Neighborhood Residents Favor Using Phased-Out Shattuck School for Elderly Housing-August 16, 1976

If the Norwood Housing Authority selects the phased-out Shattuck School property to build apartments for the elderly, it may well find an agreeable neighborhood in which to settle. At least right now, most residents polled recently reacted favorably to the proposed public housing use for the former school property located at Fulton Street and Nahatan Street. State housing officials have cautioned the housing authority that neighborhood attitude is a critical prerequisite before a site can be approved and funds released—a lesson learned soon after the authority lost a protracted court challenge brought by East Cross Street neighbors against a proposed 104-unit expansion of the Nahatan Village elderly housing complex.

A recurring theme during the neighborhood survey of the older Shattuck School area—characterized by close, well-kept homes—was the hope that public senior apartments would displace the groups of beer-drinking youths who frequently congregate on the school grounds. Additionally, residents noted that attractive apartments would put the 3.5-acre site to productive use.

“The old people have got to have a place to live. I’m going to be old myself someday. They might as well put that land to some good use… and get rid of the idiots over there at night,” remarked Peter Cote of 15 Summit Ave., a young homeowner who noted he bought his house from a resident who moved into elderly housing. Equally outspoken was Patrick Kerr of 45 Prospect Ave., who complained that teenagers continually trespass across his property to reach the school grounds. Calling the nighttime gatherings a disgrace that police patrols struggle to permanently deter, Kerr favored the housing plan largely as a way to resolve the ongoing neighborhood nuisance. His tenant, Denise Gavrilles, sympathized, noting that youths had broken windows on the property the previous May apparently in retaliation after the town repaired a schoolyard fence that had blocked their shortcut. “They just don’t like the commotion around here,” Gavrilles said of her older neighbors.

From her home at 5 High St., Mary A. Folan expressed enthusiastic support, stating, “I tell you one thing, as far as old ladies—and I’m one of them—are concerned, to put housing there would be wonderful.” Next-door neighbor Ellen Naughton of 9 High St. agreed, explaining that the noise and drinking at the schoolyard constituted a year-round annoyance. Charles H. Flood of 2 High St. added, “I’d like to see something over there, it’s too nice a place to be idle.” Similarly, Mary Coughlin of 25 Summit Ave. noted her parents were 100 percent in favor of senior apartments, provided it was restricted to senior citizens rather than low-income family housing.

The lone explicit objection came from David Hertzberg of 51 Prospect Ave.—a family home for 34 years—who expressed concern that a housing development directly behind his property could adversely affect property values while disrupting his appreciation for the open, park-like school grounds. Meanwhile, Police Sergeant John J. Wall of 316 Nahatan St., whose houselot directly abuts the school property on two sides, adopted a neutral stance while noting that neighbors were beginning to discuss the proposal without registering intense opposition thus far.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger