Letters to the Editor

NewCanaanite.com recently received the following letters. 

Send letters to editor@newcanaanite.com to have them published here.

***

Dear Editor,

Many have stopped me to ask why I voted “no” on the Charter Revision Commission Report, and I would like to explain why.

I firmly believe in a government created by the many, not the few. I firmly believe the voters of New Canaan should choose their own government, and that checks and balances, along with accountability to the electorate, are critical. Yet after eight months of discussion and listening, I saw appointed, self-interested officials protect their own positions instead of being accountable to the people they serve. They’ll tell you they’re doing a wonderful job — maybe so. But if that’s true, why resist being answerable to the public? What is there to be afraid of? Accountability, transparency, and diversity of opinion are strengths, not threats.

Our surrounding towns — Darien, Wilton, and Ridgefield — elect important boards and commissions such as Planning & Zoning and the Board of Finance, and Ridgefield recently changed its Inland Wetlands Commission from appointed to elected. They put these key commissions to a vote of the people. These towns trust voters with the decision.

There is good work in this report — Town Council approval for land use changes, and an improved Treasurer article — but it falls far short on checks and balances and on putting key questions before the voters. In fact, near the end of the Commission’s work, there was an attempt to reverse key wins such as term limits. Commissioners were polled to see if they would change their previous position, thereby reversing the outcome of the prior vote. Concerning, to say the least. 

Many of my fellow Commissioners agreed — these questions should have gone directly to the voters: Should P&Z be elected? Should the Board of Finance be elected? Should we have 12-year term limits? Should we increase the Board of Selectmen to five members? We trust the voter. The voters of New Canaan are smart, capable people, and they deserve a direct voice in their own government. Without giving voters that choice, we end up with a government decided by the few, not the many. That is why I did not approve the report. 

Thank you.

Jennifer Holme

***

Dear Editor,

New Canaan has serious housing challenges, and none of them are simple.

For many years, I have been involved in the town’s work around affordable housing, state mandates, and the difficult choices communities face when trying to preserve local character while also meeting real housing needs. That experience has taught me that housing issues do not get easier when we avoid them. They get harder.

The proposed Waveny LifeCare senior living community should be viewed in that context.

Affordable housing and senior living are not the same issue. They involve different needs, different populations, different rules, and different policy questions. But they are connected by a larger reality: New Canaan must plan seriously for the people who live here, including older residents whose housing, support, and care needs change over time.

Any new housing proposal raises legitimate questions. In this case, residents will understandably ask how the project would affect New Canaan’s affordable housing ratio, state housing obligations, land-use planning, traffic, environmental impact, public access, and the long-term stewardship of town-owned land. Those questions should be asked directly and answered carefully.

But the existence of hard questions should not stop the discussion. It should require a better process.

New Canaan has done important work to support older residents through volunteer organizations, local services, and community programs. Those efforts matter. But they do not replace the need to examine whether the town also needs a more comprehensive senior living option for residents who want to remain connected to New Canaan as they age.

We have all seen longtime residents leave because the right combination of housing, support, and care was not available here. These are people who have contributed to New Canaan for decades — as volunteers, neighbors, donors, business owners, civic leaders, and friends. When they leave, the town loses more than population. It loses continuity.

The Waveny proposal deserves careful review. That does not mean every detail should be accepted as presented. It means the Town and the community should understand the facts before reaching conclusions.

We should look carefully at the affordable housing implications. We should look carefully at the site. We should look carefully at traffic, conservation, public access, design, financing, and long-term public benefit. And we should do that in a public process that gives residents the opportunity to ask questions and weigh in.

New Canaan should not treat senior living as an issue everyone supports in theory but no one is willing to examine in practice.

If we want to plan responsibly for the future, we have to be willing to engage seriously with real proposals, real tradeoffs, and real community needs.

Sincerely,

Scott Hobbs