Tired of Dealing with the Consequences of Cleanup
By Sarah Harris, Sara Pizzuto, Rachelly Then and Rebecca Riina
The Hamden residents received their first letter from the state environmental protection agency in 2000, which explained that their lawns were contaminated with chemicals. The state explained it would clean up the dirt around their homes and underneath their pools, decks and porches.
Fifteen years later, the remediation is done, the soil is partially clean, and the residents of the Newhall Street neighborhood are worn out.
Kim Miller looks back at old photos when her lawn was bright green, her trees were large and her flowers were blooming. She reminisces about her childhood in Hamden and how the community has changed since the cleanup. She says she can’t move and that no one will buy her home because of the stigma that came with the remediation.
“This was my home, and I feel so betrayed. They destroyed my whole image of Hamden. They make it seem like such a family oriented place to live,” said Miller, a resident of Edwards Street.
“Well it was, a long time ago,” said Miller’s 96-year-old mother. “Well yeah, a long time ago,” Miller replied.
The Hamden residents received their first letter from the state environmental protection agency in 2000, which explained that their lawns were contaminated with chemicals. The state explained it would clean up the dirt around their homes and underneath their pools, decks and porches.
Fifteen years later, the remediation is done, the soil is partially clean, and the residents of the Newhall Street neighborhood are worn out.
Kim Miller looks back at old photos when her lawn was bright green, her trees were large and her flowers were blooming. She reminisces about her childhood in Hamden and how the community has changed since the cleanup. She says she can’t move and that no one will buy her home because of the stigma that came with the remediation.
“This was my home, and I feel so betrayed. They destroyed my whole image of Hamden. They make it seem like such a family oriented place to live,” said Miller, a resident of Edwards Street.
“Well it was, a long time ago,” said Miller’s 96-year-old mother. “Well yeah, a long time ago,” Miller replied.
An accidental discovery
In 1999, a year prior to the letters, the town had been making plans to add on to the middle school on Newhall Street. When the Department of Energy and Environment Protection (DEEP) tested the soil, they found multiple chemicals including lead, arsenic and polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
Some neighbors had connections with town hall and got the word before others and sold their homes, according to Miller. Others were not as lucky, she said.
When extensive testing was completed, the DEEP found that the chemicals went beyond the middle school boundaries. Once they realized the chemicals extended 18 blocks and were under hundreds of residential homes, DEEP planned to decontaminate all of the soil.
The soil was only a health risk if people came into direct contact with it, and state and local officials reassured the neighborhood that this did not mean that residents would become sick.
Residents began to worry about cancer clusters, so in 2001 the Connecticut Department of Health investigated. A study concluded that any exposure that may have occurred was not great enough to have caused health effects.
Resident Elizabeth Hayes formed a neighborhood group and worked with the Toxic Action Center to help the community understand the findings. By 2003, the state explained to residents that it would clean up to 4 feet of soil on residential properties.
But Hayes wanted them to dig more. She asked people to hold off of signing paperwork with the state. According to several residents, the state offered neighbors money to accept the clean up deal.
The DEEP began cleaning up the yards in 2010, working in batches by block, removing trees, replacing the soil and attempting to return plantings, fences and other items back to their original state. Only a couple of residents refused to have the work done.
An aerial view of dozens of the remediated properties south of Rochford Field and Mill Rock Park, both during construction (2012) and after (2015).
In 1999, a year prior to the letters, the town had been making plans to add on to the middle school on Newhall Street. When the Department of Energy and Environment Protection (DEEP) tested the soil, they found multiple chemicals including lead, arsenic and polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
Some neighbors had connections with town hall and got the word before others and sold their homes, according to Miller. Others were not as lucky, she said.
When extensive testing was completed, the DEEP found that the chemicals went beyond the middle school boundaries. Once they realized the chemicals extended 18 blocks and were under hundreds of residential homes, DEEP planned to decontaminate all of the soil.
The soil was only a health risk if people came into direct contact with it, and state and local officials reassured the neighborhood that this did not mean that residents would become sick.
Residents began to worry about cancer clusters, so in 2001 the Connecticut Department of Health investigated. A study concluded that any exposure that may have occurred was not great enough to have caused health effects.
Resident Elizabeth Hayes formed a neighborhood group and worked with the Toxic Action Center to help the community understand the findings. By 2003, the state explained to residents that it would clean up to 4 feet of soil on residential properties.
But Hayes wanted them to dig more. She asked people to hold off of signing paperwork with the state. According to several residents, the state offered neighbors money to accept the clean up deal.
The DEEP began cleaning up the yards in 2010, working in batches by block, removing trees, replacing the soil and attempting to return plantings, fences and other items back to their original state. Only a couple of residents refused to have the work done.
An aerial view of dozens of the remediated properties south of Rochford Field and Mill Rock Park, both during construction (2012) and after (2015).
|
It's the little things now
Though the remediation on the residential properties has been complete for three years, some residents struggle with coming to terms with the final job.
Linda Shultz, a resident owner on Edwards Street, couldn’t believe how emotional she was getting just talking about it.
She laughed and shook her head as she began to tell a story. “I’m reliving it," she said.
“We don’t really understand what happened. Our first letter was in 2000 and it went from there.”
Shultz and her husband never really wanted the remediation to be done to their home.
“If we weren’t the last ones to sign, we were the second to last,” she said.
They didn’t want to initially sign because they didn’t really think the soil was harmful. Schultz has lived in Hamden for her entire life and in her home for 41 years. Her and her husband had no health problems – though she currently suffers from asthma – so she didn’t see the need to dig.
For Shultz, it’s now the little things that frustrate her and husband. After the reconstruction of her backyard the backyard slopes, the pool electric system is completely different, the grass grows as weed, her plants had to be taken out, the trees don’t grow and her deck has two stairs instead of three.
