Letters to the Editor - 1-4-24

When I called the crisis hotline

About a month ago, my mother, Dr. Timell, wrote in these pages about the incidence of poor mental health: depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder…slightly tongue-in-cheek, she wrote that 143% of us suffer from one of these disorders.

About a month ago, I was curled up in an armchair when I should have been working, paralyzed by depression. It was November; my house was freezing; I was shivering; there was a blanket not two feet away but I somehow couldn’t make myself reach out for it. Depression does that, apparently: messes with your executive functioning. It’s not that your willpower has failed, it’s that your brain’s neurotransmitters are out of whack. Finally I managed to bestir myself enough to text the crisis hotline. Help, I said. Help. Please help me.

What I wanted was concrete information about where to go if things got worse, and maybe some guidance about how to tell when I’d hit that point. The internet says to go to “the hospital” when you’re “in crisis,” but when you’re depressed your brain doesn’t think clearly. What I got was an anonymous counsellor providing active listening responses from a script. God bless the anonymous counsellor—some people probably do need to be heard, and to be told that things do sound really hard, but that wasn’t me. I told him I needed to know whether I should go to the ER. “I’m sorry,” he said. “I can’t help you.”

Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? This week I did go to the ER. “I’m really depressed,” I told the triage nurse. “I can’t stop crying. I’ve been depressed all my life but it’s getting worse.” She eyed me, dubious. “But you’re smiling!” she said, dismissive. It was only when I burst into tears in front of her that she deigned to say I could go to the crisis ward “if I wanted.” Somehow it was my decision. Do I want to go to the crisis ward? How am I supposed to know? “I just want someone to help me!” I wailed. She admitted me.

In case you’re curious, in the crisis ward I was left alone for six hours. Lunchtime came and went; there was no food or water provided. Eventually a social worker came by to ask screening questions. “Are you homicidal or suicidal?” he asked. No. Later, I would discover he wrote in my chart that I’d answered “no” to the question of whether I thought I’d be better off dead. I hadn’t answered no; he hadn’t asked me. About three hours in, I heard the social worker tell another patient he was “beyond abnormal” and that it was his own fault he’d had to be admitted. So much for the clinical judgement of the person who was supposed to be providing me care. (That patient, by the way? He was probably no older than ten.)

I fielded another series of questions about what I wanted. Did I want to see whether I was eligible for an outpatient program for people who dealt with both mood disorders and substance-use disorders? What I wanted was to not be in so much pain, but that apparently wasn’t an option. So sure. If an intake appointment with another social worker was what was on offer, I’d take it. There was no balm in Gilead, and no physician, either: my discharge paperwork says I was seen by a psychiatrist—but I wasn’t.

Why, then is the health of the daughter of my people not recovered? Well may you ask. My mother (a doctor, remember) assures me at some point somebody will be able to do something and I won’t have to feel this way forever. From her mouth to God’s ear. Until then—well. I know depression also removes your capacity for hope, so if I were in my right mind I might not say this. But: I’m not holding my breath.

Maja Gray

Cornwall

Supporting Grove Street housing plan

I am writing to support using the Town owned property on Grove Street off Route 41 in Salisbury for parking and for affordable, workforce housing. That neighborhood around Grove Street and Echo Street is residential with smaller houses and many long-term residents in same.

I hope that the Town and the Housing Trust reach an agreement whereby the Salisbury Housing Trust ends up owning the parcel(s), so that there will be long term control of the land and its use.

I believe that all residents of Salisbury understand the need for affordable, workforce housing for all workers who work in Town — teachers, care-givers, maintenance and repair professionals. The economy of this Town has many service components. The workers providing the hands, brains and hours to keep stores and restaurants open and staffed, lawns mowed, roads plowed, construction projects completed — and on and on — many of these workers drive from as far away as Torrington on a daily basis. Many of these workers grew up here, love here and would like to have a shorter commute to get here every day.

There is a long waiting list for people to have smaller, reasonably priced dwellings. The Housing Trust provides home ownership options, but retains ownership of the land under the house thus having the power to set limits to any profit taking on the eventual sale of the units to the next owner.

