| Author |
Message |
    
Joancrystal
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 792
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 9:52 am: |     |
Following is an open letter to the TC regarding the upcoming hearing on a proposal to establish a dog run in the area of Memorial Park immediately adjacent to the library. I would urge others who feel strongly about this issue to post here as well and I would welcome any comments that TC members, dog run advocates or others would care to make regarding my post:
I would urge the TC to give very careful consideration to the ramifications of approving the proposal to establish a dog run in the area behind the library in Memorial Park.
If Maplewood is our home, then Memorial Park is our front parlor, where we go when we are alone to relax with a book, commune with nature, take a quiet stroll. It is also where we do much of our best entertaining: Memorial Day, 4th of July, athletic tournaments, recreation league sports, scouting events, summer movies and concerts and a whole host of special events keep the area vibrant and hopping. Much more than the corner of Springfield Avenue and Yale Street (site of the former proposal forthe KFC), creation of a dog run at the proposed site would have a serious and detrimental impact on the quality of life for all of Maplewood's citizens, dog owners and non-dog owners alike.
Even more than Pierson's Mill, Memorial Park is a landmark which should be preserved in its present state. It was designed by one of the leading landscape architecture firms of our time as an open space with a theme and plan which would be seriously compromised by the placement of a dog run in the proposed location. This is precisely the type of threat to our town heritage that the recently enacted historical preservation legistation was designed to prevent.
The section of Memorial Park proposed for the dog run includes a foot path which has served as right of way to and from the village and the train station for as long as the park has been in existence. There are legal considerations regarding easment rights that must be factored in to any decision to annex a portion of this foot path for the dog run enterprise.
While I am not opposed to the creation of a dog run somewhere in town, I feel very strongly that Memorial Park is not an appropriate location for this enterprise.
I would also like to caution the TC not to feel presured to reach a decision approving a location, any location, for a dog run before the end of the present amnesty period that has been promised those who run their dogs off leash in Memorial Park now. It is far more important to think through all of the issues: environmental impact, wildlife impact, impact on exiting use of the park by ALL citizens of the township, proper plan in place for construction, administration, maintenance, enforcement, health impact in placing the dog run directly next to the river, liability issues, etc.
This is not a decision to make quickly for reasons of political expediency.
Thank you for your consideration.
Joan |
Ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 282
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 11:52 am: | |
Joan,
I am also not opposed to the creation of a dog run somewhere in town. Memorial Park is not an appropriate location for this enterprise. This type of question could be put to the voters in the fall.
More than anything, this issue is all about letting dogs run free. People need to walk free, dogs need to be on a leach when in public.
All residents interested in this dog run should first be required to write in to voice their opinions on this matter. I was at the meeting at town hall, and there were more people there against my B&B, then there were in favor of the dog run.
What is the rush? Again, I agree with Joan. "It is far more important to think through all of the issues: environmental impact, wildlife impact, impact on exiting use of the park by ALL citizens of the township, proper plan in place for construction, administration, maintenance, enforcement, health impact in placing the dog run directly next to the river, liability issues, etc."
|
Wendy
Citizen
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 339
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 12:00 pm: | |
I agree with everything Joan just wrote in the above open letter. |
Bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 1:28 pm: | |
Joan - Could I be so bold as to suggest that you also post this letter in the real name section?
People who agree with you can then sign their names and the letter might have more impact with the TC is that is done.
|
Joancrystal
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 793
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 1:32 pm: | |
Bobk:
Thanks for the suggestion. Will do. Sounds like we have the makings of an on-line petition. Now if enough people would only read it.... |
Ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 284
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 2:19 pm: | |
Joan,
Can anyone help... is this some kind of a political issue?? Because if it is, to bad, I heard most of the voters in town and the other TC Candidates vacation in the summer! I wonder what they all will say about this in the Fall after the fence goes up?
Fred and Ian said, “I think that debates during the summer are inefficient and ignore a significant part of the electorate. Many people are away (my Hoboken train is half-full), and others are simply not focused on a Nov. 5 TC election. My experience last year convinced me that most Maplewoodians are involved with their families during the summer. Ian and I intend to run our campaign in accordance with these general observations.”
Well folks, from my observations, I am running everyday, just like our town runs everyday. What can I say; some people think summertime is not a good time for debates on political issues. I hope trying to get petitions is not anything like political debates! LOL
|
Cody
Citizen
Username: Cody
Post Number: 146
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 3:18 pm: | |
I also feel Memorial Park is not the place to put a dog run. I particularly oppose the site that was suggested for the dog run, as this is a site that is beautiful, tranquil, adjacent to the Library and very near the brook. In my opinion, it should not be disfigured by snowfencing, 55-gallon trash drums full of dog waste and the noise and smells that would be part and parcel of a dog run.
