Last night, Dave Brumfield outlined his pilot program permitting dogs from his ward to use Williamsburg Park. He explained that about 20% of the residents are very much in favor of it, 20% are very much against it, and the remaining 60% don't care either way. The way I look at it, Dave Brumfield is appealing to 20% of his constituents with this pilot program.
I understand it started during a Parks Advisory Board meeting in January, before the amended ordinance permitting dogs in Twin Hills, a passive park. Dog owners went before the Parks Advisory Board and wanted to get special permission to bring their dogs to Williamsburg Park.
During the Discussion Session, Dave pledged to patrol his park during the course of the pilot program, in addition to the additional police presence required to monitor and enforce the pilot program. The pilot program is to last for 90 days. He also said that neighbors will be policing neighbors. Based on the questions Commissioner Linfante asked during the discussion session, led me to believe that she is not in favor of this program.
Last night, several residents spoke on both sides of this issue. A petition of 80 signatures against this pilot program was presented to the Commission. One resident was bold enough to say that after the meeting, he will go home and walk his dog through Williamsburg Park, defying the present ordinance. I asked about the fee which would be collected. I also commented that this is the first time that Kristen and I are on the same side of an issue. At that point, Dave asked Kristen to reconsider her stand based on my observation. [Laughter all around.] I also asked how many dogs are expected to come to Williamsburg Park. Dave had no idea. If this pilot program goes to a vote and accepted, and the pilot program is over, the commissioners will evaluate the results and make their determination. I also said that the animosity that has developed in Ward 4, (almost to the point of being physical) will spread to all the other parks in Mt. Lebanon, causing neighbors to fight, turning neighbors against neighbors, while spreading the message that all ordinances are negotiable.
The Commission will continue their discussions next month.
150 comments:
Does this mean that if I bring my dog from ward 3 over to the park I'll get kicked out even though my tax dollars support all of the parks in Mt. Lebanon?
Now you're gettin' it!
Elaine
By the way, your tax dollars will be used to pay for the extra police presence required to enforce this. I can think of better ways for them to utilize their time.
Dave played the deer card with Kristen when she spoke of the dog waste in the park. Dave said that deer go in there too.
Elaine
This plan is idiotic. I'd like to see the cops kicking residents out of their community park - good fodder for the news media, what the kluck?
11:56 AM, I understand that Dave is recommending to the parents against the plan to visit other parks.
And in a very round about way, I understand this goes back to turf. My good friend, Dave Franklin is on the PAB and his friends who want turf are leading the charge for dogs in Williamsburg.
Elaine
Two general observations: First, on what legal ground does the Municipality require selected residents to pay to walk a dog in one park when they are permitted to walk their dogs for free in two others?; and second, what does it say about our commissioners when they observe that "...neighbors will be policing neighbors." To be fair, I wasn't there last night so I don't know if Mr. Brumfield was suggesting such a thing or simply making a general observation - I rather think it was the latter. Even so, to suggest that neighbors will "police" their neighbors sounds like the old Soviet Union. What's next; block captains?
I walk my dog every day in Williamburg park.
RG, I just uploaded the podcasts to last night's meeting. You can hear Dave Brumfield present his pilot program at about the one hour and four minute mark of the Discussion Session podcast.
Elaine
This whole thing is much ado about nothing, really. I have a friend who no longer lives in PA. She told me that she used to walk her dog through there at 6AM all the time with no problem.
These neighbors who border the park are behaving terribly. I was at the meeting that Dave had there earlier in the summer. There were children present, and these adults were about to start smacking each other. Dave actually did a good job at pointing out that their behavior is ridiculous.
As long as the dog is on a leash, I don't see what the problem is. People need to focus on the really important problems. This is not one of them. I'm sorry that you had to sit through the discussion Elaine.
Here is a map of the parks in Mt. Lebanon. http://www.mtlebanon.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/596
I see that there is a Dormont park in Mt. Lebanon, Beggs-Snyder Park. Do they allow dogs there?
Elaine
I want to clarify a couple of things. Dave Brumfield said that the mix was about 80% of the people didn't care either way. But the remaining 20% felt very strongly about the dog issue.
Second, Dave mentioned that the people who want dogs suggested that they would be policing those who bring dogs to the park without permits. For example, if four people had dogs with permits and someone showed up without a permit, those four would say, you can't come here without a permit. Here is how to get one.
Also, 12:50 PM brings up a good point. Wouldn't it make sense to have time restrictions? That might cut down on the hours that the police have to spend carding dogs. Children are not usually in the park at 6:00 AM or at 11:00 PM at night.
One more thing, if this pilot program goes through and proves to be successful, Dave mentioned that the ordinance would have to be changed and that it would be on a park by park basis for future pilot programs. If successful, the ordinance would be amended to allow for that park. Did you happen to see how many parks are in Mt. Lebanon? How many amendments would be made to the ordinance? The police would be spending all their time carding dogs during pilot programs. Commissioners would be spending all their time amending the dog ordinance. Is that how you want to spend your time, folks?
