46°Norwalk's $5,000 questions - Should city spend money to move controversial playground equipment?
Jan 28
2012
Norwalk city council will consider legislation at Tuesday's work session that would ultimately relocate the playground equipment at Sofios Park.
That's the same playground equipment which the prior administration set right next to the Lee family property on Brian Lane and caused a public outcry from residents in that neighborhood.
The legislation calls for a supplemental in the amount of $3,333. The total estimated cost is $5,000 which would be appropriated two-thirds from the land acquisition fund and one-third from the required match in the general capital improvement fund. The cost would include new concrete, stone, mulch and tiling, Finance Director Diane Eschen wrote in her summary.
Several city council members said Friday they are eager to hear the details Tuesday on this proposed project.
"I'm going to sit back and listen to the administration's argument for doing it," Councilman Chris Mushett said.
"At first look, we're unnecessarily spending money to undo something that has already been done," Mushett said. "There are other costs, too, like man-hour costs to do this and when it was originally done. And there could be potential damage to the equipment while moving it. This equipment is not meant to be installed and then re-installed."
Councilman Bob Carleton has questions, too.
"I need to find out why we need to move it," Carleton said. "Is it not in compliance with our zoning laws?
"The city budget is tight and to be good stewards of the money we need a real good reason for it to be moved," Carleton added.
"I will definitely have questions," Councilman Kelly Beck said. "I'm going to wait and see exactly where it is to be moved and why they want to move it and then go from there. I'm concerned about setting a kind of precedent."
Council President Steve Euton said Friday he's awaiting more information.
"It's normal for the administration to provide more background and have the full details Tuesday night," he said.
Mark Schloemer, safety-service director, explained the administration's thinking Friday.
"The city wants to give the impression that it's the best neighbor it can be, within reason," Schloemer said. "Moving it is the right way to go.
"But it was not budgeted so it needs a supplemental to do that," he added.
Schloemer said if council approves the legislation, the equipment will be moved east of the restrooms.
"Closer to the soccer fields," he said. "That way, parents can watch their soccer-playing kids and their kids playing on the structure."
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Comments
Share your thoughts and opinions with your community. All comments on our site are governed by our Discussion Guidelines. You must have a valid account to post comments.
06:34 PM
norwalkresident says
I have one comment to all of you who are just now blogging on this issue. I would like to know numbers and how many new jobs the former administrations brought to Norwalk in 8 YEARS against the numbers of jobs we lost? When you can show me that we had a positive increase in 8 YEARS vs.30 days then you can yell about our current Mayor. Talk the Talk Please. I refuse to cut on anyone blogging on here. That is called free speech, but You folks all need to look at the aerial before you spout off. You want to be so involved then go to council and see this first hand not thru the Reflector or gossip. What a shame that we cannot get things started in the right direction. That statement made by Kelly Beck this is not a swamp was not smart. Maybe there are not alligators there but I thought wetlands meant it was wet. The sad part is if you look at the aerial picture (passed out at council) where it is and where they want to move it makes it the safe way to go for the kids. I personally was told by a soccer person from the beginning they wanted it in the middle. (This is about the kids I thought) I as a parent or grandparent would not want the restrooms blocking my view of watching my one child playing soccer and the other one far away next to a WOODS and back edge of a parking lot (person sitting in car observing child going unnoticed) where someone could snatch them up. Let alone taking child from the playground area to a side street and driving off. Pick up the paper and see how many sexual predators’ there are out there. If you think we are a small town and this won’t happen you are living in the clouds. The playground location is wrong for the main reason of the safety of the children bottom line. (If you do not see this then you must not be a parent) This should have never been put in the back of the soccer complex away from parents. I could care less if swamp or no swamp. I do not live near this park and the bottom line is The KID’S safety is number one and if you guys don’t see this issue, God help us all. I just hope I never see headlines that a child was snatch up while parents were watching soccer game in this paper because you people do not see this issue now. After it happens it is a little late to say oh we made a mistake. Anyone of you who thinks this is not an issue then you need to get out more in public and watch how parents are distracted at functions and their kids are out of sight. This park is in at beginning stages. Let’s do it right so 5 years down the road everything is not in all the wrong places. Everyone needs to be adults and quite acting like children playing tug of war. Kids safety first.05:31 AM
Snoozer says
Hey folks heres an Idea? Stare at the the " Playground equipment" in the photo for about 1 minute! ( not her wrinkled jacket ) Look at the Cheap Plastic green slide in the background. How much did this Big lots playground cost again? Its would take no more than ten men to move this thing at the most.07:42 PM
bopper117 says
heck lets trash it build new stuff across from bob evans.that way u can eat and so .mayor could claim he made more jobs.i hate soccer field anyway.should have built swimming pool.to much redneck tv but better than some stuff i been seeing08:41 PM
rockman5876 says
I personally wish we could start the top issue of the year off on jobs instead of making such a big deal about moving some playground equipment. This is what got the last administration all bogged down and they seemed to get nothing done that really mattered. Come on people, we have to expand our vision a little in this great city of ours and until we do we will be stuck in the mud. Lets not get stuck in the mud again and start talking about all the petty things. Remember, Jobs first and all the rest of these issues will fade away.12:42 PM
Cliff Cannon says
@rockman5876: I find myself in agreement with you----way too much time and energy is being wasted on this topic ( And yes,I'm guilty too) May,I point out in the article about our school's----2 million dollar---levy,there is exactly 1 comment. While moving this equipment generates over 150 comments.Think about it a moment.This levy if passed will raise property taxes nearly 14 % and yet,last night in the first informational meeting held by our well ran school system at Maplehurst school, one could've sat most anywhere as the 'crowd' was extremely sparse.Is that incredible or what?