I have a dog. I walk my dog on a leash or jog along with him on his leash. Friends with dogs are welcome to visit in my fenced-in yard and we visit their homes. I don't think Maplewood NEEDS a dog run. It might be nice for a segment of the dog owners (from Maplewood and adjoining towns), but I know many Maplewood dog owners who would not be using it.
I think it should be set up as a private business somewhere where it would be in compliance with zoning laws. I don't think town property has to be ceded to the vocal group of dog owners who are insisting this is a need for their dogs.
(As a sidebar, Animal Planet recently ran a feature about a "doggie swimming pool (indoors)" located somewhere in California. It's a shallow pool, for dogs only, where people pay to use it on a per-visit basis. Dogs are off-leash, splashing in the water, noise is contained, town gets taxes on the venue, people that want to be there are there, people who don't want to be are not. Maybe some enterprising person might want to set up an indoor dog run somewhere in a vacant business site so we'd get some tax revenues from the venture, dog owners would have a place to go and those who didn't want to be there could avoid it.) |
Joancrystal
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 795
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 5:07 pm: | |
Art:
Thanks for your support. This really isn't just my issue, it should be everyone's issue. Is this a political issue? I hope not. This seems to be an issue of using our collective comon sense to avoid what is otherwise likely to become an irreversable disaster.
Summer is a great time to push through unpopular, and often unwise legislation, people are out of town or at least more out of touch with neighbors at this time. Once school is out, people are often under the misguided impression that government is out for the interum too. In this case it is far from the truth.
It's much too late for petitions: the TC meeting is two business days from now. If you want to help the best thing I can suggest is to spread the word that there are no done deals until the last TC-member vote is cast. There is still time to make the oft silent oft out of touch majority of people in town aware of what may happen to their "front parlor park" if they don't express their opinion - loudly - and clearly before the next TC meeting begins.
Thanks again for adding your endorsement. |
Compsy
Citizen
Username: Compsy
Post Number: 23
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 5:57 pm: | |
I am a dog owner, and in the past have enjoyed "Dog Hill" as it came to be called, as a place where dogs could run and their owners could visit.
Nonetheless, I also understand the sentiment against such controversial and minority-driven (numbers-wise) land use in Memorial Park.
I wonder if anyone considered locating a run in some less central location, like Old Waterlands (which smells anyway from the composting), or even up in the Reservation.
|
Cody
Citizen
Username: Cody
Post Number: 147
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 11:46 pm: | |
I know that various school and town soccer programs use Old Waterlands as a playing field (and, yes, it does smell a bit) in the summer and fall and during the Memorial Day Soccer Tournament. Putting a dog run there could be a problem for the soccer use. Other parks that are used by the rec. depts and/or schools are Flood's Hill (S.O.), Cameron Field (S.O.), New Waterlands, DeHart.
Other sports may use these same locations and/or others. A fenced-in dog run might compromise the existing usage of these sites. I hope someone from both towns' Recreation Depts. is at the meeting to speak up, or that the Town Council consults them before commiting to handing over a portion of a public park for a private dog run. |
Jgberkeley
Supporter
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 2172
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 7:27 am: | |
I hope that writing in this area helps as I hope it is read by the Town Council.
I have a dog, I have a leash and I walk my dog. I am against building a dog run in our park; I am against chopping it up and fencing in any area of the park. I would be a shame if this were done.
I offer this suggestion instead. The front of Jefferson Elementary School is a two-acre area of wide-open grass space. I would suggest that this be used.
Children rarely use the area, and when used it is a staging area during fire drills. Dog poop should not be a problem as dog owners clean up after their dogs and police other owners to do so as well. School maintenance staff are on hand and can easily be tasked to dump trash cans into the daily dumpster pickup.
|
Crazyguggenheim
Citizen
Username: Crazyguggenheim
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 9:01 am: | |
Call me crazy, but you are kidding aren't you? |
Johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 365
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 9:08 am: | |
I am adamantly against a Dog Run in Memorial Park. I don't think the TC or the Dog Owners Club understand the full impact a one-acre area will have on the park.
Please consider this proposal fully and realize that Memorial Park is the WRONG PLACE for a such a facility.
|
Bighead
Citizen
Username: Bighead
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 12:05 pm: | |
No dog run in Memorial Park!
