Norwalk: The Lawyer Papers will overflow Klondike Park

by turfgrrl

August 11th, 2007 · 75 Comments

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

75 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: The Lawyer Papers will overflow Klondike Park”

• 1 Mike Shay // Aug 11, 2007 at 8:48 am

  Such sillyness. Here’s a modern idea; get rid of the taxing districts, unify as a modern city instead of an amalgam of fiefdoms.

  NO THANKS. I would very much like to keep the 3rd Distric just as it is, thank you.

• 2 turfgrrl // Aug 11, 2007 at 9:06 am

  Mike Shay: So that the East Norwalk library can be continue to be funded by tax payers yet not participate in the CT State Library System? And hey, who keeps paying for the monthly landscaping in front of the library? How many times will the tree change positions? And, really good job with the pot holes the size of moon craters on most third taxing district roads, Van Zandt, Fort Point and now Osborne. Yep, all good reasons to keep things the way they are.

• 3 indiga // Aug 11, 2007 at 10:44 am

  Not so fast with the tar and feathers for 1st taxing district. Problem is that Nolin/ Moccia say one thing in papers and another thing to District Commissioners. The City refuses to acknowledge that 1st taxing owns ANY of its parks. It IS a legal issue and may be part of a “land grab” to expand the Parks and Wrecks empire. Do you want the City that treats history like landfill taking care of the Green?

• 4 Anonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 10:54 am

  Who pays taxes on the green. That will settle the matter right? If the first taxing district pays property taxes on it then the matter would appear settled.

• 5 turfgrrl // Aug 11, 2007 at 11:22 am

  indiga: Point taken, but I’m not limiting myself to just the first, all the taxing district bureaucracies are under my tar and feathers. And isn’t there only one other town in Connecticut that has these things? I just don’t see the purpose of these today, especially since I’m a regionalization and streamlined services type o thinker.

• 6 Mike Shay // Aug 11, 2007 at 11:49 am

  Post 2
  “Mike Shay: So that the East Norwalk library can be continue to be funded by tax payers yet not participate in the CT State Library System’

  Everybody is bitching about historical crap. We have plenty in the Third District. The library being amongst them. You think you will get the firehouse for the peanuts the city rents it for now? We make up for the pennies we spend on tending flowers, by the money we save on electricity. Let’s not fix it if it ain’t broken. I would be that if a referendum was taken in the Third District if they wanted to be incorporate into the ONE CITY idea, the people who proposed it would be hanging from lamp posts. You would have to be retarded to want to be part of the 1st and 2nd district. We have everything to lose and NOTHING TO GAIN.

  Yeah! We want to be part of the MANRESA PURCHASE DEAL, like we need a hole in the head. We can make more money buying the bonds to finance it so the rest of the city can close the deal. Of all the districts the 3rd seems to be the most pleased with the status quo. FORGEDDABOUTIT.

• 7 Roger McBride // Aug 11, 2007 at 11:51 am

  I can see how the city would treat us if we disolved the Third. Vets park would be used as a Toxic waste dump and parking lot for City garbage trucks.

• 8 Anonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 1:08 pm

  Indigna, you lie aain, read what Moccia said in the papers, they do not intend to execise any claim on any FTD park, that was in the press relese he issued. He also said that if the research showed that the FTD owned the park that would be it. If the research shows that in the city’s opinion they own it, that all parties should sit down an to avoid a long legal battle, submit it to an arbitration panel for a decision. You have constantly lied on this blog and you continue to do so because of your fanatical and hysterical dislike for Moccia because he did not reappoint you to a commisson. In case anyone out there thinks she is objective. She also never answered the quetions about her and close relative’s invlovement in the East Ave house demolition, which of course she blamed on Moccia. Finally everyone should ask how much has the FTD spent on legal fees to Mr Slapin’s friend a lawyer from Greenwich who works for one of the most expensive law firms in the area and who lives in Darien. His fee is probably $300 an hour. He started a lawsuit when there is no need for one. I understand that a FOI request has been made with FTD to determine how much this lawyer has been paid over the last few years for Slapin’s follies. Hear rumours it could be as high as $150,000 or more. There is a term in the legal profession about lawyers that bring in a lot of money for their law firms, They are called “Rainmakers”. Fulton is a rainmker, but Slapin is Chief Thundercloud

• 9 Anonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 1:47 pm

  If my memory serves me right, that piece of property was privately owned for many years after a restaurant that stood there burned down and because of non payment of taxes the city siezed the piece of property in order to offset taxes owed.