We all know that market prices in this area have sky rocketed over the past 5 or 6 years.

We have witnessed much “flipping” of real estate, as values jump up. Profit taking abounds, and this squeezes the pocketbooks of local workers. I have spoken with John Harney, Jr (President of Salisbury Housing Trust) and Jennifer Kronholm Clark (Chairman of the Salisbury Affordable Housing Commission) about the benefits of how the Trust preserves affordability for home ownership for local people.

I support the plan offered for the rear of the Grove Street property for two single family houses and unpaved parking for the public in the front, abutting Rt 41. The parking is ongoing and will continue.

Kitty Kiefer

Salisbury

Affordable housing development will help meet town goals

The Salisbury Housing Trust has requested that the Board of Selectman initiate the process of transferring the town-owned parcels on Undermountain Road (MBL 56-05 and 56-06) to the Salisbury Housing Trust (SHT) for the development of affordable housing, by referring this project to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an 8-24 review at the Jan. 8 meeting of the Selectmen.

The site plan includes two single family homes near the rear of the site and parking in the front (to accommodate the site’s current use), separated by a fence and landscaping. We plan to buffer the view of these homes from the neighboring properties with landscaping and setbacks.

Building two affordable homes on this town-owned land will help the town meet goals outlined in the town’s adopted Affordable Housing Plan. This property was specifically identified in that plan for development by the Housing Trust.

Our sense of urgency on this is that we believe there is an opportunity, working with the Litchfield County Center for Housing Opportunity, to secure funding from the Connecticut Department of Housing for the homes at Perry Street and at Grove Street.

The Housing Trust is asking for any comments on this proposed project be either emailed to the Town Hall at townhall@salisburyct.us or called in at 860-435-5170 prior to the Selectmen’s meeting on the 8th of January. To review the site plan, please visit: https://www.salisburycthousing.org/future-projects.

This Board of Selectmen’s meeting will be via zoom, so please check the Town’s website for the instructions to join.

Thank you for your support

John Harney

President, Salisbury
Housing Trust

Jennifer Kronholm Clark

Vice President,

Salisbury Housing Trust

In favor of Grove Street housing

I am in favor of continuing to plan for housing at the Grove Street sight. It is a wonderful site. I understand that there may be some issues to resolve, and if the planning stage is allowed to continue, I trust that they will be resolved.

Most of us understand what a boon these projects are for the families who can take advantage of this type of housing. It is convenient to the center of town and they can live in a beautiful area with hiking, good schools, after school programs, summer programs, church communities, volunteer ambulance and fire squads, a nearby hospital and so on. It has been frustrating to see past opportunities missed because, although Salisbury citizens agree there is a housing problem, we can’t quite seem to agree WHERE in Salisbury to solve the problem.

In 1987, if my family and I had not been able to take advantage of the few “public” affordable housing options available and benefited from generous private contributions, we would have had to move.

We have not been able to afford to contribute financially, in a substantial way, to our wonderful non-profit organizations. Instead, like many people in town and many of those living in affordable housing, I was provided the opportunity to contribute as a volunteer... in the PTO, on the board of EXTRAS, as Girl Scout assistant (cookie chair), and in my church for more than 25 years.

In gratitude for all the individuals and organizations which provided assistance and so many opportunities to participate, I wholeheartedly support this project so that other families can benefit and contribute to this wonderful, generous community.

Theresa Carroll

Salisbury

Applauding Sharon solar plan plan

I am writing to applaud the town’s innovative plan to install solar panels behind the Sharon Center School. The project would save the town hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction and energy costs, while also offering children a dramatic demonstration of how we are addressing the global climate warming crisis on a local level with action, not just words.

The panels would occupy just 25 percent of a long-neglected plot overrun with invasive plant species. If we were to install the panels and replace those invasives with native plantings beneficial to birds and insects, that 2.8-acre parcel could pack a mighty punch for the environment. Please make this happen by supporting the project at the Jan. 5 referendum.

Edmund Mander

Sharon

Vote ‘No’ on Sharon’s solar array

Vote ‘No’ Jan. 5 at Town Hall 12-8pm to the proposed solar array on the Kelemen Nature Trail at Sharon Center School.