"Remember jobs first and all the rest of these issues will fade away" Very well put.Thanks for your wisdom.
09:43 AM
6079 Smith W says
@ rockman5876: "Jobs"?But Mayor Lesch told citizens that all the park building was a "quality of life" issue. Along the lines of "If you build it they will come."
These parks 'are' part of economic development. You obviously missed her sage advice and message.
Perhaps the message should now be: Move the playground equipment and they will come.
BTW: That new dog park oughta have the telephones ringing off the hook at the NEDC inquiring about business development prospects don't you think?
03:14 PM
grr says
yawn!12:20 PM
Uputwhatwhere6 says
Here is another safety issue that should be thought about. Shouldn't the wooden path have handrails? Anyone? There are a couple points with some ravines running under.11:15 PM
Seriously_Local says
$17k to $25k to move equipment? How much money does Duncan think there is? Someone should look into his campaign contributions and see how much K. Lee gave. I bet his SSD's family is also on there.02:36 PM
Kottage Kat says
Kousin Kitty, That figure is not correct, had you been at council you would KNOW this. Perhaps both candidates should have contributions scrutinized. That would be the fair and equitable thing to do. Although it does not have any bearing on the issue at hand. The safety of the children is paramount. If not, then council members better grab a screwdriver and start taking down the "NORWALK IS A KID'S PLACE" signs, based on their criteria, it is not. Kat10:41 AM
norwalkresident says
I was at council and I did not hear Kelly throw those figures out in the meeting. He must of talked to a reporter afterwards. If he did come up with those figures in the meeting it had to include the cost from putting it in( which must of been to much considering taking apart and rebuilding only going to cost $5000.00 now thats $20000.00 Difference ). I would hope this does not turn into another tree problem. Why is it the mistakes or things that get drug out and a lot of discussion stems from one person who is no longer in office. This is simple solution fix the problem now for the best interest and safety of the kids.11:56 PM
-rebel says
I am going to assume you are being sarcastiic about the cost. The figure of $17k to 25K is nothing more than a smoke screen attempted at throwing fear to the many who would like to see it moved. It's a common tactic by people when they know they are wrong. They are dead wrond, so they have to make up excuses and lie,, hoping the lie will spread.01:48 PM
kellybeck says
sorry, that was the number i was told by the administration. That is why i brought it up. I got the answer today and it was closer to $15 th. best case. That is with no problems.06:42 PM
ThomasJefferson says
@Smith- Is anyone counting the labor cost of this entire park? What are they doing otherwise this time of year? We don't lay them off, so they are being paid regardless. Looks like they are building the restroom there one slow block at a time-who is counting that labor cost?10:17 AM
6079 Smith W says
@ ThomasJefferson:I understand your point. However, paying for the same work to be performed twice is a waste of taxpayer funds. Also, there are numerous "hidden costs" (vehicle usage, wear and tear on equipment, etc.) connected with it.
The helps to confirm why I'm a big proponent of privatizing city services.