Elaine
Beggs-Snyder is 97-E-350. It is owned by Dormont, situated in Mt. Lebanon.
Illinois is 97-E-309. It is owned by the Mt. Lebanon School District.
They are adjacent properties.
Does the School District permit dogs on their Illinois parcel?
Where does the dog permit fee for Beggs-Snyder park go?
1:50 PM, I see that Beggs-Snyder is in Dave Brumfield's ward. I also see a passive park in his ward, McNeilly. There are a couple of options for Dave's ward, without going through a pilot program.
What I don't understand is the logic behind this pilot program. He explained that since people don't abide by the ordinance anyway, let's do a pilot program to possibly amend the ordinance. So let's change the rules to accommodate the ones who violate them. I see that the tax lien list gets longer every year. Since more people don't pay their taxes, let's change it so that nobody has to pay them. Sounds like a plan to me! If people go 45 or 50 mph on Connor Road, let's make the speed limit 50 mph. The police wouldn't be there anyway, since they will be dog watching.
Elaine
I wish there were some way all the homeowners whose yards are used by dogs (without the homeowners' permissions)could get some relief.
Many people don't bother to clean up and others do a crappy job.
People shouldn't have to inspect their yards before they let their kids out to play.
All this B-S and homes are flooding with raw sewage and stormwater while Brumfield's sole focus is on dog parks and turf. How shameful !
Mr. Brumfield is guaranteed a seat on the Commission for a consecutive term; he can focus on anything he desires.
OK 80% of Brumfield's constituents don't give a dog poop (pun intended) about dogs in Williamsburg Park... Right?
The remaining 20% are evenly divided, 10% for, 10% against if Brumfield's count is to be believed... Correct?
So, just how many people are we talking about that want to walk their dogs in Williamsburg Park?
Ten? Twenty?
So Brumfield is spending his time, not on solving flooding problems, not getting the pool renovation back to $3.5 million. No he's going to monitor doggie permits and commit police pdrsonal and turn neighbor against neighbor... For exactly how many dogs?
7:42 PM, as I mentioned in the original post, Dave has no idea how many dogs. Did I hear 70 people somewhere? And he didn't know how many dogs were owned by those Ward 4 residents.
And what about UltraParty? Were any of the funds going to Williamsburg?
From their website:
This year's ULTRAparty supports Accessible Lebo, a new initiative of the Mt. Lebanon Partnership, Mt. Lebanon's nonprofit community development organization. Accessible Lebo is an inclusive initiative that will enhance the livability of Mt. Lebanon for people with special needs, including intellectual and/or physical challenges. In 2013, the fund will be used to purchase playground equipment that will encourage people of all ages and abilities to enjoy our parks. Currently, many areas of Mt. Lebanon's parks are either difficult to navigate or lack amenities for all of our residents and guests, so Accessible Lebo will work to change that."
Will this pilot program interfere with this initiative?
Elaine
I believe Dave B thinks he will get 100 dog owners that will buy tickets for admission to the park. Who cares about the 90 families against this idea.
Dave handled the crowd OK but defered to a lady with a clipboard, Mrs Interrupter. I was disappointed by a few things. The pilot plan details came from Mrs. Interrupter, not Dave. Any suggestions did not show up in the emailed plan. It came out exactly as mrs. Interruptor proposed. I heard Dave say a parent's feelings of what could happen didn't matter. Dave said parents afraid of their kid being bit at the park had a false sense of security. Bites could just as easily happen on a sidewalk or in a living room.
Seriously, i could more easily get killed walking across the street than lying but i am still afraid to fly! Its logical for a parent to fear for his child and express safety concerns. Dave's a lawyer so he turned it around on the parent.
The meeting was chaotic. Lots of kids and parents. Many could not speak while watching their kids. I overheard one person chastise another's parenting skills! It was uncalled for. Many left by the time Dave took a hand vote. A hand vote! No one signed in. it was an ambush. Disorganized. Most that left had no idea a vote would be taken and parents of young children, who don't want dogs. 12:50, Say what you want of people that border the park but assaults were made prior to the meeting via email, face to face and publicly at commission meetings by the entitled acting pro doggers.
I would like to see the family statistics of everyone involved. My bet is that the pro doggers are empty nesters, have older children or do not entertain young children in any way.
I like Dave, but he doesn't acknowledge parent's concerns over safety or possibility of a bite. Bites have happened in the neighborhood, but not documented so are dismissed. Please read the story of a man attacked by a dog in front of the Coffee shop on Beverly Rd. http://m.wpxi.com/news/news/local/man-attacked-dog-outside-mt-lebanon-coffee-shop-wa/nXDYH/
Remnant dog waste and urine is a concern.pro doggers won't admit. At 100 dogs a day someone is sure to push the boundaries based on the math.
