YourCT.com header image 2
← The Real Measure Of Economic Strength Blockbuster and Circuit City Merger →

Guest View: Improving Mill Hill Park Services


by turfgrrl


April 16th, 2008 · 68 Comments

This is part of an ongoing series of guest posts about issues in Norwalk. yourCT.com is a non-partisan site dedicated to airing all sides of a issue. That can’t happen without valuable contributions from our readers. 

Tourism, School Programs Need The Rogers-Rich Merritt House 

by Ralph S. Bloom

The recent articles about defunding the Rogers-Rich-Merritt House project for Mill Hill Park prompts the following questions.

The house, due to its size and not the era in which it was built, is planned to occupy the last approved building site in Mill Hill Park - what will take its place?

The three-level house provides public rest rooms, storage and office space in its walk-in basement - where will these services be placed now?

The house’s main floor provides four rooms for exhibition and this area is the only code compliant one in the park buildings - where will the handicapped go for access?

The house’s second floor provides a three room apartment for a caretaker - who is going to take care of the park?

The house’s site is the only one with a 360 degree view of the park, the other five buildings and the cemetery, a great location to guard against vandalism.

The Rogers-Rich-Merritt house is essential to completing Mill Hill Park, the only city owned historic property in the Main and Wall Streets redevelopment district.

Ralph S. Bloom

Norwalk Municipal Historian

Tags: Art · Norwalk

68 Responses so far ↓ “Guest View: Improving Mill Hill Park Services”


Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All



  • 1 Anonymous // Apr 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

    Mr. Bloom asks some poignant questions. Why is this this project being put out to pasture? Is it because that Fred Bondi wants this money to go for Fodor Farm because his son Peter wants his own historic house?

  • 2 Anonymous // Apr 16, 2008 at 9:48 am

    Poignant! The Historical Commission cronies who will decide the fate of this project are going to have to get their “Dick-tionaries” out for that one.

    In the “P” section of that particular publication - only a few pages in length - they are likely to find these entries: “pass the buck”, “politically inexpedient”, and “potentially hazardous”, but probably not “poignant.”

  • 3 Anonymous // Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57 am

    Ralph I was surprised to hear who wasn’t involved in working on this project on a day to day basis. Its a shame the faces of this city keeps changing we had an old friend who could write and talk about resolve and always suggested to take a child fishing.Too bad The Hour didn’t still have someone like him.

  • 4 Anonymous // Apr 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    This Commission is the worst of all commissions. I guess Dick would have his appendix removed by an electrician. How embarra$$ing to have this bunch of cronies doing ANYTHING in the taxpayers’ name.

    Disgusting. And just when you thought it couldn’t get much worse. I’m wondering why they didn’t put the curator’s Daddy as Chair of the Commission.

  • 5 Anonymous // Apr 16, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    I heard there was a meeting at City Hall today about 93 East Avenue. Did anyone else hear this? If so, what happened?

  • 6 Anonymous // Apr 17, 2008 at 7:47 am

    Yeah I think Handrinos was just making sure that the City considers arson as a form of legitimately dealing with “blight.”

  • 7 Anonymous // Apr 17, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Is that why the Ordinance Committee is considering an ordinance on blighted properties? Wasn’t Dick against the Demolition ordinance which is being IGNORED?

    Of course the hysterick commission doesn’t know the difference between a historic house and the mayor’s 57 Chevy.

    Does anyone out there know why Peter Bondi was kicked out of the State regiment of re-enactors??

  • 8 Disgusted // Apr 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Any research that the Historical Commission presents at their next meeting is a preconlusion of what they want it to read. Their reasons for reallocation are totally inaccurate and represent the original ravings of the staff person(expcept the mention of the non-existant slave and indian graves from the first go aroud years ago - better to forget that since that was what put the project on hiatus while the grounds were probed again for the 6th time and found NOTHING.)
    There is no way any reconstruction can save each and every part of a house that old. Even The Fitch House and Red Schoolhouse at Mill Hill faced the same problems and had fill-ins whereever and often necessary. THAT is what preservation protocol is and a problem all preservation faces every day. But the HC would rather see the project gone than save anything just to get their revenge. Why don’t they pay attention to Scott Kuyknedall’s letter which is far more that of a preservationist that anyone on the HC now. His are the statements of a real preservationist - not the staff person posing as a preservationist.
    Without previous HC’s and Ralph Bloom there would not be the Lockwood-Mathews Mansion and buildings in Mathews park, Mill Hill Complex, WPA murals and many other saved buildings and monuments in Norwalk. Take off your blinders HC and do your job of protecting Norwalk’s history. Maybe yo should reads your ordinance again to refresh your memories.

  • 9 Anonymous // Apr 17, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Who was it that said: “First thing we do, let’s kill all the developers?”

    Must have been an hysterical guy.

  • 10 Anonymous // Apr 17, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    Hey, a Republican with a sense of humor.

