On May 21, the Branford Tenants Union (BTU) held a rally in front of the Parkside Village II communal building in Branford, CT, where the Branford Housing Authority (BHA) usually holds its board meetings. The group protested the alleged lack of communication and transparency between the BHA and the BTU and the persistent structural issues tenants have faced within the apartment complex.

“We want the Branford Housing Authority to meet with the union, guarantee long-term housing security, a safe living environment and input on how our complex is managed,” said Holly Hackett, one of two Vice-Presidents of the BTU. “As the people who live here, we know our needs better than anyone.”

The BTU accused the BHA of ducking its requests for a meeting with the union for three months and is angered by its frequent last-second cancellation of its monthly public meetings. The BTU also accused the BHA of changing the location of last month’s meeting from its usual spot at the last second without notifying the BTU. That public meeting has so far been the only one held this year. The BTU’s rally was supposed to coincide with this month’s public meeting, but it was canceled the day prior.

“No one will meet with us from the Housing Authority,” said Hackett.

Hackett said that the group originally started as a tenants’ association but after the BHA continued to dismiss the association’s complaints in meetings, it reached out to the Connecticut Tenants Union (CTTU) last fall. Lori-lynn Ross, the BTU’s other vice president, called BHA interactions with concerned tenants at meetings “dehumanizing.” The BTU was made official in Feb. 2024, with 87% of Parkside Village II’s tenants now being members.

“I really do feel like anything positive that has changed, is because of what we have done together,” said Hackett. “You know being backed by CTTU was the best decision we ever made, it truly was.”

Parkside Village II is a low-income housing complex provided solely to seniors and people with disabilities. Constructed in 1985, it is currently the only property still fully owned by the BHA, and is managed by Beacon Management. Tenants have made complaints about faulty lifts that they say frequently break down, leaving disabled residents trapped on their floors. Tenants have also dealt with issues such as mold, water damage and leaks, missing window screens, mice and issues with maintaining heat and water.

“This is a very sad place,” said Ross. “It’s been beaten down. How about a refrigerator that actually works, so you can keep and store food in there? I have a leak from the roof into my unit, and I’m on the ground floor.”

Hackett said that since the union’s formation, and since Beacon’s appointment of a new property manager, Ebony Dennis-Barnes, the response time for maintenance complaints has been significantly quicker. Hackett described Dennis-Barnes as “fantastic” and “wonderful” and said that Beacon has engaged thus far with BTU in good faith regarding tenants’ maintenance complaints. Dennis-Barnes was present at the meeting to show solidarity with the Union, but did not speak and declined to comment. Hackett said that the main issue lies not with Beacon Management, but with the lack of communication at the hands of the BHA.

“There’s only so much our union leadership and Beacon can agree upon together without the cooperation of Branford Housing Authority,” said Hackett. “We have not gotten the financial transparency we have requested.”

Perhaps the largest concern of the BTU is the future of their apartment complex. Parkside Village I is a neighboring apartment complex that was originally owned by the BHA as another low-income housing complex limited to seniors and disabled adults. It was originally constructed in the 1970’s, but has been replaced with a new building that finished construction earlier this year. Many of Parkside I’s tenants were rehoused for approximately two-years, and were guaranteed housing at the same rental rate in the new apartment, though the complex has been transitioned from low-income senior and disabled housing to affordable housing for all ages. According to Hackett, the BHA has since sold the building to Beacon and now only owns the property it sits on, leasing it for $1 per year. According to a statement released by the BHA, it retains, “an ownership interest in order to control the long-term future of the property.”

Another affordable housing complex is currently being constructed next to Parkside I, Shoreline Grove, which also markets itself as affordable housing for all ages. Similar to Parkside I, BHA owns the land that Shoreline Groves is being built on according to Hackett, although the building itself is owned and managed by Beacon. It is also being used to rehouse some of Parkside I’s original residents.

“There is only a certain percentage of Shoreline Grove that is for low-income people that were moved from Parkside I into the new building,” said Hackett. “So there are no more people who can be renting there who fall under the income guidelines that we do, there’s no more room.” 

Affordable housing, under Connecticut’s 8-30g law, stipulates that 30 percent of an affordable housing complex must be low-income housing. Low income housing can not charge more than 30 percent of an area’s median income (AMI) per month, while the other 70 percent of an affordable housing complex can charge up to 60 percent AMI. Parkside Village II is made up of 40 units, all of which are low-income. Parkside I’s new building has 67 units in total, with 15 of them being rent-restricted to 25 percent AMI. If Shoreline Grove, which is owned by the same company and also consisting of 67 units in total, follows the same pattern, there will only be a total of 30 units between both that would fall within the price range of Parkside Village II’s tenants. 

As Hackett pointed out, the seniors living in Parkside Village I, which was originally a 50-unit complex, already account for the majority of low-income units in both buildings. As a result, if the BHA were to convert Parkside Village II into affordable housing, the majority of its tenants would be priced out.

“I have no issues with housing families, but we want to stay with our people, right?” said Hackett. “There’s very few places left, elderly disabled housing is a 10-year plus waiting list, I’m not sure people are aware of that.”

The fear of being priced out of town is the primary driver behind the BTU’s demands to meet with the BHA. Anxious and worried for the future of the property, they want financial transparency to see how their rent money is being used to maintain the property, and also want assurances that, regardless of the future of the property, they won’t be priced out of their homes. 

“That’s why we’re fighting so very hard, to keep us all together, to keep us here and have security within the union, no matter what happens,” said Hackett. “We are human and we are people, whether or not we are people with disabilities, people who have low income, people who are over 65, it doesn’t matter.”

Branford’s First Selectman, Jamie Cosgrove, is the one who appoints members to the BHA’s board. Hackett said that since January, the BTU has reached out to him repeatedly to set a meeting to address their concerns, but to no avail.

“He will not respond to the Union, he has told us time and time again that he will meet, he will meet, he will meet, but he will not set a date and time with us,” said Hackett.

Hackett said the BTU gave him a signed petition, listing four Branford residents they would like to see appointed to the BHA’s board, none of whom were Parkside II residents, but that Cosgrove never responded to it. Hackett also offered to serve, but Cosgrove reportedly told her that he wouldn’t put her on the board because “the residents would have too much of a voice on the board.”

“I said to him, ‘Well isn’t that the whole point? The board is supposed to serve the best needs of our residents?’” said Hackett.

Further complicating matters is the fact that, as of yesterday, the BHA no longer has any board members. Its chair, Andrew Wight, resigned yesterday, and its treasurer, Kate Collins, also recently resigned. It is unclear at this time when or who Cosgrove will appoint to fill their vacancies. Cosgrove did not respond to Inside Investigator’s email or voicemail requests for comment.

“Needless to say I’m very anxious, upset, disheartened,” said Ross. “But I’m strong, and we have hope together and we’ll navigate it.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.