It seems like Dave is stealing Kelly F's thunder for her dog park which many support. Who will care about her proposed dog park in Robb Hollow if dogs can go to other parks?
I want to move. People see each other coming and cross the street. Some won't walk in front of specific houses. Dirty looks are passed. It is very unpleasant. People feel guilty for wanting or not wanting dogs. There is a noticeable tension in the neighborhood and people feel uncomfortable.
These dog proposals should have been politely turned down in the beginning by the park board. It started there, possibly with a whisper of agreement behind scenes.
What is in this for him Dave B? He seems like a heartfelt guy, but people are hating him more and more. My suspicion is he made promises to someone he can't get out of.
To 12:43 pm: great to know you break the law. Exactly how many times has your dog pooped in the park? How do you pick up waste? Does your dog ever have diarrhea amd how do you pick up diarrhea? Do you always remember a bag? If you forget a bag do you go back immediately?
12:50: your friend illegally walked her dog through the park. It wasn't a problem because she didn't get caught. You think that is OK and admonish your neighbor's behavior complaining about this? I have dogs and do not walk them in the park.
Elaine, as far as time limits I believe all parks close at dusk. Time limits were dismissed.
Don't let this dog issue come to your neighborhood.
Jake
Yes, I walk my dog everyday in the park. I have at least three bags with me to clean up after him. He has not been ill, but if he was I wouldn't take him to the park.
If I were to forget a bag, I would go back for it, but that has never happened.
No, I don't feel bad that I am a lawbreaker.
The same people who are complaining about dog, also complained about new playground equipment in the park because they didn't want to hear children yelling and playing. They were afraid that kids would disturb the peace of their backyards.
An idea ignited by a CA. retread commissioner.
Dearest Jake,
I know of what I speak. Years ago there was a committee formed before the playground equipment was to be upgraded. These folks were adamant that the equipment be kept to a minimum, and be placed far away from their yards. They did not want to deal with the noise of playing children.
Dearest 11:14 AM,
Is this justification for not observing the no dogs allowed ordinance?
Elaine
Dearest Jake,
I know of what I speak. Years ago there was a committee formed before the playground equipment was to be upgraded. These folks were adamant that the equipment be kept to a minimum, and be placed far away from their yards. They did not want to deal with the noise of playing children.
Dearest 11:41: False. I was on the committee prior to FOWP. Seriously, most every house surrounding park has young children. Noise may have been a factor brought up, but not voices of children. Complete BS that request for equipment be kept to a minimum. Money is what kept equipment to a minimum. We wanted rubber matting, not mulch under equipment. There was no money for it. I recall it was pro doggers who wanted no improvements to the park. You are trying to throw fire somewhere other than the current issue and taking things out of context.
The police suggested placement of new playground and pavilion so they could more easily monitor activity at night so blame their input for location.
This neighborhood is turning over to one of young families. Dogs are not wanted in the park by the majority.
So what time do you walk your dog in the park?
Jake
Think we've seen a perfect example above in the exchange between 12:35 and Jake, why even suggesting neighbors police neighbors is such a silly notion.
What will be proposed next, the Ward 4 Dog Vigilante's?
I can't believe a lawyer would advance such a notion publically.
As I had said in the meeting and in the initial post, this animosity will spread to all the other wards, even spreading to remaining parks in Dave Brumfield's ward.
Dave, I know you read this blog and hate every bit of it, but as 1:05 PM pointed out, your idea is dividing your ward. It isn't healthy. Withdraw your plan. Your constituents will have to learn to live with the ordinance you commissioners approved.
Elaine
1:05 here, if this is such an important issue, write up an ordinance for all the parks or for designated areas in specific parks and put it to referendum.
If a majority of the community wants it... It passes, if they don't... It doesn't.
This absurd notion that Ward 4 residents get to use a community park because being Ward 4 residents, only they are eligible to buy a doggies permit Is ludicrous.
What is even more ludicrous is 12:35's comment that they already walk their dog in the park... Everyday!
If that's true, why would you want to pay $25 for a permit for something you think is your inherent right to do?
Why, because you know you're breaking the rules and $25 will absolve you of your bad behavior.
But here's the really big irony. You say you'd go back for bags, you wouldn't take your dog into the park when sick. You say you don't perceive yourself as a lawbreaker, but in your first sentence you declare you lawliness.
Why should we believe you'll police yourself any better just because you have a permit?
There were reasons dogs were orignally excluded from our public parks, maybe we should examine the minutes from those original discussions to discover why!
Here's the deal, 1:05/2:45 PM. Dave does not have the backing of the Commission yet. He is kinda doing his own thing, and can, because he is calling it a pilot program. He is also calling Williamsburg a " hybrid" park. I believe after more discussion, it will be put to a vote.
I think it is mind boggling that this lawyer wants to amend ordinances for law breakers. And he has dreams of being a judge some day? Yikes!
Elaine
I'm saying put it to a referendum and if it passes... it passes.Thought Kelly's plan for a dog park was an OK idea, but apparently Ward 4 residents in close proximaty to Willaimsburg want to fall out of bed to walk their dog. Why not do the pilot program at Sunset Park in Ward 4? Its highly visible, so lots of "neighbors" will be able to monitor neighbors to see that the program is being followed and it doesn't get a whole lot of use for recreation.
It allows doesn't get a lot of kids running and playing frisbee, ball etc., so there'd be less chance of a dog breaking away and chasing the kids.
Even a pilot program must be passed by a majority of the comnmission... No?
If not, and say a child is mauled or gets sick from dog droppings in the park would Brumfield be solely lible?
The fact of the matter is EVERYBODY is a law breaker, in one form or another, so I will resist the temptation to point a finger at anyone concerning Williamsburg park. My issues with Mr. Brumfield's proposal go to the question of preeminence for Ward 4 residents upon payment of a fee, and what seemed to be the suggestion that local park users would "police" the area; and I don't mean pick up the trash!
I had a very good exchange of messages with Mr. Brumfield on those issues yesterday, and to his credit he said that "...we do not ask that residents confront anyone as part of enforcement" and "I would certainly hope that no one would try to forcibly remove someone." Mr. Brumfield also feels he is on solid legal ground as to the issue of restricting dog walking in Williamsburg to Ward 4 residents who have paid the $25 fee (I would expect as much from a lawyer). He cited New York City: "NYC often makes certain services open to residents from one borough and not the others." That is true; although, unlike NYC, Mt. Lebanon does not contain any political subdivisions.
In many, if not all, of the other places where I have lived the public parks had sequestered areas for various activities; kids here, dogs over there, etc. Here it seems to be all or nothing.
Mr. Gideon, I wasn't pointing fingers, only commenting on one post where the writer said they walk their dog everyday in the park.
From what I understand the park currently is off limits to dogs.
The writer goes on to say they would certainly follow the rules of the pilot program, but they are not following the rules currently in affect.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should run out and arrest this person immediately because they've incriminated themself.
I was just trying to point out the irony in the comment.
Sure, we all bend the rules occasionally. What would you think if I wrote in saying, something like-- "Every evening I drive 45-50mph on Washington Road? (I"ll bet the honest ones amongst us will admit to breaking 40mph at least once going down hill to the Galleria intersection.)
"I don't consider myself a traffic law violator therefore it'd be nice, for a $25 permit I could do it without getting a violation?"
Sort of a silly argument isn't it.
I do agree with your last point, Mr. Gideon.
I see nothing wrong with sequestered areas for various activities like dog walking.
I can see going that route at some various parks through out the community, along with Fraasch's fenced in dog park so the dogs can run free.
Why bother with this silly pilot program and fee? Do it right for everyone or don't do it at all.
It really breaks my heart to walk through Bird Park these days. I just can't believe what our community let happen to this beautiful urban refuge.
We moved to Mt Lebanon in 1976. The despicable physical condition of our infrastructure aside, I've never seen this level of despair in the residents. - and it goes beyond the tragedy of electing RINO's and democrats! The folks are really giving up and the community is going right down the tubes!
What is the plan for the fee to walk our dogs in a park? Will the proceeds be used solely to improve the parks? Would the proceeds be used to fund ball fields and turf?
I HOPE NOT!
If you want to see the disastrous consequences of building athletic facilities just walk through Bird Park and see how the Athletic Supporters absolutely ruined the place!
Then what...?
The teachers union sees some undeveloped urban land and the next thing you know there's talk that the park will be transfered to the SD, sold to developers and the proceeds used to distribute a gratuity to Mt Lebanon School District teachers!
Yeah. Like they are really underpaid to begin with!
Unbelievable.
Absolutely unbelievable.
John David Kendrick
Another thing -
If we want to keep Mt Lebanon parks used by Mt Lebanon residents and not FREELOADERS FROM NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES LIKE THE LADY WITH THE DOG SITTING SERVICE WHO LETS THE PACK OF WILD DOGS RUN LOOSE EVERYDAY IN BIRD PARK, let's do something simple and practical like eliminating the municipal park parking lots!
John David Kendrick
This whole argument is silly. We have $800,000 of unpaid parking tickets in Mt. Lebanon that Feller's Finest can't collect.
We have a dog sitting service bringing dogs to Bird Park and Feller's finest doesn't stop it.
We have a commissioner who has violated municipal ordinances to create his own doggie park with fees to walk your dog in his ward only.
We have free dog walking in Twin Hills Park for all Mt. Lebanon residents. Twin Hills even has doggie bags donated by the Nature Conservancy so you don't need to bring your own bag, or go back for one if you forgot it the first time.