The needs of the few dog owners
should not outweigh the needs of the majority
of MWooder's who go to the park seeking a respite from our sub-urban environs. The dog run, if even neccessary at all. should not be placed in such a prominent locale as Memorial Park.
Matt Scott |
Bighead
Citizen
Username: Bighead
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 12:11 pm: | |
No Dog Run in Memorial Park!
The needs of the dog owners should not be borne by the general users of Memorial Park.
Most of whom go to the park to seek a respite from the noise and commotion of our sub-urban environs, placing a dog run admidst the peace and quiet of the park is almost criminal. The dogs should not be granted such a prominent piece of real estate.
In a town the size of ours people need to learn the respects the rights of those seeking peace and quiet. The dog owners should thus exercise their privilige of dog ownership in a less public venue . |
Mrmaplewood
Citizen
Username: Mrmaplewood
Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 5:30 pm: | |
Plus the fact that snow fencing is cheap looking, flimsy, and prone to break. (And with all this rhetoric, I am beginning to imagine vandalism.) |
Cfa
Citizen
Username: Cfa
Post Number: 474
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 5:41 pm: | |
I am a dog owner and I definitely do not want to see a dog run in Memorial Park. Not only will it look disgusting, it will smell just as bad if not worse.
For the dog owners who do not have a big enough yard to let their dogs run, take them to the reservation, there's plenty of room. |
Sullymw
Real Name
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 58
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 9:09 am: | |
I am also in favor of a dog-run, but not in Memorial Park which is a beautiful entry portal to our wonderful town. Do we want people stepping off the trains to see a fenced-in dog-run? I don't think that is the type of urban image we want to portray in our quaint, suburban town, IMO. |
Mwsilva
Real Name
Username: Mwsilva
Post Number: 99
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 9:41 am: | |
I do want to be on record as not in favor of a dog run in Memorial Park!
Please, do not fence in any part of that lovely park! |
Robdan
Citizen
Username: Robdan
Post Number: 201
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 1:06 pm: | |
I am in favor of a dog park in Maplewood. I am sympathetic to the desire to preserve Memorial park, but would urge the TC to consider what role a dog park might serve in attracting foot traffic to nearby businesses (be they on Springfield Ave or in the Village, or wherever). Since the dog park would be owned by the Township, I don't believe the issue of easments is relevant. I would urge the TC to consider a self-funding mechanism (probably via the license fee) for operating expenses so that non-dog people are not burdened with additional expenses for something they don't use. Finally, I'd urge the TC to consider issues of noise, parking, etc. using the same criteria used in siting other public accommodations (i.e. b-ball courts, tennis courts, playgrounds, etc) so that residential areas are not adversely impacted.
I regret that the opponents of this idea feel that the intended public use is too narrow in scope to be worthy of consideration of devoting public land and assets to a legitimate recreational pursuit. Following is an excerpt from the dogpark.com website, in which other cities acknowledge the legitimate interests of responsible dog owners in using public spaces:
For some dog owners, a dogpark may provide the only opportunity for owners to socialize with other people and their dogs. Persons with limited mobility, such as elderly and disabled dog owners, deserve to have their taxpayer dollars used towards a safe, accessible place where they can meet other people and exercise their dogs. For many people, visiting a dogpark is a primary source of recreation. The ability to share activities with canine family members at a dogpark is important, and increasingly recognized by cities. A report on off-leash dogparks by Portland Parks and Recreation states that “There is a newly identified parks user group: Dogs and their owners. This user group is drawn to parks for open space, fresh air, exercise and socialization for themselves and their pets. Coming to a park is their chosen form of recreation, much the same as jogging or biking. They are legitimate park users.”
The Marin Humane Society has been involved in the development of a number of local dogparks and states that
“There is no doubt that dog owners deserve to share in the “park pie” with other special use groups like baseball, soccer and tennis clubs. The recognized use of city and county maintained dog parks is growing at an amazing rate around the country, and these parks can provide an excellent venue for providing information on low cost spay/neuter and vaccination clinics, the microchip ID, dog training, and other information related to keeping canines happy and healthy. Dogs contribute immeasurably to their family’s quality of life, thus helping to foster a sense of community for everyone. Making dog parks a priority creates positive community spirit.”
|
Compsy
Citizen
Username: Compsy
Post Number: 30
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 5:41 pm: | |
I am a dog owner and would like to see a safe place for dogs to run around and socialize, but I acknowledge that Memorial Park is not the ideal site for this, despite its convenience and centrality.
I urge the Township to consider collaborating with Essex County to re-claim some of the space in the Reservation that has become a "no person's land" and do with it what Union County and Westfield did with Echo Lake Park.
