Wold: More Questions on Dorothy Hamill Skating Rink

 

Screenshot, (bing.com)

Submitted by David C. Wold, Greenwich Resident and Veteran

We all know most people do not want to be on ‘blacklist’ of wasting town hall money and time by asking for FOIA related to proposals from Town Hall for millions of dollars.

There is something about the fact that First Selectman Fred Camillo makes a list of citizens who do request information this way, but avoid a list of employees, mostly living outside of Greenwich and

do not get the town information and not responding to simple questions on ‘is this spending in compliance with Town Charter and State statues’ – so most of us just try to avoid that by not getting

engaged in Town Hall matters.

For the fact that we do not have better checks and balance before things have been worked on by our ‘trusted’ employees in Town hall for years like the Skating rink project, in which we find,

after 50 years, of one property being parkland and one being skating, is hard to believe.

Representatives that I have spoken to in the RTM say they had no clue that their 150,000 and then additional 250,000 etc. ever was going to ‘redo’ 6.6 acres in the dedicated parkland and not

renovation/new skating rink on a 1.8-acre property. It seemingly just got created by Town Hall that they could swap land or move a 30,000 square foot building from one property to another and expand the building to 40,000 square feet before placing it on Dedicated Parkland.

For three years since the Legal Department’s comments on ‘naming what and where is the park’ and ‘insiders’ told us that the Legal Department ‘approved’ the swap in their report for Selectwoman Lauren Rabin, but a full copy of their report that states same – has not been produced.

 

Instead, we get a report from the Legal Department dated a week ago (2024) in which they give DPW an opinion that is not mentioning any ‘intent’/MI’ from 1969 onwards to keep rink on separate

property and open space related to the property that was dedicated by FS Ruth Sims on a different property – these two cannot even be compared as equal in parkland value I may add.

All MI from 1969 moving forward has pointed out that rink is one property and one purpose (there is no parking except ADA and staff), no playground, no basketball hoops, etc. on that property) and

the larger property is related to ‘no structures’ open parkland – with open air parking spaces as it has been since 1920 when the historical school building was built.

Application and listing in the National Historical Register points out the relationship between the building and the almost intact parkland on school property and the parkland properties. It does not even

address the fact that the skating rink has been installed on a separate piece of land that once belonged to the school (without the 30,000 square foot building).  The baseball field is clearly mentioned (the one that this MI application ‘swaps’ with an even larger building of 40,000 square feet).

Circling back to Legal Department and what should have happened, at least in 2019 when DPW took the ‘renovation/new building funding’ at the current rink property and started the idea of doing it on a different property by hiring A&E firm SLAM and giving them both properties as one. SLAM and the other firms bidding for the contract never did get copies of the previous MI and the Town intend to preserve the separate

property use.

 

Neither the Legal Department, DPW, Rink Committee etc., ever brought up and presented documents related to the donation of the land back in 1969, or the reason why it was separated at all from then BOE property. We never even got to see SLAM contract but know the RFP shows ‘all or part’ of the 13.4 acres (not the 6.6 that we are looking at now) can and should be in their proposal.  

The Legal Department brings up the ‘case’ of Friends of Kensington Playground V. City of New Haven 2022 WL 2132779 (notice the year, two years after DPW decided to move the building from designated property for a public rink building to a designated and dedicated parkland and two years before we have the Legal Department’s view today).  It is an interesting case as it is the Town selling town parkland (similar size as the proposed skating rink building area – or a 1/3 of current Rink property) to a private developer and Town of New Haven stating they would not need to provide similar open space to the public as they own the property and the developer is the one who is taking the land for other purposes. However, in New Haven, the ‘public’ filed a lawsuit and resulted in 2023 that City of New Haven has backed out of the deal of selling the land for one dollar to the developer who then would offer affordable housing on the property.

So, the Legal Department should have mentioned – there was never a decision in New Haven and that matter was an issue of selling before developing.

The Legal Department also refers to the Connecticut General Assembly which introduced Senate Bill 294 that did not pass the Connecticut General Assembly – despite ‘favorable reports’ but could very easily have gotten a different outcome in 2025.  A MAJOR roadblock if this does not pass TODAY here in Greenwich, or before the law passes in Hartford.

Could this be why DPW ‘rushed’ a rough plan via FS Rink Committee, had BOS ‘rushed’ the DPW plan thru 1^st and 2^nd reading without the 14 days ‘practice’ for public comments? Could this be the reason why DPW, BOS pushed off any questions about ‘substitute land’ being any issue in this case? The public had never heard about the proposal in Hartford Connecticut when they reviewed the plans.

The EMM Park that was more or less established in 1979 by Ruth Sims had already established a designated property for the rink and as per then Legal Department stated ‘expanding of the parking lot’ had been drawn in when the rink area was agreed in 1969 – but not yet installed. The ‘tax records’ in Town Hall gives a totally different value on the property that the current rink and much more attractive parkland

we are free to use today.

As James W. Macauley, then Assistant Town Attorney, said in 1991 “Parking is obviously necessary to make use of this (parkland and rink) just as parking maybe necessary to make use of any park functions. Consequently, the creation of a parking area of additional parking area to make use of this recreational use is not taking of land for other purposes.” (a understand that DPW used in Christiano Park in which there is extra need due to Pickle ball, was solved by making parking spaces inside the park – no MI needed).

 

TODAY’s Legal Department is avoiding informing the public, that previous MI (that are in effect today) from 1969, 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s has ‘Grandfathered’ agreements that Rink has its

property, and ‘open and free of charge’ parkland has its separate property but share only parking lot and the ‘name’ established in 2021. Believe the Rink ADA parking was shared with the parkland users, but not sure.

Current proposal moves ADA and Staff parking into the parking lot, at the same time as it gets reduced to capacity, despite all Mi’s, since 1969, has allowed same to be next to the rink.

Additionally, the Tree Warden issued a letter in 1991 that clearly stated the Norway maple in the circular area of the parking lot will be preserved (DPW wants now to move the circle maybe 100 feet and by that remove same tree). The Tree Warden also addressed ‘bus parking area’ (no idea where that is today).

Frank Keegan’s letter to Housing Authorities (1991) explains the expansion of parking spaces would have ‘no impact whatsoever on McKinney Terrace or its property’ which is Town of Greenwich property.  He said, ‘the footprint of the parking lot goes no further east than the existing parking areas and would “alleviate some of their parking problems.”  This is also stated in the current MI.

Well, I wonder how Frank Keegan would have presented the 40,000 square foot building 150 feet from the already approved Vinci Garden that overlooked nearly 5 acres of dedicated baseball field and parkland and instead looked at about the 40,000 square feet that has flood lights until 11pm and starts at 6am and vehicle lights shining into their building?

All these terms that are in the current MI are not even mentioned in the new MI application.

I have always felt that current and previous MI is what we have been entrusted to maintain. It is, in a way, ‘dedicated resolutions’ by our previous and current administration and any changes have to be carefully considered compared with current situation and it appears has not been done the Legal Department or DPW in this case. It is not up to the public to find what is current and compare with what is suggested by Town Hall paid employees.

When DPW establishes a platform that supposedly is created to inform and keep us informed of the ‘current’ purpose stipulated in MI’s, it should be posted and contracts with A&E should be posted.