YourCT.com header image 2
← Cloverleaf Interchange No Longer Preferred Cupcake Controversy In Greenwich →

Fiance Commitee Votes To Refund Donations To Rogers-Ritch Merritt Home


by turfgrrl


May 30th, 2008 · 46 Comments

Earlier the Historical Commission voted to release money allocated to the Rogers-Ritch-Merritt reconstruction project, and now the finance committee of the Common Council voted to do the same. The full council will have to vote on the authorization. We pick up from Alexendra Fenwick’s report:

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men look as if they’ve given up on putting the Rogers-Ritch-Merritt house back together again.

In a move that brings the dismantled historic house further from becoming whole again, the Common Council’s Finance Committee last night voted to use $115,000 set aside for the house to fix other historic buildings.

The Rogers-Ritch-Merritt home - believed to date from the late 18th or early 19th century - was disassembled and packed into trailers in 2002 after being donated to the city by buyers who planned to raze the structure.

The city intended to rebuild the house at Mill Hill Historic Park, but the project has seen many delays.

First, its historical significance was questioned.

Originally believed to have survived the burning of Norwalk during the Revolutionary War, it was later determined to have been built years after the 1779 event.

And an architectural preservationist hired in 2006 said it would cost more than quadruple the initial $250,000 estimate to reconstruct and restore the house.

The trailers now sit at an Ely Avenue site.

The full council must review the reallocation before making it final.

Letters would then be sent to donors who contributed $55,000 for the project, informing them they can reclaim their money, or put it toward other Historical Commission restoration projects, Finance Director Thomas Hamilton said.

It’s not clear what will happen to the house.

“It is worth something,”

Historical Commission President David Park said. “It’s not like we’re going to take it to a Dumpster or something like that.

“It does belong to the city of Norwalk. A private organization could take it over, if they had the money to restore it, I’m sure city of Norwalk would give it to them, but that’s a good question.”

At its April meeting, the Historical Commission approved redistributing funds assigned to the Rogers-Ritch-Merritt house to cover unfunded 2008-09 capital budget requests for other projects.

These include $35,000 needed to repair Mill Hill buildings, $20,000 for a Mill Hill Cemetery restoration, a $30,000 HVAC system for the Norwalk Museum archives, $10,000 for Norwalk Museum collection care and restoration and $20,000 for Pine Island cemetery lighting.

source: Advocate, This old house to stay in boxes, committee decides, By Alexandra Fenwick, 05/30/2008

Tags: History · Norwalk

46 Responses so far ↓ “Fiance Commitee Votes To Refund Donations To Rogers-Ritch Merritt Home”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 Anonymous // May 30, 2008 at 11:07 am

    This project will go nowhere until the HC takes responsibility for going out and finding an organization to complete it. David Park’s comment that “a private organization could take it over” assumes that non-profits will come calling to take it off their hands. The HC started this, and the HC needs to take responsibility for finishing it.

    While the reallocation of funds to other historical property projects is commendable, it’s a shame and a sad commentary on the dysfunction of this particular City Commission that in order to fulfill their mission, they have to cannibalize the work of those who came before them.

  • 2 anon // May 30, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Couldn’t they sell it and use the money for other historic projects?

  • 3 Anonymous // May 30, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    The Historical Commission has a history of being the most dysfunctional city commission, since the faux curator (and HC staff person) was illegally hired. She hasn’t done one positive thing since she received her no-show job from Esposito by way of her Godfather, Frank Zullo. And now her hand picked HC is continuing her path of destruction of the history of Norwalk.

    Why would any non-profit in town want to have anything to do with the city and in particular, this politicized and dysfunctional commission of her hand picked friends? Friends seemingly picked by her father, Fred Bondi and the mayor? This HC has spent all of their time undoing what so many really great people on the HC before them worked so hard to put together.

    This commission has about as much credibility as the faux curator, who spends her time doing the job of a volunteer (a very expensive volunteer) that is when she does show up to work! This commission cannot hold a candle to the others that came before them like John Cuneo, Deborah Wing Ray, Valle Fay, Kathleen Morrow, and others. This is the most unprofessional and anti-preservation HC ever.

