By John Huebner
Tuesday was Preserve Greystone’s annual meeting.
We first came together four-and-a-half years ago, because something valuable was in danger of slipping through the cracks and being lost forever — the Kirkbride Building at Greystone Park.
We’ve been talking to people about it ever since. We’ve been to street fairs, green fairs, Rotary Clubs, historical societies, and libraries. The more we talked to people, and the more we learned, the more obvious it became that the overwhelming majority of citizens thought as we did: This is something important, and it’s something very special.
We’ve also been in contact with state officials during that time. We first met with representatives from Treasury and the Governor’s office in August 2010, a year or so before the Governor announced his plan for cleaning up Greystone.
The Governor’s plan began with a thorough study of the site in the summer of 2012, and most recently we had a conference call with Treasury officials on April 12, when all the study results finally were released.
Treasury officials told us they are proceeding on the assumption that the Kirkbride Building WILL be redeveloped. They will remediate hazardous waste from Kirkbride, and mothball it to prevent any further deterioration.
The complete survey of the Greystone site (800 pages) along with a redevelopment feasibility study report (100 pages or so) and a “Request for Expressions of Interest” from developers, all are available now on our website, PreserveGreystone.org.
Preserve Greystone never has opposed private redevelopment of the Kirkbride Building. We made that clear to the state back in 2010. Neither Morris County nor the state seems to want ultimate responsibility for it, and it seems like everyone will be more comfortable in a scenario where a private entity (either for-profit, or nonprofit) owns, manages and develops the property moving forward.
The Kirkbride Building still could be used to provide public services or host government offices through a public/private partnership, which seems to be the trend these days. No doubt the surrounding towns or the county will need to build or rent space to provide services in the next two decades. It would be in everyone’s interest if they were to use space in this already-built, freshly-scrubbed, and exhaustively studied historic structure.
‘A PLACE APART’
Greystone’s always been somewhat of a place apart, but aside from being a truly magnificent piece of architecture, it is an integral part of our history. It’s been such a presence in our psyche for so long, and such an enormous physical presence that, for better or worse, it is part of us.
Patients, visitors, students, staff, the family of staff who lived there–we’ve been passing in and out of Greystone for seven generations. Built in the 19th Century, it was part of a revolution in the way society dealt with mental illness. No more corporal punishment. No more demeaning nicknames. No more restraints, unless it was absolutely necessary for safety. It was called The Moral Treatment.
Greystone may not have been the greatest place to be in 1980, but it sure was in 1880, before it became overcrowded and underfunded. It was called an asylum because it was a place where people would be safe. Every patient got a room with a view, good food, and lots of fresh air and natural light. And patients got something else: Respect.
They were given a chance to do some useful work, and to be part of a community. Once the idea of the Moral Treatment took hold, states began competing to see which one could build the best asylum. Greystone was one of the last of its kind, the biggest, and one of the best in the nation.
The Moral Treatment correctly identified those simple things that we take for granted–good food, fresh air, natural light, and a chance to be part of a community–as important conditions for good mental health.
But assumptions that the absence of those conditions was the sole cause of mental illness proved to be wrong. Just being there was not a cure. But it was a worthy try. Unlike some of the treatments that took its place, the Moral Treatment at least did no harm.
It is ironic that, after the Moral Treatment fell out of favor, the Kirkbride Buildings were vilified for overcrowding and shabby treatment. That’s the part of the story we all know now. To many of us growing up around here, Greystone was a scary place. Maybe it always was a scary place. The very idea of mental illness can be scary. Maybe it’s like that part of ourselves that we don’t like to look at.
Working in a place like this, even when it was new and conditions were good, would not be for everyone. Greystone’s staff deserves tremendous respect for doing a very difficult job under very difficult conditions.
‘MADE TO LAST FOREVER’
There never was anything wrong with the overall culture of the institution. It was always about care for the patients. It was overcrowded and underfunded because society refused to pay for better than that.
There’s no denying it. For better or worse, Greystone’s history — all of it — is ours. And the building is ours, a grand old building with four-foot-thick masonry walls, made to last forever. The builders really thought it was so good that just being there would cure mental illness.
A program on that particular aspect of it, and its rich horticultural tradition, is scheduled for the Frelinghuysen Arboretum in September. Our forebears left us something incredibly massive, and beautiful down to the last detail.
There are considerable financial incentives for redeveloping historic properties, as well as for green renovation and energy conservation. (The latter is something not considered in the feasibility consultants’ report, though there seems to be a great opportunity.)
But it’s not so easy to put a dollar value on the benefits of redeeming something rare and valuable that’s been with us for a long time. Once could could say that it is priceless, and it’s safe to say there is consensus on that.
There also is a growing consensus that government shouldn’t be in the real estate business.
Based on the way the state has presented the study results, it’s pretty obvious that it shouldn’t be in sales, either. This study is a great resource, and the consultants did a great job on the historic angle.
But considering how much money taxpayers will lose if the building is not redeveloped ($7- to $10 million in demolition costs, probably a low estimate), the consultant could have pitched the study to developers in a more enticing way than “this is a money loser, don’t waste your time(!)”
They could have featured the “contingent feasibilities” in section 7 more prominently, and they probably should not have included the $ 6.5 million reimbursement of hazardous materials cleanup costs in the developer’s tab. That’s money the state will have to eat anyway.
These two items alone (reimbursement of state remediation costs, and additional demolition costs) more than make up the $11 million “funding gap” prominently featured in the study.
We’re glad the administration finally is addressing Greystone Park, and not kicking it down the road yet again. But we would have preferred more public input on what ultimately is to be done with it, as has been done with other projects financed through EDA bonds, like Ft. Monmouth.
In the state’s absence, we will do what we can to provide that service, though our resources are limited. Anyone interested in helping out with public participation on Greystone should contact preservegstone@gmail.com. We are committed to transparency, and to the opportunity for taxpayers to voice their concerns and aspirations for this public heirloom.
John Heubner is president of Preserve Greystone.