06:30 PM
Taxpayer68 says
Was there a noise nuisance, property impact,safety or traffic study of any kind performed? If not, I would guess there could be legal issues in the future. Safety should be a primary concern. Is it in a safe location, and who is libel if it's not? The city for putting it there in the first place.05:18 PM
norwalkresident says
Some of you folks who like to use the poor word of stick it (poor taste) need to know what your talking about. I don't think anyone is trying to do that. You all need to look at the aerial before you spout off and then read this.Let me tell you if this is what is in the future from our current council we are in trouble. It seems there were maybe 2 members with open mind. Maybe two and that might be stretching it. What a shame that we cannot get things started in the right direction. That statement made by Kelly Beck this is not a swamp was not smart. Maybe there is not alligators there but I thought wetlands meant it was wet. The sad part is if you look at the aerial picture (passed out at council) where it is and where they want to move it makes it the safe way to go for the kids. (This is about the kids I thought) I as a parent or grandparent would not want the restrooms blocking my view of watching my one child playing soccer and the other one far away next to a WOODS and back edge of a parking lot (person sitting in car observing child going unnoticed) where someone could snatch them up. Pick up the paper and see how many sexual predators’ there are out there. If you think we are a small town and this won’t happen you are living in the clouds. The park location is wrong for the main reason of the safety of the children bottom line. This should have never been put in the back of the soccer complex away from parents. I could care less if swamp or no swamp. The kid’s safety is number one and if you guys don’t see this issue, God help us all. I just hope I never see headlines that a child was snatch up while parents were watching soccer game in this paper because you people do not see this issue now. After it happens it is a little late to say oh we made a mistake. Any of you who thinks this is not an issue then you need to get out more in public and watch how parents are distracted at functions and their kids are out of sight. This park is in at beginning stages. Let’s do it right so 5 years down the road everything is not in all the wrong places. .06:21 PM
Justsayin2012 says
I completely agree with norwalkresident. The city put a wooden path thru a SWAMP!! I don't care what the counsil says, it is a SWAMP!! This path is in my backyard, and it is always, always wet back there. The mosquito's are unbearable in the summer. Are people really going to want to walk thru a mosquito infested swamp in the summer. I don't think so. The idiots who decided where to place this park, need to pay out of their own pockets to pay to have this moved. Our childrens safety should be the city's number one priority. A person who wants to snatch a child doesn't even have to park at the soccer field. They can park on one of the streets that the path comes out of. And they would be gone!!! With all the sex offenders roaming free out there, it would be in the best interest of the community to move it. And why in the world would they build a bathroom right in front of the equipment. Who ever made that decison is an idiot. Not only is the park in the wrong spot, but so is the WOODEN path that runs thru the SWAMP!! It is going to be a rotten mess in the matter of a few years, then the people of this city will have to pay AGAIN for it to be replaced. Instead of spending money on this idiotic project, the money should have been spent to fix the sewer/drainage system that floods basements down these streets in the area. The city of norwalk need to make this right.08:50 AM
iamrevolutionary says
I can say through our own exp., that it will be a REAL problem come spring/summer, when the mosquitoes and snakes become prolific! We don't live near the park, but near a wild life preserve in the southern part of the county. It is wet and swampy, and it has a boardwalk throough it. Mosquitoes will carry you away! I do not think that it is a safe place to take children if it is so wet plus has the woods near the park. I know I would not take our grandchildren to that park in Norwalk...At least until fall/winter. Maybe EARLY spring.. That is when we visit our nature preserves that have those issues. I think that the city would be remiss if it allowed children to be anywhere near it during mosquito season! PLUS, who wants to replace ruined clothes every time the kids play there?04:52 PM
grr says
soccer anyone03:54 PM
6079 Smith W says
According to the NR, Kelly Beck said that the ultimate cost to move the equipment could be between $17K-$25K.Remember Mayor Lesch sold Sofios Park to the citizens as a "quality of life" issue.
Kinda strange how that "free" land is starting to cost "real" taxpayer money. Whodathunkit?
06:29 PM
-rebel says
Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines10:27 AM
6079 Smith W says
@ -rebel:Based on your assessment, it would appear that KB’s recusal on this issue would be best. I appreciate your viewpoint.
Again, this is why I'm a big proponent of privatizing city services. It tends to decrease the likelihood of collusion and political featherbedding.
03:48 PM
-rebel says
@ 6079 Smith W - I don't remember exactly what I said before my comment was moderated, but I do agree 100% with you about privatizing certain city services.05:24 PM
6079 Smith W says
@ -rebel:Yea, the web edition of the NR is full of stories about druggies, prostitutes, child molesters and other assorted human trash, but don't write anything "bad" about someone or you'll get the boot! :)
Compare the impression that the NR paints for outsiders to that of bloggers who complain about me speaking ill about Norwalk. LOL!!!!
