69°
NORWALK, Conn. ‒ The Norwalk Daily Voice accepts signed, original letters to the editor. We reserve the right to edit submissions, but we respectfully ask that you keep your correspondence under 500 words. Please send letters to norwalk@dailyvoice.com.
To the Editor
NORWALK, Conn. ‒ Repeated letters to the editor and comments online, seemingly from the same 6 or 8 folks, have raised some spurious issues that need to be set straight for the citizens of Norwalk with respect to the Oak Hills Golf Course and the Authority that controls it.
I can’t golf anymore, but I know that when I did, I would have used a driving range. Whether one can and will be built at Oak Hills remains to be seen. Everyone has a voice in the process, but a small group should not work overtime to hijack the legitimate workings of our municipal boards and authorities.
The bottom line is that Oak Hills has been and continues to support itself. There have been some cash flow issues because of the economy that have led to the city extending out the terms of capital loans, but the course runs like a business. As such, they need to overcome some poor decisions made in the distant past related to the set-up of the restaurant and other infrastructure decisions. The driving range is just another aspect of that business plan. The Authority needs to increase its revenue through more extensive use, while minimizing impact on the neighborhood. In sum, Oak Hills is a premier asset for the City of Norwalk, and they are appropriately exploring whether a driving range will be additive to the overall experience and economics.
The vitriol on the part of the few people that seem to oppose this exploration phase is unfortunate. Rather than using facts, it seems mystical statements from faraway dentists and unsupported statistics are what stand in as an effort to frame the issue. Conflating the operations of the course with potential removal of trees and trying to spin this issue negatively via confusion are not the way to move forward. I urge anyone concerned to come to one of the scheduled meetings to learn more. There will continue to be an opportunity for neighbors and citizens to come forward and be a part of the process.
Dave McCarthy
Comments (25)
No surprise Virgulak and his supporters oppose a forensic audit. The last time a commission he was on (2nd district) went through a forensic audit he was convicted of felonies, with others, of stealing from the 2nd district.
Mr. McCarthy, you read your own words disingenuously. Your original letter, as I pointed out before, clearly shows that you are in favor of a driving range. You may revise that point, but say so honestly. This back-pedaling on statements clearly included in your letter is tiresome and, frankly, irrelevant. If you don't like the "dentist" comment, then say so but don't begin to believe nor state that this is the entirety of expression by those who oppose a driving range, arguments of supported fact that have been expressed many times, over and over, on these blog threads.
The financial information you received from one committee clearly does not state all of the facts as printed in The Hour newspaper. Did they make up this information as well? There have been several late payments on the 3.1 million dollars as well as poor planning on the OHPA's part if they could not, in fact, include enough money in their budget for winter, a yearly occurrance. There was talk, also mentioned in The Hour, as well as Nancy on Norwalk, that the balance of the 3.1 million is being considered "forgiven".
Mr. McCarthy, where does Norwalk get its money? From taxpayers. That "forgiven" money as well as the $150,000 "bridge loan" could come from us. When there are so many other pressing needs for the City, which I hope you are examining as a City Council person through an honest filter, this much money "forgiven" to golf, an optional sport, is just bad.
In actual fact, you don't know if it is six or eight people who oppose an additional amenity at Oak Hills Park for golfers. The last go-round re: this driving range issue garnered over 1,000 citizens via petition who were against it. The economy is worse off now - how many people do you think this implausibly calculated by you six or eight people are going to get this time?
Diane, You are obviously very invested in this discussion and that is great and should continue, I did not include you in the 6 or so people I made mention of.
If you have observed a violation of FOIA, report it. If there are factual arguments against something, then present them at the appropriate time.
My letter is in response to extremely specific instances of a handful of people going to any length to spin an issue without fact...to wit..."my dentist said driving ranges don't make money"...and I pointed this out. I also specifically said I had no idea whether this should go one way or another.