Her husband, now handicapped, used the stairs to workout and as physical therapy. Schultz says now there’s no use with one less.
Gardening became a complicated process as well with the new soil.
“I had trees, bushes, this whole thing was full of flowers and trees so they came back and put in a bed all the way around then I went to go plant a flower - I had to buy a pick ax,” she yelled. “And I had to learn that you need to soak water in the hole, get it softer, use the pick ax then try to shovel. To plant a frickin' flower!”
This type of frustration is common among residents.
“My back yard now has no privacy because trees were cut down - I hate this!” resident Denise Burns wrote in a letter. “Also, when it rains hard, water just settles, ground does not absorb water - settles on grass - I have pictures if you want to see - I called agency and left messages - no help from them.”
A real estate trap
As the dull red brick masonry wall on Francine Smith’s home on North Sheffield Street continues to crack – the consequence she says of ongoing remediation in the neighborhood – Smith laments at how much the small community has changed since she first purchased her home in the fall of 2000.
“There’s no denying how much everything here has changed. Neighbors barely talk to one another anymore,” said Smith. “Fifteen years ago, I knew almost every name on just this street alone.”
“I’ve considered selling my home before, and just leaving the neighborhood altogether.”
But for Smith, that may not be a possibility. She has recently had her home appraised and it was significantly lower than the $89,000 she paid for it. She said she has been unable to sell.
“I was told that my property tested negative however, the houses in front and each side qualified for remediation,” Smith said.
As the dull red brick masonry wall on Francine Smith’s home on North Sheffield Street continues to crack – the consequence she says of ongoing remediation in the neighborhood – Smith laments at how much the small community has changed since she first purchased her home in the fall of 2000.
“There’s no denying how much everything here has changed. Neighbors barely talk to one another anymore,” said Smith. “Fifteen years ago, I knew almost every name on just this street alone.”
“I’ve considered selling my home before, and just leaving the neighborhood altogether.”
But for Smith, that may not be a possibility. She has recently had her home appraised and it was significantly lower than the $89,000 she paid for it. She said she has been unable to sell.
“I was told that my property tested negative however, the houses in front and each side qualified for remediation,” Smith said.
Many residents worry that the stigma attached to their formerly contaminated homes will make it impossible to sell.
Linda Shultz says she knows it would be a lose-lose situation if they were to try and sell.
“If I was a buyer, and I wanted this house and I checked the records, I’m not going to buy this place. If it has a land use restriction, even if I don’t plan to add on, I’m going to think the land is dirty, would I bring up children in that? Would I bother to investigate it? No. Why? I’m going to look somewhere else,” she said.
Kim Washington, who was told by the state that her property did not contain polluted soil, says the homes on her street are being occupied by new residents who had no prior knowledge of the pollution before moving in. New neighbors and young renters that have taken up residence in the area were never informed about the contamination from the town, she said.
But over at Winchester Street, the story is completely different. Homeowner James West could not be happier with his purchase.
“It may have to do with the fact that this house was never worked on by the state,” said West, and later remarked that his home, after many years, has maintained its appraised value – and in some years, it even increases.
“Or it may have to do with this just being a good piece of property, but I never had to deal with the pollution those other homes did,” West said.
And as for the community at large, West maintained that he has not seen much of anything change in the small streets of Newhall. And of those who he knows of, who rumble and fuss about their beloved neighborhood changing, he said, “It was just bound to happen. It can’t always stay the same … right?”
But Miller says she still feels trapped.
“I’m gonna have to walk away from the house. I said I can’t sell it. I said who’s gonna buy it in the middle of this construction? Nobody, nothing has sold in this neighborhood,” she said. “The only houses that have sold is multi-family homes. Because investors buy them, they’re not living in them, they’re making money off of them.”
She laughed and pulled out her assessment. “My house was worth at one point, $180,000 and they assessed my house at a whopping $80,000.”
Photographs by Sarah Harris. Aerial photo slider by Nick Solari.
Linda Shultz says she knows it would be a lose-lose situation if they were to try and sell.
“If I was a buyer, and I wanted this house and I checked the records, I’m not going to buy this place. If it has a land use restriction, even if I don’t plan to add on, I’m going to think the land is dirty, would I bring up children in that? Would I bother to investigate it? No. Why? I’m going to look somewhere else,” she said.
Kim Washington, who was told by the state that her property did not contain polluted soil, says the homes on her street are being occupied by new residents who had no prior knowledge of the pollution before moving in. New neighbors and young renters that have taken up residence in the area were never informed about the contamination from the town, she said.
But over at Winchester Street, the story is completely different. Homeowner James West could not be happier with his purchase.
“It may have to do with the fact that this house was never worked on by the state,” said West, and later remarked that his home, after many years, has maintained its appraised value – and in some years, it even increases.
“Or it may have to do with this just being a good piece of property, but I never had to deal with the pollution those other homes did,” West said.
And as for the community at large, West maintained that he has not seen much of anything change in the small streets of Newhall. And of those who he knows of, who rumble and fuss about their beloved neighborhood changing, he said, “It was just bound to happen. It can’t always stay the same … right?”
But Miller says she still feels trapped.
“I’m gonna have to walk away from the house. I said I can’t sell it. I said who’s gonna buy it in the middle of this construction? Nobody, nothing has sold in this neighborhood,” she said. “The only houses that have sold is multi-family homes. Because investors buy them, they’re not living in them, they’re making money off of them.”
She laughed and pulled out her assessment. “My house was worth at one point, $180,000 and they assessed my house at a whopping $80,000.”
Photographs by Sarah Harris. Aerial photo slider by Nick Solari.