• 10 Anonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  Indiga, you are constantly wanting to inject your negativity and abusive attitude towards the mayor and others in Norwalk. What do you really know about Norwalk history? Do you know anything of the people who helped build this town? Do you know anything of those started here and raised their families here? All you moan about are buildings and pieces of property, what about the blood, sweat and tears of those who came here and built the town you are fortunate enough to live in. I hope that if you really want to win a seat on the council that you start thinking about the citizens needs as much as you do about the pieces of property that don’t put food in their families mouths

• 11 Indiga // Aug 11, 2007 at 2:44 pm

  I love Norwalk’s history and the passion and patience it took to create a life here — no matter where you came from. Caring about the buidlings that these strong people built with their own labor respects the effort. It honors those who lie in our cemetaries. Samual Grumman and his wife, whose homestead was at 93 East Avenue, lie in Mill Hill, within site of the old homestead. Stephen Buckingham St. John, whose family and its descendants lived in 93 East Avenue from 1804 to the 1930s, lies in St. Paul’s. His monument is within eyeshot of the destruction to his once grand home. I respect the people and their work enough to try to save it for the future. And, 8 and 10, I even respect your passion for destroying it. Sometimes new is better. This, however, is not one of those.

• 12 Anonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 2:57 pm

  Indigna, never mine the diatribe, why don’t you answer the questions posed in No. 8, you have ignored facts before. Do you deny that Moccia in his quotes said that they have no desire for any FTD parkland, and by the way how do you know what he supposedly said in private. We all know who you are and you were not reappointed etc. How about your involvment or relative’s involment in the East Ave Demolition. How about the fact that the city has no further legal involvment in the 93 East Ave case, and the city has no power to do anything, or the fact that several Alex Knopp appointees on the ZBA voted to allow the project to move forward. You my friend are a distorter of the truth and as far as Mr Greenpeace goes, please back to rehab, because no one has the slightest idea what you area talking about. The miserable 25 live on, living by their motto, Live Free or Lie. 65%

• 13 Anonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 3:39 pm

  #12-leave Mr. Greenpeace out of this. He actually does know what he is talking about unlike Indiga and friends who are non stop Moccia bashers who wish to destroy anyone who doesn’yu agree with their ideas. 93 East Ave is privately owned, was approved for demolition by the ZBA and is not the property of Norwalk.

• 14 turfgrrl // Aug 11, 2007 at 7:36 pm

  Well, well anti history people, what else to call you since the claim is the private property owners can do whatever they want to their property, except oops, we don’t exactly let people do that in the 21st century because of this thing called zoning.

  The thing is, that history is just as much a community economic asset as parks, roads and utilities. I don’t think we want to adopt the Communist way of destroying the past in order to supplant it with boxy soulless modernity, otherwise known as suburbia.

  You have something called an Inn that looks like a motel. You have something that looks like an Inn or quaint New England tavern that is next to the thing called the Inn. Yegads, can’t anyone over at the Inn figure out that there’s a marketing opportunity to take the cachet of a revolutionary war building into a unique reason to choose the Inn over the chains? Boston managed to paint a red line around its sidewalk and gets millions of visitors walking the “freedom trail.” Proximity to the red line is an extra $25/night.

  Call it haunted and soon a movie location scout will be clamoring for a film permit.

  Call up the history channel which has an ongoing program to “save our history” and get them to film the building and fund its preservation.

  And yes, expand the Norwalk Inn right up to the back door and get more rooms in there. They somehow manage to preserve buildings and modernize them with additions in the rest of the world.