I believe in Solar for Sharon Center School, but SEEC has selected a terrible location, and the town has entered into a bad financial deal for this project. We are asking the town to put the solar on the school’s flat roof. It would be smaller than the current plan, but it appropriately sized for the school and number of students. After all, larger local schools, with far more students, have much smaller solar arrays. So there is absolutely no justifiable reason that Sharon Center School needs so many panels. The roof would give them that. SEEC’s reasons for not putting it on the flat roof fall short. They claim it would damage the roof and void the warrantee because of screwing the solar panels into the roof. That is not true and modern technology no longer attaches them that way. Today they use a ballasted mounting systems. The only real reason that SEEC isn’t using the roof appears to be that they skipped over it, entered into a deal with a solar company and don’t want to make the change.

The #1 rational for the project is to save the town money. The savings have gone from $715,000, then the solar company changed the cost 4 times in less than 18 months, and now they claim the savings is $502,000. Almost half of the projected $502,000 in savings is based on projected electricity costs going up 45% in the next 20 years. That is a completely flawed assumption. According to all the data, energy prices recently peaked and are forecasted to remain flat. Eversource recently announced they are lowering residential rates vs last year by 39% effective 1/1/24.

SEEC & the Town claim the first full year savings is now $15,326. To put that in perspective, that is less than $6.00 per resident per year. Is that worth destroying green space and the Kelemen Nature Trail? Impacting 2.83 acres of town land? Risking an important Wetlands? Leasing town land to a 3rd party for 20 years and losing control of prime real estate in the village?

Some of those in favor have spread misinformation (while accusing others of doing so), bullied and tried to spread fear of financial impact to the town for canceling this poorly chosen location and entering into a bad deal. If there had been an open and transparent process, we would not be in this position. Moving forward with the current location and size of the project has much more financial risk to the town, negative impact on the environment (wetlands, wildlife habitat and reduction of green space), than negotiating with Green Bank to move it to the flat roof. It can be done.

Please review both websites and decide for yourself what make sense. Please vote “NO” to ask the town to create a better plan for solar.

Alex Mulens

SCS-Solar.info

Solar4Sharon.org

Sharon

Best option for Sharon Hospital to save services

Several weeks ago, Christina McCulloch, the president of Sharon Hospital (SH), sent a letter to The Lakeville Journal, responding to our suggestion that Sharon Hospital be converted to a Critical Access Hospital (CAH). We believe that becoming a CAH is the best option for SH, as all of SH’s reasonable costs would then be reimbursed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) at 101% thus solving their financial problems. Ms. McCulloch said this wouldn’t work as their Behavioral Health Unit wouldn’t be covered so economically, therefore the CAH designation wouldn’t solve SH’s financial problem.

In checking the relevant CMS regulations, we found that, “[A CAH] may operate a distinct part rehabilitation and a psychiatric unit, each with up to 10 beds.” We now understand that SH’s unit is one of several statewide regional geropsychiatric units that take patients from New York as well as Connecticut. Our understanding, from medical sources, is that the volume of patient in this unit fluctuates. Currently, this unit is operating with about 11 patients and only one patient from the local Sharon Hospital catchment area. In late October, the unit was treating some 15 patients with approximately 5 patients from the Sharon area. Under the CAH designation, with 10 psychiatric beds, SH would still have plenty of beds to spare for patients outside of our area. Furthermore, the psychiatry unit only does inpatient adult psychiatry and does not provide service to adolescents and young patients with serious emotional problems.

If the Hospital adopted the CAH designation, they would have their costs covered under the CAH designation. Why is Ms. McCulloch arguing that regardless of the financial state of the hospital, we still must have our hospital provide psychiatric services to the broader state? Nuvance has the “tail wagging the dog” — let’s put the interests of our community first as we try to save our hospital’s critical services.

Finally, CAH status would allow the hospital to maintain essential services such as the maternity unit rather than having to cut or downgrade services such as the ICU.

Victor Germack

Save Sharon Hospital

Salisbury