Then there is the resident who walks his dog in Williamsburg Park daily in defiance of municipal ordinances with a lot of promises to obey a new doggie ordinance. But he also knows Feller's Finest won't clean up his rule breaking if they don't enforce the rules in Bird Park.
No provision is in the Budget to clean up after the doggie do violators.
So there sits Commissioner Brumfield with a trial program where fees will be paid the first time, maybe. If the commission wants a dog park they can change the ordinance but how will they collect the future fees?
I think the 4th and 5th ward commissioners have egg on their faces for even broaching the doggie park idea in the first place. Instead of creating a hospitable atmosphere in which neighbors can enjoy each others company, the two commissioners have pitted neighbor against neighbor.
I'm sorry, Dave and Kelly, you have failed to serve your community no matter how the doggie park vote turns out. Are you really part of Feller's Finest?
Mr. Kendrick, how have the athletic folks ruined Bird Park?
Dave Franklin
Our town manager & staff ought to be on 6' leashes !
Mr. Franklin Esquire doesn't know what the athletic folks have done. He's kidding us again.
8:05, welcome to the irrelevant club. If you have something thing to offer, say it.
Dave Franklin
Dave, a friendly reminder. This is my blog. Let me decide, ok? Thanks, buddy.
Elaine
Elaine, you clearly don't discriminate. What of value did 8:05 offer?
Deep down, you hate the anon posters as much as anyone. 90% of your commenters are anonymous, and they don't show up. They want you to fight their battles, file the RTKs and do all of the heavy lifting. Imagine the power this blog would have if even half the commenters signed their names.
Dave Franklin
Hello Mr F,
It's been a while...
Still pandering for the DAS??? ;)
Seriously, Dave, look at the horrible soccer field that is right smack in the middle of the park. They ruined a beautiful urban refuge, not to mention the negative externalities of pollution, water management, chemical run-off, etc that has absolutely destroyed the virgin earth!
How could you Mr Franklin? How can you endorse these mtypes of terrible initiatives?
Did you catch that Almanac Letter to the Editor a few years back where our former commissioner, now a Peters resident, expressed his sorrow about the ruination of Bird Park with a soccer field?
The DAS ruined the most beautiful park in Mt Lebanon.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves!
John David Kendrick
Again, Dave, let me decide that. They may be anonymous to you, but they aren't to me. It kills you, doesn't it?
Also, there are many people who submit the RTKs and then share them with me. They keep me informed with lots of emails. I can't possibly be running a blog, a website, going to meetings, AND getting my hands on information and filing RTKs all by myself.
So don't you worry, Dave. I am very happy with the help I get. In fact, The Swamp Fox has been a great help too. We talk frequently.
Elaine
Dave,
The anonymous poster are scared and I don't blame them!
John David Kendrick
As a resident who aligns Williamsburg Park I never objected to changes and improvements to stifle the noise of children. As a matter of fact, I love the noise of children. My concern was with old faulty equipment getting dumped on this park with little regard to where it was placed in the spirit of safety to children. Now that we are many years past and our Williamsburg Park is a place of strong community, family, friends and neighbors I do not want to see this wonderful treasure go to the dogs. (Sorry for the pun). My belief is that the park ordinance should remain as it has for all the years I can remember.
As many of you know, my residence has aligned the park for my entire life. I hear many state at meetings, there 17 years or 20 years, but I have lived aligning Williamsburg Park for 48 years. I watched it become a park from a forest of woods in my youth. It has great sentimental and family value to me. I am also a dog owner and lover of dogs.
Please let this ordinance of many years go unchanged. No one has been harmed, mistreated or violated and our neighbors have been friendly and strong with the current ordinance. Williamsburg Park is a special retreat for family, friends and children. We have plenty of others options for our pets. Thank you.
Oh Elaine, it absolutely kills you that no one signs their name. Your anonymous commenters only add to the lack of credibility of this blog. If your message was as powerful as you think, my guess is that people would be lining up behind you at the podium at each monthly meeting. You know there is strength in numbers with every issue in this town. And as you say, "Comments signed with commenters' real first and last name are preferred."
Mr. Kendrick, the soccer field has been in Bird Park for (I think) over a quarter century. Perhaps you should get over it.
Dave Franklin
Hi Dave F, I'm Jake! It's funny how you're sitting back and letting Brumfield shoulder ALL the blame in this....his plan sucks but better than the one you got all hot and bother over Dave F!
Come on, cough it up....
OK, thanks, Dave. Whatever you say.
Elaine
Cough what up Jake? Have you read the recommendation made by the PAB that the Commissioners have elected to ignore? Perhaps you can cough it up and come to the PAB meeting on Wednesday night and provide us with your position and opinion. That might require you to show your face in public and state your name and address, but that shouldn't bother a tough guy like you right?
Dave Franklin
I should add that on Thursday night there's a Sports Advisory Board meeting that I would invite Mr. Kendrick to attend and offer his feedback. Apparently, the sports nuts have screwed up Mount Lebanon, and he can tell us how to fix it. We start at 8 John.
Dave Franklin
In Williamsburg, just as other Mt. Lebo parks, folks have always walked dogs. I live behind WP and it's just part of life. Thanks Dave, but we are not about reporting our neighbors... if you don't mind.
Now folks want us to change the ordinance to make it offically OK here, and ONLY here (active use parks). How is that fair? Other than Main Park, we get more traffic than any other park. Mostly kids, including mine. We do not wish to replace Bird Park as the park of choice for dogs. If you've been there you know they drive them there and they are often unleashed.
What i can't believe is Dave's claim that more are for than opposed. He stated this at the very meeting he was presented with 80 signatures against! Jake (whoever you are) explained the park meeting the way it was. Sat. at 10 is not a great time to spend 3 hrs debating dogs for those with kids and kid commitments. Kelly F. told us that she recieved over 90 emails against this back in March. 7 appeared at PAB in March meeting. Those that have children that use this park regularly are the ones against this. Those that are pushing this don't have kids here anymore. Curiously, they were ok with that no dogs sign while thier kids were here, but now it's offensive. Folks.... more dogs have pee'd on that no dogs sign in the past month than fines have been issue in the past 30 yrs. This is much ado about nothing. A problem made were a problem did not exist. Thanks Dave. This is all about our kids, not thier dogs.
Hi Dave,
Yes, I would be happy to attend. I've never been invited to any local get togethers let alone those of the blue bloods... ;)
Seriously, Dave - where and when are they meeting? I would love to come!
John David Kendrick
Once again an agenda item that benefits probably less than 5% of the community degrades into meaningless slings and arrows.
This blog started off with some rational questions and concerns and degraded into conversations about people choking on things and the ruin of Mt. Lebanon.
I'm not a dog lover, never have been and have no desire to share a park with them.
I do understand the affection many people have for their pets though and can understand there desire for park use. Observing the rise in the number of Petland-like retailers and aisle space in grocedy stores it seems like there has been an explosion in the dog population.
Mr. Gideon made an excellent suggestion, why not create dog zones in several parks around the community so eveeyone gets something.
Why this necessity to create sides on every issue, with name calling, useless inneuendo and no possibility for compromise.
I don't think its fair for dog owners to pay a $25 annual fee to use a park whule I can bring in my kids, friends anytime for free. We both pay taxes for the park.
So lets work for a compromise ladies and gentlemen.
Sorry to say this Mr. Brumfield, but as a community leader you should be bringing people together, not dividing them.
Unfortunately, this "community" is no longer such. It has become advisaries united by a common border.
Disgusting, not the community I moved too.
Before Dave Franklin chimes back in about the Sports Advisory Board, the meeting information is on my website, www.lebocitizens.com.
We have people signing their names, Dave Franklin. You should be pleased.
Let's try to keep this about Dave Brumfield's Pilot Program, OK folks?
Elaine
Exactly, Dave F. We love listening to you yell at everyone during your meetings. Yes, I'm talking about your PAB recommendation to allow dogs in Williamsburgh park conveniently added on with the conservancy plan. Making Williamsburgh park an exception to the animal ordinance. Brumfield though misguided is trying to off-set your recommendation. But you're a lawyer, too, right?
You don't give a crap about the parks.
Show my face! Oh, my new best friend, I have! And you stepped on and ignored my big balls because I don't agree with you.
Funny you should tell people to show their face at the meetings. Some of us write in to the commission when work prevails and children demand take over. But you ignore written comments directed to you by the commission!
So, would you listen to JDK? You'd tell him to get over it!
Sorry, JDK. Bird Park is a travesty.
Jake
John, it's the commission that matters on this one. you can reach them at commission@mtlebanon.org i assume the next meeting is 9/9 at 8 pm.
speak your mind.
You mean, "adversaries", don't you?
11:05, I would urge you to review the recommendation of the PAB, which can be found in the June minutes of the PAB. We attempted to identify those parks large enough to accommodate both people and pets and create a workable solution.
Dave Franklin
Let me guess, the dogs lost and the jocks won?
Hi Bruce, the next Commission meeting is on Tuesday, September 10, 2013.
Elaine
the recommendation is to allow them on the sidewalks that surround our playground, pavillion, water fountain and courts. WP is larger than some, yes, but who cares, they are not to be allowed on the large hillside that they claim is so inviting. The area that dogs are to be allowed IS the area used by kids. If you went there you would know that. So much for extensive research.
If you would have "recommended" to the Commission to spend some money on the golf course and on Robb Hollow (think dog park), and not entirely on the pool, there would be no pilot program and no lawsuit. Neighbors would be neighborly. Thanks, Dave and Dave.
Elaine
11:13, yes adversaries. There are a number of typos, sorry.
Mr. Franklin, I did not know the recommendations by the PAB. Apparently Lebomag didn't find it important enough to prrsent those recommendations and solicit comments from residents. Thats why Elaine's blog is so popular, we get real news here.
Plus Mr. Franklin, you could have joined the conversatuon and talked about your PAB recommrndations. Instead you took the low road and bash anon post and Elaine choking.
I don't like a number of comments made here, but sorry Mr. Franklin, you sit on the PAB. Is this how you debate issues there?
Did the PAb recommend Brumfield's pilot plan or do you have something you believe is a better compromise?
His plan turns me off completely and suspect it turns others off as well.
So Mr. Advisor, it appears like turf, we've arrived at yet another verbal fight.
How many of you feel that those that border a park know it best? Also, do you border a park?
Thanks, jake
Jake, you may be new here, but I border a park. Years ago, my husband and I adopted the park when Mt. Lebanon ran that campaign. Being a responsible dog owner, we installed an invisible fence for Timmy, the dog. There isn't a nice day that goes by when I witness this scenario. Timmy could be relaxing on the deck, sleeping in the sunshine. Toddlers are in the park running around with Mom or Dad. As soon as they spot Timmy, they freeze. They either hide behind their parents or they start crying. Other times, curious toddlers walk into my yard, with parents close behind. Most of the time, parents will ask for permission to see Timmy. Timmy is a gentle dog, but if there is a lot of excitement, I am always cautious. Some young children are over
enthusiastic when they greet him. Restricting dogs to certain areas as outlined in Dave's plan has no meaning to overactive toddlers.
While Dave is pleasing his friends, the commission has been sued over the swimming pool fiasco.I hope this is a wake up call for the municipality. Stop changing your rules to suit your friends. Solid legal ground, huh, Dave? As solid as the swimming pool bidding process? Or as solid as under the high school athletic building?
Elaine
The dog park should be middle field on cedar. Centrally located, easy to patrol and plenty of available open hours. Are the Daves willing to share for the good of the town?
7:00 am that is a helluva an idea.
Brafferton is very close to Williamsburg Park and has chainlink fence running nearly completely around the field.
Lets close it off completely with gates and let the dog people have a large open field for the Ward 4 people to let their dogs run unleashed when there are no games there. The field goes unused most of the day and always at and after dusk.
When sports groups are scheduled the dogs must vacste the field. Simple solution and since the doggie people are going to police (clean up after themselves) the area is a perfect spot.
Hey doggie people how about it? No leashes, and no fees. Where could you get a better deal?
I think maybe you're barking up the wrong tree, expecting Brumfield and Franklin developing a plan for you!
I find it interesting that so many leave anonymous posts, yet don't speak at the public forums where this issue is supposed to be discussed. My husband and I are pro-dog walking in the park. the pilot would be open to only ward 4 residents, and you have to pay for the permit. So I have to pay for the permit to walk my dog in a park that I already pay taxes on.. The pro group agreed to this, becuase of COMPROMISE. No compromise from the anti dog group at all. If your not in ward four, this doesn't concern you. Go talk to the commissioner who wants to give you a certain number od garbage bags, and you have to pay for the rest.
Dina, actually it does concern us. If this pilot program is adopted, it will carry on to other active parks of which we all pay taxes on, yours included.
So whether you are pro or against, charging a fee is ludicrous. Expecting increased police presence is wasteful. The police have more important issues to handle.
Elaine
Any compromise from the anti dog group is a surrender, yes ? Its like allowing a smoking section in a no smoking restaurant. The non smokers had to put up with the smoke.
Walk the dog if you wish. Worse case scenario. You'll be ask to leave. That would be a very rare situation. I've talked with Animal Control. No fine has ever been issued for a dog violation in WP. The rule is not enforced, and relaxing it will only increase the bad elements. like 12:15 says. It's like caving in to smokers, and making the table in the middle a smoker friendly spot. With permit of course.
Again, I must thank the person who told me about this blog, very entertaining. It amazes me how this information has been shared. Bruce, I'll look for you with your night vision goggles on superivising the park. Check for me about 9 pm, if you coordinate now with the dog catcher and the police, you should be all good.
This issue was brought up because a dog walker was stopped in the park where she had walked her dog and wasnt aware of the ordinance. As Dave said, the part is not exclusively for kids, its for all residents. What if a kid wanted to walk their dog? Hmmmm, all kinds of good opportunities there, right?
Going to start taking pictures and videos of those that use my property as a shortcut to the park. Should I tell the woman with three kids and a stroller to walk around Sleepy Hollow?
I'll agree that Mt. Lebanon has way bigger issues of concern than this, and Elaine, speak at the scheduled public forum if you have a concern.
What's more dangerous, dogs or smoking?
Its entertaining that Dina is suggesting that Elaine speak at the scheduled public forum if she has a concern. Elaine ! !