11:58 PM
-rebel says
Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines03:33 PM
-rebel says
This moderation deal is garbage. Perhaps you should moderate people like Cliff who like to snoop around and post people's real identities without permission. It's an unlawful practice.11:47 AM
Cliff Cannon says
@rebel,rebel.yeller,fritz and kellybeck ( Did I get all your user names) Are you for real ? Obviously,because you no longer work for the 'park and rec' you harbor a serious grudge,don't you? So when you run out of things to attack in this article,you grab any piece of dung you can and throw it at Joe or the park and rec,don't you?I've spent as many nights as possible since Baines opened in 1983 there.To say I love it,would be a tremendous understatement.Do people,drink beer there ? Yes. Is it legal ? No . Have people been arrested for drinking beer there? Yes. Does Joe or any member of the P& R condone it? No.
Further,I'd add,despite seeing, as well as being involved in countless on field 'trash talking ' episodes( I even led the league in ejections one year)the only fistfight,I even remember there came in 2003. So alcohol does not play it's usual trouble some role,there does it?. Norwalk's softball league's, as well as our field are simply put----the envy of the area.There are superbly ran !
So in your rambling commentary,you'd have us believe that Joe should spend every moment of every night there,attempting to enforce the city law that no one is allowed to drink alcohol on city property,true? Then would you also clone Joe,so he could stop every picnic at the reservior,that has beer at it? After all those can's end up in the trash as well,don't they?
I too work for Joe as an umpire and in no way shape or form is alcohol allowed any where near the area we can enforce---the fields.We have on each field 2 umps and 1 scorekeeper,would you have us leaving our games to chase every 'beer league' softball player,who has a beer on the hill,too? N.P.D. patrols Baines ---constantly---and as noted arrests those flagrantly drinking beer,for is that not their job? Would you have Joe riding with them as well?
I'm sorry,you no longer work for the park and rec. However,in conclusion I'll say this;I've never,ever had a beer with Joe Lindenberger and I think he's one incredibly cool person.So your rambling thought,that people 'won't think he's cool anymore' w/o beer is as usual for you......wrong
02:03 PM
commonsense says
Ditto Mr Cannon.03:45 PM
-rebel says
@ cliffy - Well didn’t I strike a nerve or 2 with you! So who at the reflector is your snitch breaking the laws of user confidentiality? Excuse me, you must have contacted Joe to put 2+2 together. Either way it doesn’t matter because I refuse to get into a pi$$ing match with you about all this. I am not hiding behind a damn thing, I just like to say things like they are, and as a result the reflector keeps deleting my user identities because people like you find my comments offensive. You sound dedicated to the park system, but so am I. When the weather is nice, I am often volunteering my own time walking in the parks with a pick stick and a bucket to pick up litter. I have been doing it for the past 5 years, and have yet to see you out there with me. It really saddens me to be down at baines in the morning picking up beer cans and bottles from under the playground equipment. You must be blind if you can’t see any problems with party hill. If you would like a real touching experience, get up some day before the sun rises and walk around the reservoir with many of our fine senior citizens who also pick up trash on their daily strolls. Sorry I am not a poetic blogger like you.08:12 PM
Cliff Cannon says
@ Rebel: To answer your question about the 'Reflector' :No one.You have put countless tips as to your identity on here to wit; You've known me for 20 years,S.P.H. 89 grad,( Gerard Boes is still my buddy as well Kevin Smith's family is extremely close to me)worked produce @ Apples as did your sister,then you apologized to the real Kelly Beck for using his name and so on.Very glad,to hear that you,like myself pick up other peoples trash.Been doing that forever and where ever,I've been. May, I ernestly say in 28 plus years @ Baines,I've never seen beer cans where you say found them. Still what you're doing with trash,certainly impresses me as to the caliber of man you truly are. (I'am sure neither of us understand,why morons leave their trash---everywhere,do we?)
I have no way of knowing if the 'Reflector' deletes your user i.d.'s or not. I just know again ----from you,that you use the aforementioned ones. I do not regard myself as a 'poetic blogger',I'm just another Joe Blow oFFering his opinion,with the hope it will either add to the conversation or help someone along the way.
I do take oFFense when good,kind people are needlessy insulted. In an open debate as these pages are for,I don't feel as though it is neccessary.Truth of the matter is,around every 'point' is 360 degrees,so I love it when people disagree,mainly because it oFFers the chance for true growth in those who seek it,would you agree?.Further,doesn't 'honest' debate allow for many to be right?