    As a taxpayer, I am opposed to this money going to the HC which has a yearly budget. The reason the properties are in disrepair is because of the incompetency of the commission and their do-nothing staff, the faux curator. The Council should NOT approve of $30,000 in taxpayer money going to a Norwalk Developer who owns the NM building! All of this taxpayer money for a H-VAC system for only 561 square feet of RENTAL space! It would set a dangerous precedent! Council members beware!!!!!

    This is taxpayer money going for a private enterprise and it is only because this commission has Fred Bondi setting the Council Agenda and giving his son and his sons’ friends along with the curator our tax money to play curator and commissioners with. This is cronyism and corruption and nothing else!

  • 4 Anonymous // May 30, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    The previous Historical Commissions completely failed to find funding for the RRM house reconstruction, after the city put up 115k. They had several years to do it. This HC is just cleaning up the mess. At least basic repairs are beginning to be made to the Historic Properties.

  • 5 Anonymous // May 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Better a committee of fiances than a committee of old dowagers. Better to look at.

  • 6 Anonymous // May 30, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    The HC led by Diane Rochelle was the HC that got the original money. Then the curator started her phoney campaign that there were “slave graves buried on the site. This cost us the taxpayers the money for 2 more probes which found nothing since the site was fill dirt from the newly built Norwalk HS. The curator should pay us back for those probes, plus her salary for 8 years!

    Mrs. Rochelle was not going to be nominated for another term on the HC because Peter Bondi and his thuggish friends were screaming, “no more Diane” outside the caucus room which intimidate the Council. The next Chair of the RRM Committee, Bill Krummel, did nothing.

    The next versions of the HC spent all of their time doing the curator’s job (when Mrs. Robinson made the HC committees) and trying to get her to do her job. The city has bent over backwards to keep her in her no show job. They had absolutely no help from the administration, and got very bad legal advice from the Law Dept.

    This HC couldn’t raise the money either. Instead they are stealing it for other things. And they have Fred to make sure the money keeps flowing!

  • 7 Norwalker // May 30, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    It’s sad to say but it looks like the end of a well intentioned project.

  • 8 Anonymous // May 31, 2008 at 7:02 am

    Notice how we Norwalkers have been the beneficiaries of the wonderful sense of aesthetics that preservationists have: dismantled houses stored in truck trailers, neighborhood-busting cloverleafs, quarry-like rock-piles on scenic highways, death-trap eyesores on East Avenue.

  • 9 Anon // May 31, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    #3 who is the developer?

  • 10 Anonymous // May 31, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    #9 Fred French Investing.

  • 11 Anonymous // Aug 6, 2008 at 11:48 am

    This entire RRM episode has been one long laugh at the expense of the City of Norwalk.

    First, the preservationists were adamant that the RRM dated back to the Revolutionary War - until it was most definitely *proven* that it did not.

    Then they were admant that it figured largely into the Underground Railroad - until it was most definitely *proven* that it did not.

    Despite the proof from historians and archaeologists, against most people’s better judgment, and ignoring the comments from 75% of Norwalk residents, the house was dismantled by a company that later refused to rebuild it. After raising some of the money to start the project, the HC under the direction of Diane Rochelle then tried to find some other company to rebuild the RRM, only to find that the costs had risen dramatically from the original cost quoted at the time of dismantling - just as many people warned Ms. Rochelle and the HC it would. But for some reason Ms. Rochelle and the HC were equally as adamant as the preservationists that this house “must” be “saved”, and continued beating the drum for the Revolutionary War connection even though it was proven over and over again that this particular claim didn’t have a grain of truth.

    Now the pieces of the RRM are rotting away inside trailers parked in some obscure location, after being moved from Andrews Field where I’m sure all that dampness didn’t do them much good over the years.