My comments related to the financial performance of OHPA are based on the financials presented thru Mr. Hamilton's office, if you are implying that they are improper or incorrect, come forward and show that to be the case. Assailing facts thru innuendo and phony conclusions is not appropriate.
Trying to rebut the statement "whether one can or cannot be built at Oak Hills remains to be seen" in any way tends to show your hand. The content of this letter was intended to encourage open and honest dialog, your intent in opposing that puzzles me.
I'm sorry if you are upset that your arguments against the Day St project were shown to be incorrect and were not acted upon. You had some strange motivation that I don't understand for fighting that project, and your opinion was shared by 2 people who are very money motivated. I feel they used you. If this is simply the next thing that you are going to hurl accusations on, I will not be surprised if the result is the same.
I'm sorry if you are upset that your arguments against the Day St project were shown to be incorrect and were not acted upon. You had some strange motivation that I don't understand for fighting that project, and your opinion was shared by 2 people who are very money motivated. I feel they used you. If this is simply the next thing that you are going to hurl accusations on, I will not be surprised if the result is the same.
David, to begin with, the arguments against the sale of Day St were and still are correct. The properties are valued in excess of $2 million. You authorized an Agreement to Purchase Option with the Norwalk Housing Authority for $1 dollar. The math does not change. I am not against the redevelopment of Washington Village - it is disgusting and disgraceful that the NHA has allowed it to deteriorate to the point it has and to treat flooded tenants with a complete lack of compassion. Building a dense, mixed-use, mixed rate development can't happen fast enough for my taste. But not by giving away city land, that will be turned over to a private developer (Trinity) and not by telling residents they can all return if there is a possibility they can't. I can only hope HUD has more sense than local folks....
Now, if you want stop whining about Day Street and what you incorrectly labeled as "misinformation", we can continue to discuss the Oak Hills Park issue....
Oh God. What did we do to deserve this?
Councilman McCarthy, here is my line-by-line rebuttal to your misinformed account of Oak Hills saga....apologies in advance to Voice readers for the length, but want to cover all the misinformation in his letter:
Councilman McCarthy says: Repeated letters to the editor and comments online, seemingly from the same 6 or 8 folks, have raised some spurious issues that need to be set straight for the citizens of Norwalk with respect to the Oak Hills Golf Course and the Authority that controls it.
The facts: The issues being raised are all factual & well documented: financial difficulties, potential mismangement, lack of a feasibility study, lack of transparency, etc. In 2012 the Authority missed it’s loan repayment, and in 2013 needs a bridge loan just to pay expenses. Residents have been told that no feasibility study was conducted during the time Mr. Virgulak and others were meeting with Mr. Downing of Total Driving Range Solutions nor would they produce any documents from TDRS or any proposals. As to transparency, the latest iteration of a plan, really the one from 1999, was sprung on residents during a public hearing on the plan they reviewed from 2012. As to mismanagement, one need only look at the allegations of Oak Hills’ former superintendent, which thus far having been proven true.
Councilman McCarthy says: I can’t golf anymore, but I know that when I did, I would have used a driving range. Whether one can and will be built at Oak Hills remains to be seen.
The facts: Mr. Virgulak never investigated whether one could be built, but rather worked with Total Driving Range for almost 12 months determining the site and initial plan. By the time the behind-closed-door meetings were brought out at an Oak Hills Authority meeting last summer, the range was being pushed as a project, with the public unaware of the continued efforts to construct a driving range. Following the next several meetings, apparently only an ad-hoc committee met, but never noticed the meetings to the public- Mr. Virgulak continued to deny the existence of the committee even after it was exposed (yes, by a former, albeit, ultimately disgruntled employee).
Councilman McCarthy says: But a small group should not work overtime to hijack the legitimate workings of our municipal boards and authorities.
The facts: If only they were legitimate workings! Legitimate workings include public meetings, open and transparent communication, meeting minutes and other documents, and does not include an authority chair advising me to “investigate NEON instead”. By the way, that “small group” last go around was comprised of over 1,000 petition signatures to stop the madness.
