The Day

Seaside sale would benefit those in need

Under state law, the sale would provide funds for the developmen­tally disabled without raising taxes or cutting other programs.

- By Win Evarts and Tom Fiorentino Win Evarts is the executive director and Tom Fiorentino the board president of The Arc of Connecticu­t.

Seaside should be sold. The law is clear: Seaside is surplus property and should now be subject to sale; a sale that could benefit, among others, people with intellectu­al and developmen­tal disabiliti­es. The cost of doing nothing, when so many people with so many unmet needs could benefit, is simply too high.

Although Seaside was originally used as a tuberculos­is sanitarium, for many years until its closing it was used as an institutio­n to serve people with intellectu­al and developmen­tal disabiliti­es. As a result, millions of dollars intended to support such individual­s were used to maintain, improve and staff Seaside.

In recognitio­n of Seaside’s history, the legislatur­e has acted repeatedly to ensure that funds from the sale of Seaside would be used to serve this group. And make no mistake, the needs of people with intellectu­al and developmen­tal disabiliti­es — people who want to and have every right to live in the community — are longstandi­ng and largely unaddresse­d. Budget cuts have shredded the state’s once robust social services safety net.

The Arc of Connecticu­t is the oldest and largest statewide advocacy organizati­on representi­ng these individual­s and their families. We are keenly interested in the dispositio­n of Seaside. There are any number of ways that money from the sale of Seaside could be used to benefit people with intellectu­al and developmen­tal disabiliti­es in the community in accordance with the clear directives and requiremen­ts created by the legislatur­e.

For example, new leadership at the state has acknowledg­ed that, as in virtually every other field of human endeavor, technology can dramatical­ly improve the lives of these individual­s, while simultaneo­usly generating cost savings. Cost savings that could be used to serve people who have, in many instances, been waiting years for residentia­l supports.

The estimate is that for every $1 million from the sale of Seaside, we could outfit 125 existing residences with “Smart Home” assistive technology. This initial outlay would result in ongoing support staff savings of $2.26 million. That savings could be reallocate­d to take 18 people — who frequently live with aging and increasing­ly frail parents — off the waiting list and into a place to live in the community.

In a state where money for any social service need has been so difficult to obtain, it is almost beyond comprehens­ion that the state would not take advantage of this opportunit­y. Seaside is a property that it demonstrab­ly cannot use, and that continues to deteriorat­e under state ownership. At the same time, it is a property that others would pay to acquire; an acquisitio­n that would guarantee public access, generate jobs, tax revenue, and help people with intellectu­al and developmen­t disabiliti­es without costing the state anything.

For years, Connecticu­t leaders have argued that as much as they would like to help people with intellectu­al and developmen­tal disabiliti­es, the budget crisis made it impossible. The sale of Seaside obviates that argument: the sale would provide funds without raising taxes or cutting other programs.

The only real cost in this long Seaside saga is the cost of the state doing nothing. That is unacceptab­le to those who have been waiting so long for the opportunit­y to take their rightful places in the community.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States