  • 11 Anon // Apr 17, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    93 East Avenue looks like an elephant jumped out the window and landed on the porch roof.

    I would love to see the RRM hose reassembled, but where is the money coming from? Are there any thoughts of trying to raise funds or something? Perhaps a written history of the home would help spark interest and open wallets?

  • 12 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 7:06 am

    Its an eyesore and should be torn down. I believe it is a safety hazard at this point.

  • 13 anon // Apr 18, 2008 at 8:39 am

    Gad. I drove by 93 and flipped. What a mess! At one point is the owner to understand the house is no longer worth restructuring?

  • 14 Ownership and responsibility // Apr 18, 2008 at 8:49 am

    In the hands of a responsible owner, the house could easily be restored to take its place as part of the Green. Look back on the blog and see the rapid “assisted” deterioration that has happened since Handrinos has owned it. It is criminal — literally — since the court issued a temporary injunction to maintain the property and prevent demolition. What he is doing is demoltion and is in violation of a court order. I thought Republicans were the “law and order” guys. Guess only when you agree with the law…

  • 15 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 9:39 am

    Gad! At what point is the owner to understand that he isn’t exempt from the law and has to stop the “vandalism” from occurring to the house as required by the injunction that the court issued against demolishing it?

    I wish Turfie would post the photos showing what the house looked like a scant few years ago and compare them with how it looks now. If anyone truly believes that the deterioration of the house isn’t intentional, they’re either deluded or haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on.

  • 16 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 10:01 am

    It is his house, let him do what he wants with it. You won’t let him tear it down, so why should he maintain it? Get over yourself folks. Most people don’t really care about thepis delapitated structure. Randomly ask people if they would prefer to see this eyesore taken down, and most would agree.

  • 17 anon // Apr 18, 2008 at 10:13 am

    He wanted to tear it down, but preservatists wanted him to restore it. He exercised his rights under the law to get a demolition permit. Preservationists used their rights under the law to obtain an injunction. He is now exercising his rights under the law to let nature take its course. The preservationists should now exercise their rights and offer him enough money to either restore the building or purchase it and restore it themselves. Every man has his price, you just need to offer enough money to get what you want.

  • 18 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 10:14 am

    Ignorance is bliss, and most people are ignorant of the issue. Of course that’s what they would say.

  • 19 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Handrinos’ price is a pound of flesh and saving face in the eyes of his cronies.

  • 20 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 10:50 am

    #16 You really show your ignorance on the issue. but ingnorance can be cured with knowledge, unlike stupidity.

    Handrinos bought the house knowing very well that it was protected in a historic district. But he thought he could get away with it because of his friends in high places. He is as arrogant as they come. The former Corporation Counsel thought that he could change the law by giving a legal opinion in the GOP’s friend’s defense. The court so far has said otherwise.

    #17 Many politicians (all parties) today sell themselves for too cheap. They would tear down their Great-Great- Great-Grandmother’s house for twenty bucks, and that’s with their Grandma still inside of it. Only to pay back a political favor to a crony. They are all slimy.

  • 21 anon // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:00 am

    And Handrinos is smart enough to play the waiting game. You need to buy him out to get what you want.

  • 22 anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Problem is that Handrinos won’t sell - he just wants what he wants…to destroy 93 East Avenue.

    No wonder the British Museum won’t give the friezes from the Parthenon back to Greece…

  • 23 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Considering what he’s spent on legal fees so far, and the taint on his reputation, I really have to question his intelligence.

  • 24 anon // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19 am

    Every man has his price. Gotta offer high enough he can’t refuse. How valuable is the property to him vs. How valuable the house is to you?

  • 25 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:21 am

    The question of value is one that the court will decide, not Handrinos.

  • 26 anon // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:32 am

    The court can’t stip him from letting it go. Who can outlast who.

  • 27 ownership and responsibility // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:37 am

    I think the court could stop him if it were pressed. The purpose of the temporary injunction is to prevent demolition. If his neglect and lack of securing the propery is construed as allowing demolition to take place, he is in violation of a court order. I don’t know what the penalties are for violating an injunction…

  • 28 anon // Apr 18, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Better read the legal definition of demolition. It is an overt act. Neglect or failure to maintain is not considered demolition.

  • 29 Anonymous // Apr 18, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Nobody seems to be asking the question why the Building Code Enforcement Dept. seems to be absent from the equation here. If I let a property of mine fall apart, I am sure that I’d be hearing from the City about it. The fact that the City hasn’t done anything to penalize the owner of this property for failure to maintain it speaks volumes about the backroom dealings that the owner has with the mayor and his minions.

  • 30 ownership and responsibility // Apr 18, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    #28 — I think there may be a different view based on the fact that this is a temporary injunction to support the provisions of the CT Environmental Protection Act. Perhaps the AG can work out whether Handrinos is in violation of the court ordered injunction…

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

Leave a Reply