Mr. McCarthy says: The bottom line is that Oak Hills has been and continues to support itself.
The facts: Wrong again Councilor… the cash flow issue was known in September when they had already started robbing Peter to pay Paul – the treasurer admitted recently she had to make a decision to risk a shortfall or make the loan repayment on time, and chose the latter. Former Course Pro Vinny Grillo even wrote a letter warning residents that unless the Authority had reserves on hand of a specific amount, OHPA could not make it through January. The treasurer continued to avoid disclosing any problems (publicly at least) until finally in November they were no longer paying vendors on time and had no money to rob from Peter – the jig was up before Hurricane Sandy hit, but that was part of the straw that broke the camel’s back. Rather than come clean at the December meeting, the treasuser “declined” to present a financial report at the authority meeting – first time ever that I could find in recent years minutes. The warnings from the former superintendent continued into December, with most of us in denial that the Authority could actually need cash for payroll and bare minimum operating expenses. I for one thought that perhaps both the former pro and the former superintendent were disgruntled and trying to alarm taxpayers….but, alas, the public admission in January- from Treasurer “we need to ask city for $150,000 loan”.
In 2011, they missed their payment on the refinanced $3 million loan, which had already been restructured once for them. Then it was restructured again in 2012 following the missed payment. They only made the September 2012 loan by taking money they knew they would need for the winter operating expenses.
Councilman McCarthy says: There have been some cash flow issues because of the economy that have led to the city extending out the terms of capital loans, but the course runs like a business.
The facts: Partially true – in addition to extending terms of the existing loan, the council this Tuesday will likely approve an additional $150k loan for operating expenses. Saying this course runs like a business is an insult to small business owners everywhere. Any business run like this would be one thing: out of business.
Councilman McCarthy says: As such, they need to overcome some poor decisions made in the distant past related to the set-up of the restaurant and other infrastructure decisions. The driving range is just another aspect of that business plan. The Authority needs to increase its revenue through more extensive use, while minimizing impact on the neighborhood.
The fact: They need to increase revenue through rounds of golf, THAT is what a self-sustaining golf course is. Then they can consider what other types of appropriate recreation might be revenue-generating, environmentally-friendly, and in keeping with the character of the neighborhood that surrounds it.
Councilman McCarthy says: Oak Hills is a premier asset for the City of Norwalk, and they are appropriately exploring whether a driving range will be additive to the overall experience and economics.
The fact: True the course is an asset to the city, one amenity that perhaps a small group of prospective home buyers might consider. But again, OHPA was never exploring a driving range, rather they were planning, nay, banking on one! Do you honestly not understand the difference between a Feasibility Study, a Request for Qualifications and a Request for Proposal? Only when read to them verbatim did the OHPA members even stop to consider the mandate of the Plan of Conservation and Development, which states the following under Section C.3.1.1. Parks:
“Consider the construction of a municipal golf driving range by examining sites in which such a facility would be in keeping with the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood and its environmental conditions while recognizing the need to preserve public park open space to the greatest extent possible.”
Recently OHPA Member Mr. DesRochers has begun latching on to the words “examining sites” and stating to whoever will listen that that is what they are doing now and intended to do all along. But that is not exactly true either: Instead, until recently they were quoting from and relying on an old Master Plan of the park that predates the current POCD and one they interpreted as free reign to put a range as they wish.
Councilman McCarthy says: The vitriol on the part of the few people that seem to oppose this exploration phase is unfortunate.
The facts: Okay, for the last time: there was NO exploration phase that was public – where have you been for the past 6 months? They did the “exploration phase” starting in November of 2011 and continuing through the fall of last year, announcing plans to have a range designed, constructed and operated by a third party, even to the point of laying out the specific location for the new driving range.
Councilman McCarthy says: Rather than using facts, it seems mystical statements from faraway dentists and unsupported statistics are what stand in as an effort to frame the issue.
