Latest Lumberyard Controversy: Few Facts and a Lot of Questions

Most citizens are finding out at the last minute, as I did, that a formal proposal was in the works to use the Lumberyard lot for an assisted living facility with token tiered parking in order to obtain a grant from a state fund intended to address transportation issues. And it’s easy to feel that, for whatever reason, proponents are trying to ram it through fast. On July 27, Jeb Walker asked the Town Council for permission to ask for the grant to fund yet another “study,” and needed it right away since the request is due on August 4.    

Though there has been chatter about using the Lumberyard lot for such a facility, I had no idea of the urgency until someone told me about the Town Council meeting the day of. Judging by the confusion of the Town Council members, they must not have had much more of a heads-up on details either. Mr. Walker, Town Planner Mr. Kleppin, and a select few “in the know” on the committee sponsoring the facility dominated the first hour of the discussion, but were not clear on substance. All that seemed to matter was getting money for the study. The good news is the application is not official until a Memorandum of Understanding is executed on or before September 15. The Council can still stop the process by not approving the Memorandum of Understanding. Not sure one can easily follow all the legalities, and hopefully capable legal minds will review it.    

Regardless of the merits of having another assisted living facility in town, the proposed use of the Lumberyard lot is guaranteed to get ugly, and resurrect the demons of the Avalon controversy of a decade ago. So here we go again, with another divisive issue, after the sidewalk controversy, the bridge fiasco, and the long range plan flop, pitting neighbor against neighbor.    

I’ve never criticized Mr. Walker, and he is a decent man, but the bitter feelings between good citizens he leaves in his wake is not the sort of leadership most of us expect. To be fair, Mr. Kleppin is an employee and may be caught in the middle, and the committee members were doing what was asked of them. But we look to Mr. Walker to lead and represent everyone in a fair and impartial manner. In this case, those bad feelings could have been avoided if he bothered to include others, not just one single constituency, in the discussions before trying to push it through. The point is not so much to criticize Mr. Walker, but for all of us to think about what has been happening. How can we get things done, some controversial, without so much bad will?    

Apparently, there are 659 annual permit holders of the Lumberyard Lot who pay $504 per year, or $332,136 in total for the town, with expenses for winter plowing and an occasional pothole patch (which rarely happens). It’s a nice income stream for the town, and makes the commute easier, thereby making New Canaan a more attractive place for commuters–we all benefit from that. I do not know of one user of the lot who thinks tiered parking is a good idea. On the contrary, most of us envision time consuming hassles getting in and out, and a more difficult commute that will only benefit Darien, Westport, and Fairfield. The congestion on Elm Street will be a nightmare. Mr. Kleppin, who was not prepared with any substantive facts, had no real idea how much per space tiered parking would cost, but acknowledged it may cost $30,000 per space. At $504/space per year, anyone can see these economics are poor.    

What about the impact on congestion or the character of the town when we have a busy assisted living facility in the heart of town? How long is construction likely to take, and where will commuters park in the meantime (one rumor was at the Historical Society a half mile away)? How many people will be deterred from coming downtown? None of this was answered at the meeting.

How much is this really going to cost New Canaan taxpayers? Is the town going to “give” the property to a private enterprise, or otherwise subsidize it (the town surely won’t run it itself)? They said maybe a sale leaseback could be done, but had not thought through any details. How much benefit will go to local seniors? They said they could offer maybe 80 beds, but could not guarantee that they would be for New Canaan residents.     

Is it a coincidence that Stamford Hospital just purchased a building around the corner by Weed & Duryea? Has the hospital or any other private enterprise expressed an interest to the committee on the Lumberyard property? If so, this should be disclosed.    

There’s still more. What strings will be attached to the grant, something Mr. Walker acknowledges would lead him to walk away? Will the town lose control of the Lumberyard property if it takes the grant money for the study? Could the state assume control of issuing parking permits, issuing them to non-residents, and impact property use as well? The Office of Program Management in Hartford could not provide a definitive answer to this question. What will the impact be on the town character, congestion, commuters, and all citizens if the town loses control of a facility so central to the town?  Do citizens want to take that chance?

Here’s the most interesting one of all–the grant money is supposedly to study regional transportation issues, hence the inclusion of “tiered parking” in the proposal. But the real purpose is to erect the assisted living facility–why else would the senior policy committee be behind it? The grant money is taxpayer money, whether state, local, or federal. Are our leaders just “stretching it” in the grant application, or is this a bait and switch that crosses the line? How would we feel if another third party used our tax money for a purpose other than the intended purpose? This is what government waste and fraud is all about. The state should be aware, at the very least, of just how controversial the use of the Lumberyard property is, with the Avalon experience as Exhibit A, so it can make an assessment as to whether providing the grant for the “study” is a good use of taxpayer money. If meaningful taxpayer money is to be used, let it be for something that most citizens agree is a valid purpose, not for something so divisive.