    The HC would be best served by taking these pieces and selling them to some construction company that specializes in building homes with antique boards and beams - because the RRM is never going to be built, and is a waste of time and taxpayers’ money right from the get-go.

    On this subject, Norwalk residents can assuredly say “We told you so”, because they DID. Except they weren’t listened to, because Ms. Rochelle and the HC “knew better”.

    I think not. And time has proven us all to be correct.

  • 12 anon // Aug 6, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Same situation with 93 East now, except now theyu have a private owner on the hook and they are trying to force him to renovate it under the same auspices.

  • 13 Anonymous // Aug 6, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    “They?” You must mean the Historical Commission. I wasn’t aware that the HC was involved with 93 East Avenue. Before you start smearing all the historical organizations as one, do some homework.

    The organization spearheading the effort to save 93 East Avenue is the Norwalk Preservation Trust, a non-profit composed of volunteers.

  • 14 norwalker // Aug 6, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Anon 11 - As usual you are an encyclopedia of misinformation. Sue Gunnn is the only person who came up with the underground railroad fantasy. As for the rest of your misstatements, no matter what is told to you, you will insist that you are right because you are blindsided by your own arrogance, lack of knowledge and lack of respect for your town and its history. It is obvious that
    your anger is so great that if there is any intelligence that can be found, it is masked by your hatred. I think instead of blogging, you should do yourself a favor and try to calm down.

  • 15 Anonymous // Aug 6, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    #14 - It is truth that the preservationists insisted the house dated to the Revolutionary War.

    It is truth that the archaeologists proved that it wasn’t.

    It is truth that the company which dismantled the house later refused to rebuild it.

    It is true that the costs today of rebuilding the RRM far exceed those proposed in the tentative rebuilding budget of both the Diane Rochelle HC and the Marilyn Robinson HC.

    It is truth that the pieces of the house are rotting away inside trailers parked in some unknown location after being moved from the Andrews Field area where they had been sitting since the dismantling.

    It is truth that the preservationists to this day continue to insist that the RRM has some sort of link to the Revolutionary War and Tryon’s Raid.

    And it is most assuredly truth that this entire “project” (basically somebody’s pipe dream, and one wonders what they were smoking) has been a complete waste of time, money, and effort on behalf of the City.

    So - care to show me where the “misstatements” are? Because everything stated here has been public knowledge through many newspaper articles and various meeting minutes easily accessible on the City website, if one cared to spend a few hours reading.

    Put your money where your mouth is and prove me wrong. (*smile*)

  • 16 anon // Aug 6, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    I am not sure why there is such hostility between the two camps. Let’s try to take emotion out of the issue and discuss this from a logical, economic viewpoint. This is an inanimate object we are discussing here. No ones lives depend on the outcome of this project.

  • 17 norwalker // Aug 6, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    #16 - Your anger is still showing… As you well know newspapers very often do not print correct info especially if they are quoting someome like yourself.

    City records and research pointed to the house as pre-revolutiony (1744). As the house was dismantled piece by piece, it was discovered that the age was more likely 1795; however, there were older materials used to build this house. The property was originally much larger and chances are that an earlier house may have been on the property and this one built closer to 1795 using materials from an earlier house. Now, if for you 1795 is not old enough to be considered an historic property, then I should not be even wasting my time commenting to you. Part of correct historic research is to examine piece by piece and there is no crime in drawing new conclusions. That is what research is all about.

    The archeologist Weigand thought the finds were significant, enough to be able to create a planned permanent display within the rebuilt RRM as a teaching tool. An architectural historian was called in and presented the project as very unique and worthwhile. His report is available.