The facts: Facts? NOW you want facts after I asked the Council and BET to investigate the finances and operations of Oak Hills? We have plenty of facts and data, and much of it from reputable golf industry associations and professionals – a fellow name of Jack Nicklaus comes to mind. The opinion of the dentist you refer to happens to be shared by many. And if put aside that his brother was former pro at Oak Hills, surely you respect the opinion of highly regarded Norwalk native son Paul Grillo of Sterling Farms, home to a profitable course and yes, a driving range. Note that Sterling Farms experiences the same hurricanes and other weather conditions as Oak Hills. While Mr. Grillo may have a vested interest in keeping his the only driving range nearby, surely you don’t think he is providing false financial data to us. The information is a matter of public record in Stamford. In Norwalk, uh, not so much.
Councilman McCarthy says: Conflating the operations of the course with potential removal of trees and trying to spin this issue negatively via confusion are not the way to move forward.
Facts are: Conflating? Confound it, Councilor, do you think YOU can separate the issue of clearing trees from the issue of building a driving range? What would you suggest: building a treehouse driving range? And you want to see spin? Watch the OHPA start back-peddaling on everything from the scope of the project, to their intention to engage the public, to they always “intended” to examine alternative range sites, to calling it a bucolic Practice Range instead of the term they have used for all these years: Driving Range.
Councilman McCarthy says: I urge anyone concerned to come to one of the scheduled meetings to learn more.
The facts: I, too, urge everyone concerned to come to one of the scheduled meetings IF you can find the schedules. Last Thursday’s meeting was never on the city calendar, and now a new meeting cropped up for Tuesday, with two days notice. The agenda was issued Friday and indeed they intend to review and approve the range RFP document.
Councilman McCarthy says: There will continue to be an opportunity for neighbors and citizens to come forward and be a part of the process.
The fact: “There will continue to be…” is very misleading and disingenuous Councilor, when you know they only just opened the process to neighbors and citizens at the insistence of this “same 6 or 8” you mentioned in your opening line…
We need leadership on this issue from Mr. McCarthy, not attacks on individuals asking questions. We've seen this many times before from him.
If he was at the meeting last week, when speakers were attacked from the chairman and from the audience, he might think twice before singing the praises of the OHPA.
Mr. McCarthy, ask to watch the film of the meeting, and then write a letter talking about how we should all just show up and learn. Your letter may not have been written if you saw the inexcusable behavior of the OHPA board that night, using sarcasm and insults in the middle of speakers' statements. It was as bad as high school.
Many of us learned something that evening, about how bad our city is really run with unprofessional leadership, poor planning, and bullying. Be careful who you start to defend before knowing all the facts, and before attacking citizens who are just asking questions.
Mr. McCarthy, you cast aspersions to anyone against the driving range in your first two paragraphs by saying the same "6 or 8" people (how do you know?) are raising "spurious issues" and, again, later, anything they say is "vitriol".
"Oak Hills has continued to...support itself." - that is just outright misinformation. It is NOT supporting itself. This Authority has made very poor calculations re: capital improvements (3.1 million dollars) and overhead (winter, who would have thunk? It actually happens) at $150,000.00.
Show us a business plan with gross, net and revenue that works - the numbers given out on a very hazy spread sheet were, according to at least one finance committee, optimistic and show no need for loans at all! So why is OHPA going begging to the City for our taxpayer dollars? It was mentioned that the balance of the $3.1 million remaining is going to be "forgiven". That means, the money OHPA "borrowed" from Norwalk, supported by taxpayer dollars, is coming from our pockets.
"I can’t golf anymore, but I know that when I did, I would have used a driving range." Your words, Mr. McCarthy, copied from your letter. That to me sounds like a driving range would be right up your alley if you were golfing again. You have learned so well the techniques of politico-speak. Make a statement, then back peddle as fast as you can.