• 15 ANonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 7:47 pm

  If it was more profitable to do it that way, he surely would have done it. History channel is a great idea. I am sure they could offer him enough money to do what you want with the building. Of if enough people in Norwalk care about this issue, raise the money through private donations and buy it. Zoning is designed to make sure buildings are appropriate for the area, and as long as he is going to build something that is permitted in that zone, he should be allowed to build it. The intent of zoning was never intended to stop someone from tearing down existing structures, but to make sure new construction is within parameters for that zone.

• 16 Anonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 8:03 pm

  Handrinos could care less about Norwalk’s history, all he cares about at this point is saving face. And he will sacrifice Norwalk’s history to do that. If people like ANusymous had their way the only type of history that would exist is the kind found in books.

• 17 ANonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 8:08 pm

  And I think the vast majority either agree with me or don’t really care about that house.

• 18 turfgrrl // Aug 11, 2007 at 8:15 pm

  ANonymous #15: I don’t know if the Norwalk Inn people did the due diligence on renovation costs coupled with an addition that would combine the two buildings. I also don’t know if anyone has looked to see if the state had funds available for preserving historic buildings and facades, I do know that New Haven got state money for that exact purpose in the past.

  I would think that Norwalk is in the very unique situation of playing a significant role in being burned by the British during the Revolutionary war, and therefor has an great case to be made that this preservation deserves state funding, and because we are in fairfield county and provide so much tax revenue as it is, and because the state can then collect the extra room taxes it will eventually see the money back.

• 19 ANonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 8:26 pm

  Is this the only house left from that time period or are there other existing houses already preserved that serve as a historical example of this construction? If so, how many do we need? And if I am not mistaken, the state funds would also be my tax dollars being spent.

• 20 turfgrrl // Aug 11, 2007 at 8:36 pm

  ANonymous: I think that this is the only house in Norwalk that survived the burning, which in my mind is more important than the style of construction. And yes, any state dollars could be construed to be your tax dollars, but right now they go to Old Lyme, Willimantic, New Haven and all the other towns that manage to get historic state funds, or whatever they are calling them. So the state is using your tax dollars to fund tourism and historical tourism already.

  Just like the state is using your tax dollars to to give away as tax credits to film companies who film in CT.

• 21 nwlknative // Aug 11, 2007 at 9:13 pm

  This is not the only house that survived the burning of Norwalk. There is one on Canon Street and one on William Street that I know of and probably others. Both of these homes were owned by friends of mine and have quite a history. Wasn’t it also said the Incerto house survived the burning of Norwalk and that is why it was historical?

  I also believe the owners of the Inn did a study on the cost of incorporating that house into its addition and it was economically not feasible, although the NPT came back with facts and figures disproving the costs. The owners of the Inn also said they would preserve the house if they could build a third floor on the Inn. This would mean a zoning change and I believe the surrounding neighbors complained about that. The owners are between a rock and a hard place. They took a run down, seedy hotel/motel and have made it into a very lovely venue. They just want to add more rooms to make it profitable and to compete with the newer chain hotels that have come to our city. It is too bad that some kind of agreement can’t be reached. I would love to see that house preserved and turned into a Bed and Breakfast or some other tourist friendly place and I bet the owners of the Inn would be happy to preserve the house if they were able to expand in some other direction. i wish everyone would stop the fighting and accusations and come up with an agreement before #93 ends up like #124.

• 22 Conservatively Speaking // Aug 11, 2007 at 9:56 pm

  Is there a list showing what homes survived the burning of Norwalk?

• 23 Norwalker // Aug 11, 2007 at 10:02 pm

  There are many houses that survived the burning. Strawberry Hill has 2, The house on the corner of Richards Ave and Fillow St, to name a few.

• 24 nwlknative // Aug 11, 2007 at 10:20 pm

  There is also one on the lower part of Newtown Avenue that I know of, probably more, but definitely one.

