imminent problems as opposed to avoiding the problems by denying their existence. Our First Selectman, Peter Tesei refuses to deal with the reality of affordable housing. By stating that backcountry affordable housing is a “non-starter” he merely fesses up to pandering to his wealthy Republican constituency. When he says, “People don’t want to see greater density,” the word “people” actually means “the wealthy white people that financed my campaign and voted for me.” The spurious argument that backcountry is too remote “from town services and public transportation” is laughable. The reason there are no services is the populace that lives in backcountry doesn’t want those intrusions into their bucolic existences and they want insurance against “unwanteds” moving into their part of town. Let us be realistic for once and call it as we see it.
I understand there is no p.c. words for “segregationist,” “caste system” or “racism.” Those are words of the times past and foreign lands. Instead, we have cloaked those terms in disguises of municipal finance, public transportation, and infrastructure. However, once the loud objection is finally over, and Tesei and others have finally grown hoarse from screaming about the unfairness and mudslinging of those terms, stop and observe objectively. Where is the public housing in this town? Who lives in those parts of town? What is the racial make-up of those who live in those parts of town? What is the racial make-up of those who live in those “non-starter” parts of town? What is the financial make-up of those who live in “non-starter”-ville? What is the financial make-up of those who live in “perhaps that is the right place for public housing”-ville?
This isn’t rocket science. You already know what to expect from an objective inquiry of this sort. A disproportionate percentage of those in “starter”-ville (as opposed to "non-starter"-ville) are people of color. A disproportionate percentage of those in “starter”-ville have lesser incomes. This is no mystery. This is reality. Now, what we must ask ourselves is: are we pleased with this outcome, and if we are, why are we?
Perhaps a more important question is: what we think of when we read the word “we?” Once we have identified with whom it is we identify ourselves, we can begin to understand why we make the decisions in voting booths and town meetings that we do make. Ask yourself, just this one time, are you happy that people of a different color and class live apart from you? If so, then ask yourself truthfully, why? Are you afraid the poor will eat the rich or the black will eat the white? Are you afraid you will be ridiculed for a foreign sounding accent or a difference of culture? Are you simply more comfortable around your “own kind?” These are real feelings. They are not to be dismissed and then disregarded with disgust, but rather talked about, dealt with, and approached in a forum of openness and honesty. It will only be then that we can assess the damage our racist and elitist attitudes have done to our town, and by larger but logical inference, our country. Only then we can address the problem and perhaps remediate it.
Our first order of remediation should be to develop affordable housing, and lots of it. We need teachers living here, with us, we non-teachers, I mean. We need cops. We need laborers, young people, start-up merchants, civil servants, immigrants. Affordable housing is not simply a clump of units which rent out for reasonable amounts. It is a civic invitation, and it is a declaration of openness and acceptance. It is a removal of the cloak, an unburdening of disguise, and a statement of acknowledgement of truth. We have real issues that can no longer be held up in 14 month-long studies only to be met by the 1st Selectman with a “We need to study the issue further.” As a town we are going to have to decide, do we deal with the impending energy/housing/homeless crisis or do we stick our heads in the sand with Mr. Tesei and simply resolve to keep some change readily available for those with rattling cups on Greenwich Avenue this winter, because that solution will keep everybody in their proper place. We simply need to make sure we don’t lose our place in the line of race, class, and culture. It would a shame, then, wouldn't it to see one of "us" jangling change in a paper cup at the bottom of Greenwich Avenue near the movie theatre. An absolute shame.
posted by milesjason03 at 10:14 AM
0 comments
