To the Editor:
I am writing as a longtime Greenwich resident and a former journalist to thank the Greenwich Sentinel for its sustained, careful coverage of the Havemeyer Building. I do not often write letters to the editor anymore. The public square has grown sharp-edged, and those who speak are too often greeted with suspicion rather than curiosity. I am grateful that the Sentinel provides a forum where verified Greenwich residents may contribute, even anonymously, without becoming targets. That choice reflects an understanding of current public discourse.
The Sentinel’s reporting and editorials on the Havemeyer Building have been consistent, specific, and rooted in local history. The paper has reminded readers that the building was donated for public use, that it sits within Greenwich’s historic civic district, and that its current condition reflects years of deferred decisions. Those facts a very real. They anchor the debate.
What I have appreciated most is the Sentinel’s refusal to reduce the issue to slogans. The coverage has examined how administrative use migrated into Havemeyer, how that use expanded, and how it now crowds out broader public purpose. The paper has noted that administrative offices can function in many locations, while a donated civic building cannot be replicated. That distinction is obvious once stated, but it required a local paper willing to state it plainly.
As someone who spent years in newsrooms, I recognize the discipline involved in returning to a subject week after week without exaggeration. The Sentinel has reported on community letters, historic context, and prior commitments without inflaming the discussion. It has allowed disagreement to surface while keeping the focus on stewardship and responsibility. That is harder than it looks.
The editorials addressing Havemeyer’s potential future have also struck a constructive tone. Rather than treating public use as an abstraction, the paper has discussed specific possibilities, including cultural and arts programming that would invite regular, visible participation. It has framed these ideas not as indulgences but as expressions of civic seriousness. That framing respects us, the readers.
There is a tendency in local debates to wait until buildings fail before acting. The Sentinel has challenged that habit by asking why a prominent public asset should be allowed to drift. It has raised questions about timing, maintenance, and intent without assigning motives. That approach reflects faith in the community’s capacity to reason together.
I have lived in Greenwich long enough to remember when local newspapers were the primary place where such conversations occurred. They set the tempo. They provided memory. The Sentinel’s coverage of the Havemeyer Building has done both. It has recalled what was promised and measured current practice against that promise.
I am also thankful for the paper’s willingness to publish letters from residents who do not seek attention but want accountability. Many people hesitate to write today, not because they lack conviction, but because the response can be disproportionate. The Sentinel’s policy of accepting anonymous submissions from verified residents lowers that barrier while preserving integrity. It encourages participation from those who value the town but prefer civility.
Ronald Reagan once spoke about America as a place where people believed tomorrow could be better than today. That optimism rested on confidence in institutions that worked and communities that cared enough to maintain them. Local journalism is one of those institutions.
For continuing to cover the Havemeyer Building with patience, fairness, and respect for readers, the Greenwich Sentinel deserves thanks. The paper has served the town well by insisting that public assets merit public attention.
Sincerely,
A Greenwich Resident
