Open letter submitted by Javier Aleman, RTM District 4, Byram to the RTM
Dear RTM Members,
I am writing to respond to the recent email urging renewed consideration of 100 Arch Street / Baldwin Park as the site for the new municipal ice rink.
(Berg: Rink Can Be Built “Harborside” May 1, 2026)
The central problem with that argument is simple: 100 Arch Street is not part of the decision now before the RTM. The Board of Selectmen has made that point explicitly and unanimously. In its statement to the RTM and the Greenwich community, the Board stated:
“We want to be entirely clear: we do not and will not support developing an ice rink at the 100 Arch Street (Baldwin Park) location.”
That should matter. The RTM is not being asked to choose between Morlot Park and 100 Arch Street. The responsible Town bodies have already reviewed the alternatives, and the Board of Selectmen has removed 100 Arch Street from consideration.
There are several important reasons why the recent argument for 100 Arch Street should not distract from the decision now before the RTM.
1) 100 ARCH STREET WAS REVIEWED AND REJECTED
The Hamill Rink Task Force evaluated alternative sites before recommending the modified Morlot Park plan. The Board of Selectmen then unanimously supported that recommendation. Planning & Zoning granted Municipal Improvement status with conditions, and the BET approved funding with conditions.
At this stage, continuing to promote 100 Arch Street does not advance the process. It reopens a site that has already been reviewed, rejected, and expressly ruled out by the Board of Selectmen.
2) PRIVATE WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT MAKE THIS A GOOD MUNICIPAL RINK SITE
Pointing to expensive private homes or condos on the waterfront does not answer the actual public policy question before us. Of course buildings can be engineered in coastal areas. The question is whether the Town should place a major public recreational facility, serving children, families, school programs, youth hockey, figure skating, public skating, and tournaments, in a coastal flood and surge risk area when another viable public park site has already been vetted and approved through the process.
Private owners can choose to spend extraordinary amounts of money to engineer around waterfront risks. That does not mean the Town should assume those risks, costs, and operational complications for a municipal ice rink.
3) A RINK IS NOT THE SAME AS THE EXISTING TEEN CENTER OR PARKS GARAGE FOOTPRINT
The argument that 100 Arch Street has existing buildings on it oversimplifies the issue. A municipal ice rink is not just another building. It is a large, specialized public facility with refrigeration systems, heavy mechanical infrastructure, team circulation, loading needs, parking demand, youth drop off and pickup activity, and year round public access requirements.
Replacing older, smaller existing structures with a major rink and related programming is not a simple “same footprint” decision. The impacts are different. The use is different. The infrastructure is different. The public burden is different.
4) A SIGNALIZED CROSSWALK DOES NOT RESOLVE THE SAFETY CONCERNS
The fact that Arch Street has a signalized crosswalk does not resolve the safety issue. A rink creates repeated, concentrated pickup and drop off activity involving children carrying equipment, families arriving during peak practice times, weekend tournament traffic, evening activity, and winter conditions.
A crosswalk used for ferry access or occasional events does not prove that the site is well suited for daily rink operations. The question is not whether people can cross Arch Street. The question is whether this is the best, safest, and most appropriate location for a heavily used youth sports facility. The Task Force and Board of Selectmen concluded that it is not.
5) PARKING AVAILABILITY IS NOT THE SAME AS PARKING SUITABILITY
The claim that the Island Beach lot has empty spaces during certain periods does not solve the problem. Parking for a rink is not just a raw count of spaces. It involves safe circulation, predictable access, drop off and pickup operations, pedestrian movement, conflicts with other public uses, seasonal patterns, and the long term planning of an important waterfront civic area.
The Island Beach lot, Baldwin Park, the ferry area, Arch Street, and the surrounding waterfront serve many public purposes. Treating that area as available overflow for a rink ignores the broader planning concerns that led the Board of Selectmen to reject the site.
6) THE COST CLAIM IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A VETTED PROJECT
The claim that Greenwich can build a “Harborside Arena” and renovate the existing Hamill rink for less than the modified flip is not the project before the RTM, and it has not gone through the same level of review.
It is easy to present an attractive concept with a restaurant, harbor views, lease revenue, two municipal rinks, and lower costs. But those claims are not the same as a vetted municipal project with land use review, site analysis, design development, operating assumptions, and formal support from the Town bodies responsible for advancing the project.
The RTM should be careful not to compare the actual Morlot Park proposal against an unapproved concept that has not been subject to the same scrutiny.
7) THE DECISION BEFORE US IS WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD OR DELAY AGAIN
The practical effect of reviving 100 Arch Street is not to improve the project. It is to delay the project. The Town has a clear recommendation, a defined site, a modified plan, Municipal Improvement approval with conditions, BET funding approval with conditions, and unanimous support from the Board of Selectmen.
We should not allow a rejected site to become a reason to stall a project that has already moved through a thorough public process.
The existing Dorothy Hamill Rink has served Greenwich for decades, but the need for replacement is clear. The modified Morlot Park plan is the proposal that has been reviewed, revised, and advanced by the appropriate Town bodies. 100 Arch Street has been considered and rejected.
For those reasons, I support moving the Morlot Park recommendation forward and not reopening 100 Arch Street as an alternative.
Best regards,
Javier Aleman
RTM District 4, Byram