• 25 Indiga // Aug 11, 2007 at 10:38 pm

  There are other houses that survived the burning so that is not the main reason to save 93 East Avnue. The main reason is that it is an integral part of the Norwalk Green historic district and one of the remnants to remind us that the Green was the 19th century center of town. I think even the most adament opposition has to admit that the buildings around the Green (with a few exceptions) create a look and feel that is distinctly Norwalk. It is, I believe, a justifiable source of pride. Stamford and other towns have lost their Green; we still have it. Some claim that 93 is not “on the Green” but when you drive down East Avenue, it frames your view of the Green with Collins Funeral and the other houses on the other side. Squint and you can take yourself back a few centuries. It’s really quite exceptional.

  The Inn can expand in a number of ways without tearing the house down. NPT has presented options but — even during 9 days of intense court hearings — the Inn did not present one shred of evidence to show that it had done any cost analysis of saving vs. tearing down. They did not have a structural anlaysis. They did not present a single credible witness to attest to the fact that tearing down was the only feasible alternative. There case is based on “it’s mine and I can do what I want”. The scary part is that this is a property rights state and the court tends to lean in the direction of the property owner. And the judge is taking his time because it is truly a test of the CT Environmental Protection Act and its ability to protect registered historic properties.

  As an aside, a member of NPT was at Circuit City the other day and the clerk noticed the Save 93 East Avenue button. After a brief explanation, the clerk (a 20 something, never think about anything but your Ipod kind of guy) said, “that house would make a great addition to the Inn. I don’t know why they want to tear it down.” Nice to hear from someone who is not “the miserable 25.”

• 26 Anonymous // Aug 11, 2007 at 10:58 pm

  Indiga: Answer the questions about your lies, you have been challenged three times in the past few days and have not answered about your relative’s involvment in the East Ave demolition, or the points raised in # 8 and #12. How come some of you people who claim to be objective and defend her are not asking for intellectual honesty from her. Why her silence? She was bounced from a commission and has made up stories every day on this blog about the Mayor and other officals. So she found one person that agreed with her, but did he have all the facts? Or her version. The miserable 25 live on. A lie is a lie, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it never becomes the truth. We are waiting Indiga. By the way have you told people you live near the 93 East Ave, and maybe there is more than you are telling about your reasons for opposing the demolition,

• 27 Anonymous // Aug 12, 2007 at 7:34 am

  The venom and hatred in your postings are telling. How many other people close to you do you make miserable? I am astonished at the level of vitriol spewing from the cankered brains of some of the people in this community at those who are trying to save what’s left of it. I have to wonder if these bitter people are doing the will of the opponents of historical preservation.

• 28 Jake Kocian // Aug 12, 2007 at 7:43 am

  Does anyone remember the fight to save the buildings and facades on Washington street?

  Check the Hour archives and see who was for and against.

• 29 One of the 25 // Aug 12, 2007 at 7:55 am

  The NPT just held a fundraiser to honor the people who were instrumental in saving SONO. The city wanted to tear the old buildings down before there was even a development plan.

  From the Advocate’s coverage:

  “TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT
  Originally published May 19, 2007

  NORWALK—If you traced the roots of South Norwalk’s bygone preservation movement, you’d probably find yourself in an unlikely place - 50 Washington St., the plain, windowless monolith that is the bane of many local preservationists.

  It was the 1970s, and trendy SoNo was not yet so trendy. Crime was rampant, and countless buildings had been deserted.

  Mimi Findlay, then a graduate student at Columbia University, was giving a lecture at 50 Washington St. on a handful of those run-down buildings around the corner on South Main Street - buildings that were slated for demolition but would eventually be saved.

  “It was a brown-bag lunch. There were planners, the redevelopment agency and townspeople were there,” said Findlay, now 72. “I showed slides of the buildings, and it was spectacular. But the question was, ‘Who’s going to carry the ball from here?’”

  The way Findlay tells it, a rustle in the front row of the auditorium followed. Grace Lichtenstein, then a member of the Common Council, was needling her friend, Valle Fay, to take the challenge.

  Fay accepted, and the Norwalk Preservation Trust was born.

  Today, a handful of those who saved the buildings - and helped revitalize SoNo - will be honored at 50 Elmwood Ave. by the current incarnation of the Norwalk Preservation Trust. Findlay and Lichtenstein will receive awards, as will syndicated columnist and former Mayor Bill Collins and former redevelopment director Rod Johnson, among others. The awards are named after Valle Fay, who died in 1997.