Would like to point out, 'Swiss family' who I have come to know and appreciate,was once again insulted by you in this article.Yet,who was ---the one--- who wanted me 'punished' right out of the chute for using your intials? I was very impressed by the courage of his convictions,were you?.You have ---in my opinion-- a tremendous amount of heart and talent.I truly enjoy it,when you use those great attributes well.Here's hoping you always do
P.S. I too have used insults on these pages,so please don't think,I don't know, how much I need to improve
03:54 AM
-rebel says
@ Cliff - you need to listen up closely...... This is a blog put on by a small town newspaper, that's it. It's one thing to get on here and blog like a smart a$$ which I often enjoy doing, but what you are doing lately is getting way too personal and I am informing you nicely that you really need to cool your jets with the personal information you are giving out, especially about family. Try getting yourself a sense of humor.10:08 AM
Cliff Cannon says
@Rebel: You need to listen closely.I put nothing about "family" on here.Because you asked,how I found out your name.I told you. Everything,I mentioned about you -----came from your own posts------save for remembering your past city employment. Further,go back and read some of the things you've posted about me.Then say 'don't get personal' to yourself. May I remind you,I only used your intials,what if you hadn't acknowledged me to be correct,wouldn't I look like the fool then? Just asking?In conclusion,may we in the future exchange thoughts,idea's and even vast diFFerences,like gentlemen? Here's hoping,because I consider you to be very talented and I for one,enjoy debating people with talent.
P.S. " An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" Gandhi
12:52 PM
Kottage Kat says
@CC ; )10:52 PM
norwalkresident says
I agree on the voting here I think snake in the swamp lol05:02 PM
norwalkresident says
Ya and he also said not a swamp or wet. So much for his talk.05:59 PM
6079 Smith W says
@ norwalkresident: Dismiss it if you like. But ya better make allowances for the cost of labor and equipment.03:19 PM
Now The Rest of... says
Is the new administration proposing this just to appease a supporter and to stick it to the previous administration, if so not at taxpayer expense.03:23 PM
Uputwhatwhere6 says
No. If you read through the comments you can see that there are quite a few that know the area. It was discussed on the show today on the reflector. It is a wet area and continuously so. It was poor decision making and partly spite that put the equipment where it is and in my opinion the responsible party for the bill should be those that put it there in the first place.03:29 PM
rbenn says
Plus a local resident offered to pay half the cost.03:40 PM
Uputwhatwhere6 says
You perhaps?04:25 PM
rbenn says
No not me lol08:02 AM
grr says
sounds like it is time to move or move on12:11 AM
ole45mag says
Get some of them juvenile delinquents from Cleveland to come here and burn the stuff like they did twice last year in Cleveland. They'd do it for cheap dope, which, from the amount of dopeheads and druggies we have on the court dockets, we got to have a huge stash of drugs in some evidence room to pay them with. Give them that stuff that chick had stashed away in her ... body.11:12 PM
rbenn says
I have to say I heard the most ridiculous statement ever tonight, Councilman Kelly Beck made the statement that its not wet back there. Really Mr Beck? This entire area back here is wet why do you think so many basements have problems? Water sits a long time back in this area. If you look on the maps provided for free at the soil and conservation district you will see that this is a low area so water flows to the lowest spot which is the entire Oakwood dr area. Plus the soil here doesnt drain well either and that is also explained on the maps!06:24 PM
Justsayin2012 says
Our yard is hardly ever dry. I can send the city pictures if they need them. It is ALWAYS wet back there, and our basement floods all the time!!07:09 PM
rbenn says
The 19 years Ive lived down here its been wet. I really dont know where and how Mr Beck came up with his assesment. But I have a good idea why he says what he says.09:31 AM
6079 Smith W says
@ pugsly: Reads like the case of the weatherman in the studio telling folks that it's sunny when all he had to do was to look out the window in order to see that it's poring rain.If this is indeed "wetlands," did the city perform it's due diligence to make pure positive that it would be in compliance with the EPA and governmental agencies for building on it?
Anyone wanna make the call?
10:16 AM
Kottage Kat says
pouring, perhaps ?11:36 PM
norwalkresident says
This is another good reason why there should not be relatives on council. I can see from this meeting who were the most vocal. Must have had a meeting before the meeting like the new covering up for old members mistakes. They sure were not open minded.