I would love to come out of those OHPA meetings having "learned more." But, it's hard to hear over the name-calling, tantrums and encouraged cat calls from Mr. Virgulak and friends from their buddies in the audience. Honestly, I did not get why "factions" even sat together until my experiences with these meetings. It is for their protection because, in fact, words do mean something, Mr. McCarthy, and being "called out" means something and being truthful means something.
Teach the OHPA some manners, teach them how to listen, how to give information that is supposed to be public, to those that have been politely requesting it.
Your degradation of anyone who speaks out against the OHPA clearly shows you to be in favor of their mismanagement, oh no, I mean "cash flow issues", and "business plan" that does not seem to exist except in their own minds.
I came back to check and found this mess. I would recommend "Connected" reread the letter. I am neither supporting nor opposing the driving range, I am supporting the process of gathering more information and letting the Authority work. I have had several people complain to me that they feel crowded out and alienated by the handful of people (who are completely entitled to their opinion and right to speak) who feel that the one who shouts the loudest wins. That was the motivation for this letter.
The 150K is a bridge loan for the winter months and the Authorities financials as accepted by the finance director show it as profitable by Jun 30. It is this sort of ranting and screaming without facts that I am opposing.
Connected, bbow41, DianeC2, if you are even three people, I don't see one instance of name calling in the original letter, can you point that out to me? It seems odd that you all show up here and do exactly what he says you have been doing in the original letter. Yelling, screaming and accusing everyone of everything under the sun...if someone is doing something illegal, call the cops, file a FOIA complaint, don't defame them in the press
@LadyLisa
As to "call the cops", well that might be really easy as Mr. Virgulak requests ON DUTY patrol officers at the OHPA public hearings. Nice, huh? What is he afraid of? Some disgruntled out-of-town senior golfers? Those patrol officers should be, well, say, patrolling! I don't want the few cops we have on patrol at night to be babysitting Mr. Virgulak like their his own security detail for pete's sake.
As to FOIA complaints, Mr. Virgulak has admitted to an overall lack of understanding of the regulations and to problems in the past. Recently Mr. Guyer has been most cooperative in remedying their oversights and violations whenever they are pointed out to them, but I assure you that continued disregard for proper agendas, any illegal use of Executive Session, or untimely minutes should certainly be considered for future complaints.
Ah, Diane C2, what a fine fondness you have for the petty and picayune. Pettifoggery too.
And, clearly, alliteration is your friend.
Dear LadyLisa (nice moniker), I am not "yelling, screaming and accusing". Rather, the information I have shared comes from meeting minutes, published reports and interviews with individuals who are experts in their field, that would be golf professionals, accountants, architects, etc.
It does not serves one's cause to report anything inaccurately. It takes away from credibility which everyone must want and have in order to talk about something productively.
I did not defame anyone by naming names: rather, I referred to my readings about Mr. McCarthy and have, in fact, spoken with members of the OHPA including Mr. Virgulak.
The fact is, we don't know if the OHPA is doing anything illegal. This is not to say they are, just that there has been very little transparecy as to how money, borrowed from Norwalk taxpayers, is being spent. A call for a forensic audit has been rebuffed: not the annual audit where an accounting firms says that the OHPA is following proper accounting procedure. A forensic audit examines how money is spent, contracts, expenditures and receipts. No such verifying information has been forthcoming.
I think those who appear to be "yelling" are those that have had extensive contact with Mr. McCarthy and find that he has written a letter without any supporting documention proposing to "set the record straight." It is so very disappointing.
Hey, Connected, I don't see McCarthy questioning anybody's right to speak. He's questioning what they say. If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that nomination to the Supreme Court.
"Everyone has a voice in the process, but a small group should not work overtime to hijack the legitimate workings of our municipal boards and authorities."
dunnebster: I would interpret the above statement, especially the "should not work overtime to hijack the legimate workings" as a call to not make an effort to either be informed or to speak to the problems continuously presented by this OHPA leadership. Thus, suppress the right's of those in opposition to pursue and speak to the issues from Mr. McCarthy's letter.
"If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that nomination to the Supreme Court."