  “South Norwalk didn’t look like it does today,” said Tod Bryant, president of the Norwalk Preservation Trust. “It was not a wonderful place to be. Due to the vision and the leadership and hard work of a lot of people, those wonderful buildings were saved.”

  Back then, said Collins, who was elected mayor in 1977, redevelopment wasn’t about integrating old buildings into new developments. “It was tear ‘em down, start from scratch,” he said.

  “The other side of South Norwalk is a classic example of that. The west side of North Main Street - that was a functioning neighborhood. Conventional redevelopment had leveled that . . . and built modern buildings that were immensely uninteresting, like 50 Washington St.”

  One of the first things Collins did after the election was squelch the demolition of those buildings on South Main Street. After spending time in Europe while in the military, he said he had come to value the importance and beauty of an old building. And he knew Norwalk had its share of old, important buildings.

  And he had attended Findlay’s lecture.

  Getting the rest of the city on board to save those buildings - and to restore other parts of South Norwalk - proved difficult. Then Lichtenstein, Fay and other preservationists came in.

  “It was like pulling teeth,” Collins said. “There was no enthusiasm from the community - except from the preservationist community. They were very sophisticated, but they hadn’t had many victories.”

  Soon they did. With the help of developer Arthur Collins (no relation to the former mayor), the buildings along South Main Street were restored - as were many other buildings in what would become SoNo.

  By 1988, the city had won a national redevelopment award for revitalizing the neighborhood - though Collins said he has never seen that award, because it was formally issued shortly after he left office.

  These days, the area is valued not only by the Norwalk Preservation Trust as a model for development, but by city officials as well.

  “In my mind, Norwalk turned a corner with Washington Street,” said Timothy Sheehan, executive director of the city Redevelopment Agency. “We learned very valuable lessons: that conservation and those important architectural amenities in an area need to be understood and integrated into a plan.”

  Yet SoNo’s turnaround followed the same pattern as many other rebounding neighborhoods in U.S. cities.

  After redevelopment made the neighborhood attractive again, rents rose, and many lower-income and minority residents were pushed out, officials said.

  Sheehan disputed that redevelopment was responsible for these problems, saying they are countywide. But former Mayor Alex Knopp said his administration tried to keep gentrification caused by the renewal plan from creeping into nearby South Norwalk neighborhoods.

  Village district plans, for instance, deterred outside investors from buying small businesses along South Main Street and knitting them together into one massive store, he said.

  “Developement is going to happen in the area,” Knopp said. “We thought, ‘It’s better if it happens under a plan that recognizes the impact of gentrification.’ ”

  But NEON Executive Director Joseph Mann said the city has not done enough to keep housing affordable in South Norwalk. He applauded preservation efforts in the neighborhood but said the city needs to be equally concerned with housing for low-income residents.

  “It’s a difficult issue. You have to allow them to develop, but there’s nothing on the city’s books that ensures that affordability is something that’s always addressed,” he said.

  The city’s recently created affordable housing ordinance requires that at least 10 percent of units in new multifamily developments are affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the state median income, or $65,000 for a family of four. But that does not do the job, Mann said.

  “That’s not enough by a long stretch,” Mann said. Affordable housing “is becoming scarce - particularly in South Norwalk. It’s running people out of South Norwalk.”

• 30 ANonymous // Aug 12, 2007 at 9:02 am

  Why are taxes so high in Norwalk. Let’s look at our surrounding neighbors with lower taxes. Darien, Westport, wilton,etc have lower taxes. Why? Probably less low income housing. If you do not have low income and affordable income housing, the free market economy concept prevails. Everyone pays what they are willing to pay for a home. Without low income housing, everyone pays taxes, sharing the burden, and no one is taking a free ride, which increases the burden on others. Those who can’t afford to live there move elsewhere, where they can afford to live. Stamford and Bridgeport are tearing down housing complexes. What is Norwalk doing? Building more. Where will these displaced non-taxpayers from Stamford and Bridgeport go? Right here to Norwalk where we keep expanding low income housing.

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

Leave a Reply