There is a wonderful dog facility there, complete with fences and benches, safety gates, garbage bag dispensers and recepticles, and rules clearly posted. It is large enough for lots of running with very little dog conflict, and different sections can be cordoned off and re-seeded as necessary.
I posted one or two pictures of this park in the Soapbox section of our bulletin board, and I have several more. It really is a great facility, and I think could be replicated up on the ridge. Such use would improve the Reservation, and be both convenient and out of the way for Maplewood residents. Plus, it wouldn't impact on sports, or require school custodians to dump dog trash.
How bout it? IT requires cooperation and good communication between town and county. Are you up to it? |
Lseltzer
Citizen
Username: Lseltzer
Post Number: 980
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 6:14 pm: | |
Not that I'm necessarily objecting, but wouldn't putting it on the reservation require clearing some land? Apart from the fact that clearing trees seems to be a crime against humanity 'round these parts, surely it would be far more expensive than doing it in the park.
Any estimates on the cost? Since it's in a county park, who's supposed to be paying for it? |
Joancrystal
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 804
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 6:35 pm: | |
Larry:
There are a number of open areas up in the reserve that would be suitable for a dog run. It is possible that this land is already committed for other uses but that is a question for the county, if the proposal gets that far. |
Deborahg
Citizen
Username: Deborahg
Post Number: 269
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 7:04 pm: | |
I am a dog owner and in favor of a dog park. |
Cody
Citizen
Username: Cody
Post Number: 148
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 8:18 pm: | |
When a park is used for soccer, or baseball or T-ball, there's no major physical alteration to the park. When the sport is not actively being played, other people can use that area for other activities. The dog run is enclosed with a substantial fence - don't think too many people are going to want to picnic or lie on the grass inside the run if it's not in use at that moment.
I talk to a lot of people while walking my dog on its leash. A dog run isn't the only way to have interpersonal communication while exercising your dog.
I'd like to see such a facility as an indoor one, where you pay to enter, perhaps have times for dogs under 25 pounds, other times for larger dogs. The business could sell dog-related items and wouldn't be affected by bad weather. There's a place in California with dog pools where they can splash around in a clean and controlled environment. That looked like fun for the dogs and the owners. Could be a profit-making business, bringing tax revenues to the town and customers to local businesses without chopping up the parks or affecting neighbors with smells or noises. Any entrepreneurs out there? |
Bookgal
Citizen
Username: Bookgal
Post Number: 140
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 8:19 pm: | |
I am a dog owner who is very opposed to the dog run proposed in memorial park. I also advocate enforcing the leash law in the park and elsewhere. I am not opposed to a dog run in general, and there may well be appropriate space elsewhere but, I strongly urge that we do not fence off an area in our most beautiful park. |
Jgberkeley
Supporter
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 2174
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 10:47 pm: | |
Dear Mr. Deluca,
I would like to thank you for conducting a very well run meeting tonight. I was not easy to keep the discussion open yet control emotions of the various parties.
I thought you did a very nice job.
I have a dog; I do not want a dog run in that park.
Thank you.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 3221
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 12:47 am: | |
George,
Thanks for reporting. I hope things went well. Was there a pitch to get the dog run moving as a county project? Was there compromise on any side? |
Jgberkeley
Supporter
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 6:44 am: | |
This was an informal meeting. The pro dog run group presented their current plan, rules and maps. They are asking for 3/4 of an acre.
After that it was mostly talk from those present both pro and con. Some con folks suggested the county project.
This was not a meeting that established compromise.
As one speaker put it, most parks other than ours do not even allow dogs on leashes in them. Here it allowed. You folks have been breaking the leash law for 30 years, now you have been told that it will be enforced. Your idea of comprise is we will follow the law if you give us 3/4 of the park. That is not compromise.
As I said, the meeting was just allowing people to talk.
More action at the TC meetings will follow.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 3223
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 10:32 am: | |
It appears that even many dog owners are against this destruction of public property. |
Mck
Citizen
Username: Mck
Post Number: 251
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 12:24 pm: | |
I am adamantly opposed to a dog run in Memorial Park. The burden is on the TC to show cause why this reckless proposal should go forward.
Mary C. Kinniery |
Jgberkeley
Supporter
Username: Jgberkeley
Post Number: 2178
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 1:01 pm: | |
In my 6:44 post, I met to say 3/4 of an acre, not 3/4 of the park. |
Fredsmith
Citizen
Username: Fredsmith
Post Number: 2
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2002 - 2:20 pm: | |
Please refer to my messsage posted in the soap box section.
Thanks |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page