    The person who dismantled the house does this historical work for a living. All city work has to go out for the bidding process, which it did. The Glastonbury guy did not bid as I recall. That’s his business. At that time the project was being undermined by the same person from whom you are getting your information with the story of the graves. That held up the project for well over a year while the property was searched for the 3rd,4th and 5th times without any resulting grave finds. The information given to the media by this person hurt the fundraising as well as 7/11.Diane Rochelle was not reappointed to the COmmission. The project went into hiatus for a time. Under marilyn Robinson the project was rekindled with Bill Krummel. The original person was called in together with an hisorical restoration who would partner with him. The line by line estimate did come to a million; however it represented the maximum replication down to nails and included a caretakers apartment (for future Mill Hill development). The price did not take into consideration pro bono, volunteer work and any number of items that were not really necessary. The line item list was already being slimmed down when the press got it and people like yourself who did not want to see the project come to fruition ran with it without knowing the real situation. Just like you make a blown-up story about the date. Any bids would stilll have to go thru the city bidding process, so there was no certainty that this price would be the lowest or highest. Of course, costs have risen - what hasn’t?

    The trailers were examined due to the continued accusations from people like you. The original contractor went in and reported that the contents were exactly as they were originally put in. The location is not ‘unknown’. The wood is not rotting.

    The emphasis of the RRM house was that it would add a new museum to Mill Hill which would represent an important part of Norwalk’s maritime history which is sorely missing in the city. Since it was shipowners’ home, it was a perfect venue to do this and complete the Mill Hill complex and would present a teaching tool for the children’s and anyone visiting there. It would also have added a sorely needed storage area for Mill Hill as well as handicap bathrooms.

    And, by the way, no one on the HC was a smoker that I know of. What I have said is the truth and I will no longer engage in a discussion with Anon 15.

  • 18 anon // Aug 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    I assume you meant anonymous 15 was showing his anger, and not me….

  • 19 norwalker // Aug 6, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Yes, I meant Anon 15. Sorry.

  • 20 Anonymous // Aug 6, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    “What I have said is the truth and I will no longer engage in a discussion with Anon 15.”

    There’s really no need to continue now, since you have proven every single one of my points in depth and quite well. (*smile*)

    Thank you very much. (*laughing*)

  • 21 Anonymous // Aug 6, 2008 at 6:02 pm

    *asshole*

  • 22 Anonymous // Aug 6, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    “*asshole*”

    Yes, you are. (*laughing*) But you didn’t have to state it so clearly, it was already obvious.

  • 23 Anonymous // Aug 6, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    (*laughing asshole*)

  • 24 turfgrrl // Aug 7, 2008 at 6:12 am

    anonymous 21-23: What is it about attacking other commenters that you don’t understand? Clean it up people.

    The Management.

  • 25 Anonymous // Aug 7, 2008 at 7:18 am

    Sorry. I retract my comments (but not the sentiment) in 21 and 23. Please forgive.

  • 26 old timer // Aug 7, 2008 at 10:52 am

    There is an 1847 map that shows that property as the home of “Capt.W.J.Merritt” Back then it was common practise to use wood salvaged from other buildings to build a house. Windows, especially, were expensive, hard to get, and were always carefully salvaged and re-used.
    It takes a real expert to accurately date the construction with so much recycling of building materials. Chestnut was readily available then, widely used for structural beams, and practically indestructable. Some buildings were framed with Chestnut sills resting on the ground and that wood is sound to this day.

  • 27 Anonymous // Aug 7, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    Hey. George Washington didn’t sleep there, did he? Ain’t worth saving.

  • 28 History Starts with Me! // Aug 8, 2008 at 8:54 am

    #27 George Washington did not sleep or even visit the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor - Does that mean we should not consider it to be a Landmark of History? Is the only history worth saving predicated upon George Washingtons sleeping arangements? Please explain further on how this works - Would any George Name help select landmarks Like Geo, Washington Carver, or Geo. Bush?

  • 29 Anonymous // Aug 8, 2008 at 10:42 am

    I was referring facetiously to Lou Cicarello’s comment upon being hired as legal representation for the Norwalk Motor Lodge. See my post #74, item 1, in the “Lost and Found” thread.

  • 30 Anonymous // Aug 8, 2008 at 11:37 am

    Apparently, unless it was part of the Parthenon, it’s not historic. Now I understand why the British Museum won’t return the Elgin Marbles to Greece…

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply