After the March 12 Recreation Commission Meeting in Village Hall, the two sides in the debate over a proposed playground at Sixth Street and Hilton Avenue were easily identified as two distinct circles were formed to discuss what had just been discussed inside the Board Room. One group consisted of young mothers seeking a place close to home to wheel their tots in strollers and the other being residents living near the location, who argue that the site is unsafe and feel that the playground is unnecessary. Some had commented during the meeting that they felt there had not been enough notification about the proposal and that they felt this was "all so sudden." In fact, the playground for Central issue dates back as early as 1994 when, as reported by Eileen Murphy in the Thursday, Feb. 3, 1994 issue of Garden City Life, Trustee Judi Asselta asked at the Jan. 27, 1994 Board of Trustees meeting that $600,000 be placed in the 1994-95 tentative budget for a playground for Central.

The Central Property Owners' Association's Board of Directors had considered several sites for the playground and determined that the Village owned property on the corner of Second Street and Hilton Avenue be used and requested that the Board of Trustees work to bring the playground to Central as quickly as possible. There were no funds earmarked for the project in the 1994-95 budget, but the $600,000 had been written into the five year projected plan for 1995-96. Then Recreation Superintendent Mike Connor stated at that Jan. 27, 1994 meeting, "We are showing the neighborhood play area for the Central section in the '95-'96 year, but the Central Property Owners have asked that perhaps to fast track this, the design fees ($45,000) be placed in the upcoming budget year, so that would speed up the actual construction which they are hoping would commence in the '95-'96 year."

Trustee Asselta added, "There is really such a need for it. I think you all received your reports that the demographics have changed in that area. I know that when I moved into the Central section ten years ago, my children were nine and eleven. The first thing I noticed was the loss of a neighborhood park. I had lived over by Hemlock." At the Jan. 25, 1994 CPOA meeting then Trustee Richard Benack expressed support for the proposal and the CPOA representative to the Recreation Commission at the time, Phyllis Calvano, was researching the matter and later stated that there was a definite need for the playground.

At the Feb. 17, 1994 Board of Trustees meeting, the board voted to put $50,000 in the 1995-96 budget to cover a consultant to be hired to study the need for a playground in the Central section. The Sear Brown report which resulted from this investigation was later rejected by the Board of Trustees and the consultant's employ with the Village was terminated. Throughout the debate over the playground at Second and Hilton, safety concerns were raised. Then Mayor Allen Mathers reminded residents at the Feb. 24 meeting about the reports by resident Bill Keegan about safety issues he had expressed to the Recreation Commission, the Traffic Commission, and the Garden City Police Department. Keegan later stated that the primary concern he had had about the site (its apparent appeal for "ladies of the night") had been adequately addressed by Police Commissioner Cipullo and then supported the playground.

Equipment was placed at the site for the use of the residents of Central and the playground now stands at the Second and Hilton site. The current debate is about whether or not to relocate the site to Sixth and Hilton to accommodate the requests by mothers of small children to build a bathroom facility at the playground. The Second and Hilton site was deemed too small to accommodate such a facility if a fence, another request for the playground, were to be installed. The strip of land on Seventh Street across from the Garden City Hotel was also under consideration, but because of the loss of parking spaces for the railroad station that would have to occur to accommodate the playground facility, it was considered less acceptable than the Sixth and Hilton site.

At the Recreation Commission meeting, Trustee Bruce Torino, the Board's liaison to the Recreation Commission, stated that he had studied the issue and had believed that the proposed relocation of the playground and the proposed plans for the development of that location had been a "great idea." The Recreation Department had ordered play equipment for toddlers to replace the equipment described by parents that use the play area as "shabby," but the bathroom facility would need to be constructed and the fence would have to be installed, so as the Commission was considering the work for the site, the idea to move it to a slightly larger space presented itself as worthy of consideration.

Trustee Torino worked with Recreation Superintendent Blake and the Department of Public Works to develop an aerial topography of the area, a graphic map, a list of equipment that had been ordered and acquired, and a proposed schematic. A trip to Woodlock Pines with his family provided suggestions as to how to address the bathroom layout concerns, and he returned with photos of a proposed plan for the facility. Trustee Torino also researched the styles of fences throughout the Village and decided the Garden City Community Church was the ideal model for the proposed four foot fencing to surround the majority of the park with six foot chainlink fencing with vinyl to block the view of the railroad station on the northern end of the play area. The site would be about 142 feet by 50 feet and would accommodate a toddler play equipment area, a swing set, a tire swing, and a slide. A protective surface could be installed and the equipment would be in tan and green to better blend with the green space.

Research was also conducted by Trustee Torino into the safety of other parks in the Village that are located near railroad tracks and stations. The Edgemere park and the Cathedral play area are both next to train tracks and according to Torino, are both safe and frequently used. He also stated that he had looked into the police reports of the area and found that there were less problems such as accidents and stolen property at the Sixth and Hilton site than the current site at Second and Hilton. To address the concerns raised that the site might attract vagrants or young residents looking for a place to drink and smoke pot, a sprinkler system like the one installed at the Community Church which effectively eradicated the situation there, was proposed. The sprinklers would go off approximately every hour and hose-down the entire play area from 9 p.m. to about 11 p.m.

Central resident Kevin Curtin, an opponent of the proposed playground at the Sixth and Hilton site, listed five concerns that he and 36 others who had signed a petition opposing the proposal, had about the issue. The first was the loss of green space and the building of houses at Second Street was cited as more evidence that all of the green space available should be preserved. The second were budgetary concerns. The cost of the proposed park stands at about $128,000 and Curtin argued that with the upcoming new bond issue this fall and current Village expenses that this was not the time to invest in a playground and argued that the investment in St. Paul's was already a purchase of play space for Central's children. The third concern raised was that some felt building a play area aimed specifically for toddlers was discriminatory. The fourth was the traffic concerns. A resident at Sixth and Hilton had reported to Curtin that the bushes on that southwest piece of private property were often replaced as a result of drivers riding up onto the curb and damaging them. The fifth concern was that the blasts of the railroad horns might distract a child or frighten them and an injury could result. Curtin stated that he and the 36 others were unanimously opposed to the proposed park and requested more time to research the matter before the plans moved into more concrete stages of development.

Central resident Elizabeth Lane spoke of the troubles she had faced as a library trustee at the Garden City Public Library as a result of the homeless population who used the library as a retreat from the elements. She felt that the bathroom proposed for Sixth and Hilton would attract homeless people who would seek to remain in the facility to avoid the outdoors. She stated that she had spoken to neighbors with small children in the area of the proposed site and all were concerned about attracting children who might travel to the area unsupervised and expose themselves to the dangers of the traffic there. Also, she argued that commuters from the station might decide to use the playground's bathroom and create a flow of traffic into the park.

Jim Murphy, also a resident of Sixth Street with five children stated that he did not see the need for a playground there and that he and his wife have no problem driving their children, who range in age from eight to infancy, to Grove Street where they can meet up with children of all ages.

Leslie Guerci, a CPOA Board of Directors member, stated that she had moved into the community with a small child and because there was no park in Central, she had to travel to the other Village parks and felt she missed the opportunity to bond with other mothers from Central. She argued that the integration into the community that can happen for mothers of small children at a play area such as the proposed playground, is invaluable to them and their children. She also stressed the need for a bathroom facility at the site for both the parents and children. She was joined later by two other mothers who said that they are relatively new to the Village and would like to see a place that they could walk to with strollers and have their toddlers interact with their neighbors. One of the mothers also argued that the use of the land as a playground did maintain it as green space and cited such a project in Southampton that had upheld the community's desire for green space and the parents' need for a playground. Another mother also stated that she felt the park would be a key step in the Village's plans for revitalization.

When asked why the playground could not be installed at St. Paul's to address all of the issues raised at the meeting, Trustee Torino responded that the plans for St. Paul's are many years off. In response to questions about why there seemed to be a "hurry" in developing these plans and bringing them from the current proposal phase to more concrete plans, Trustee Torino answered that the Board of Trustees is currently working on the tentative Village budget and in order to have funds approved for the site in the April budget vote, the plans need to be put forward soon. The issue was deferred to the next Recreation Commission meeting and Trustee Torino thanked everyone for their input and invited residents to express their opinions in letters to the Recreation Commission.