Thanks for the compliment but this would not be being pursued by me nor desired.
"...a small group should not work overtime to hijack the legitimate workings of our municipal boards and authorities."
Has Mr. McCarthy forgotten the democratic process? Unless the consitution and Bill of Rights has changed just in the City of Norwalk, a group small or large has the right to speak up in their municipality when things seem to be going very, very wrong.
"The bottom line is that Oak Hills has been and continues to support itself."
This is an outright falsehood unless the OHPA intends to withdraw its request for $150,000 in taxpayers money to cover this winter's overhead. It is also incorrect in that $3.1 million was already extended in the form of a loan to OHPA for capital costs and there is talk that the balance of this loan is to be forgiven. Under the OHPA, Oak Hills is not self-supporting at all (which was not the case in previous years, going back decades, through many different economic climes when the OHPA was not in charge.)
The sum Mr. Virgulak, himself, has been using to others (I've heard him) that is represented as income for a proposed driving range is $800,000, a number "borrowed" from the success of Sterling Farms' range last year during an exceptional year (the last two words a direct quote from Paul Grillo, manager of Sterling Farms.) Mr. Virgulak needs to be reigned in if you believe this number is a true representation of revenue: it is, in fact, a gross figure, before expenses of $425,000 in maintenance and $375,000 due the City of Stamford in rental fees. (This information obtained directly from Sterling Farms.)
"The vitriol on the part of the few people that seem to oppose this exploration phase is unfortunate."
Of all the disingenuous statements made, this takes the cake. The OHPA has been popping up with meetings all over the place with the very minimal requirements for public disclosure and then being more than unaccepting and rude to anyone with a differing opinion from their own.
The last meeting was to concern the RFP (Oh, excuse me, that would be the last meeting before last night's meeting) process with various members of the board giving a wink to those against a driving range and saying, "We have a surprise!" Yes, they did. They sprung a 14-year-old practice range plan on everyone which misrepresented everything having to do with creating an RFP process for which opposition was told to be prepared. Falsehood after falsehood.
Mr. McCarthy, I have read a good deal about you in the papers - why would you write about this controversy without any supportive facts, the very thing you are saying the opposition does not hold? Have you spoken with any of them? Are you aware of the expertise and study at their disposal?
It is sad for you that you would use a position of leadership so falsely. There is no confusion here just puzzlement that, as a good and decent person, you would fall for so little information and write so definitively. You know nothing about this topic at all much less "setting the record straight about Oak Hills."
@connected - I've been dabbling with a rebuttal to Councilman McCarthy's highly inaccurate account, but you've done a fine job here. I'll post mine when done, complete with redundancies as I agree with most of your assessment.
Rather than address the facts presented by driving range opponents, Mr. McCarthy prefers name calling. He seems to feel that the only true facts are ones that support his opinion. It is this type of arrogance that led to poor decisions by the OHPA in the past.
Well said, and true.
Why indeed can't residents of the greater Norwalk area have a golf driving range in their vicinity? Those of us who might enjoy that kind of recreation now have to go 15 or 20 miles away. All this caterwauling by a handful of nyetniks is ridiculous, and their arguments make little sense.
Given the profitiability that some here assume, perhaps a range can go into one of the many 'empty holes in the ground' in Norwalk?
Google Directions: 8.1 miles or 18 minutes to Sterling Farms Driving Range;
16.7 miles or 36 minutes to Ridgefield's Golf Performance Center, Ridgefield.
For a game that is optional but available to you, daily. Why does Oak Hills Park really need this amenity when two are nearby, in the vicinity as you suggest, and available year 'round?
Yes, the OHPA is having some cash flow problems but I am confident that with their aggressive marketing strategy they will increase the usage of the park. What should also be considered is that when the economy turns around and it will because everything is cyclical, the course will be in a position to be competitive with others in the area and that may mean that a driving range is a consideration. Let's just keep an open mind.
Feel free to contact me with any concerns at dtmccarthy@optonline.net