Yes, 1:41 PM, I agree. I think people are pretty aware of my concerns.
Elaine
That's funny. One can walk a dog past a no dogs sign for years (decades), yet not be aware of the ordinance?
Regarding your entrance. They can come down and use mine. We are friends. Also, please note. there is someone in our neighborhood that is purposely letting their dog deficate in our park and leaving it there on purpose. Just take a walk on the hillside behind the courts. Rumors are flying.
It is funny Bruce, becuase I've lived here 12 years and didnt know about the ordinance either until this was brought up.
The rumors are flying, we agree there. We should get together and compare notes, wonder if we've heard the same ones?
All of it because neighbors can't walk a leashed dog in a public park which both sides pay for.
A couple clarifications are in order judging by some of the posts I've seen:
- No one wants a "dog park" where dogs run off lease, As a dog walker it's a dirty, dangerous idea that doesn't belong in Lebo.
- This wasn't Dave Brumfields' idea. After a number of Sunset Hills residents were stopped by anima control the notion of making the very common practice of dog walking in the park legal. They wanted to do the right thing. Only intense pressure and the fact that in about a half dozen public meetings dog advocates outnumbered anti-walkers by 2-1 or better caused Dave to craft a compromise that nobody likes.
-Nobody likes the compromise! Dog walkers don't want to pay a fee to do what should be legal anyway. Still we are willling to try it. Those against are unwilling to budge.
-I am the one who said he would defy the restriction and resume walking my dog directly because the commissioners have abdicated there obligation to handle this in any way UP or DOWN. That is what has caused so much rancor in our community, not dog walkers vs. non-walkers.
hey, I just thought of something. since you guys know the ordinance, can I walk my cat? I don't have a cat, but it is Mt. Lebanon, so I'm sure I could rent one.....
Wait! I have a turtle.....does that count?
Dina, first off there has been a suggestion to by the - love this - "anti-dog people" to open Brafferton to dogs. Don't dogs love to run and excercise just like kids?
The suggestion gives you a park that gives you more than your getting a Williamsburg... no lease, no fee. The only restriction would be dogs can't use the field at the same time as sports.
You sqy you walk your dog at 9. Bet most days Braffertin would be open.
So don't BS people. There is an offer for consideration here that we can discuss and fine tune here before wasting commission time. But I suspect the "concession you refer is not a concession at all, butexactly what you wanted in the first place.
Tell us then what were the concessions exactly?
I have been all lf the relevant meetings since January and at no point has Brafferton been offered up for consideration and I wouldn't be happy if it was for this reason:
No one who lives near Brafferton has asked for leashed dog walking to be legalized there. As the Parks Advisory Board agreed three months ago, parks should be determined by the direct communities they serve and those judgements should only be made after said community demands the change.
Again, no one want's a "dog park". We just want to be able to walk our dogs on a leash.
Sure anonymous, no problem..I've attended all but one meeting, and no one has ever spoken to me about a proposal at Brafferton.
at the meeting at Williamsburg, the group requesting dogs agreed to try the pilot with the permit fee to assure residents opposed that we wouldn't get different wards or hundreds of dogs, only the ones that most know and love.
I'm not BSing anyone. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Another clarification:
-Someone stated that most of the dog walkers must not have children. They obviously don't live here or they would know that virtually all of the dog walkers here in Sunset Hills have kids, I have two kids who grew up in that park. We all do. We are the ones who scare the pot smokers and booty bumpers out of the park late nights. We are the ones who cause the anonymous vans to pull away and move on. We are the ones who pick up cans and cups and wrappers because we love our park.
Just a clarification.
No one suggested or inferred that Brafferton was discussed at any meeting. Its being offered here as a topic for discussion, to run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes it.
Mitch, I think you inadvertantly exposed sonething here. Round about you'rr saying I want to walk my dog in my most convenient park, end of discussion.
My idea is to make Brafferton available to anyone in Lebo that wants to use it... a cheaper altrrnative to Fraasch's dog park.
You say you only want A place to walk your leashed dog. Walk it at Brafferton on the leash, there won't be a rule that says it has to be unleashed.
Williamsburgh and Brafferton are what seperated by 500 yards?
Admit it Mitch nd Dina, you want Williamsburgh because its convenient for you. You don't care about any other dog lover that enjoy playing fetch or frisbee with their pet.
Asked before, what proposals were tabled at the meetiings you attended, Dina and Mitch, and what concessions were made.
Since apparently, according to Franklin, few people attended the meetings, maybe some ideas were presented we might like better thsn the Williamsburg Pilot Program!
If you are in the park after dark with your dog, you have now committed two offenses. The parks are closed at dark.a
I'm. So. Busted!
My life won't be long enough for me to waste another minute trying to compromise with the intransigent so from this point I will just entertain myself with this debate (very entertaining at that) and walk my dog when the need arises.
Um, Mitch, someone clearly thinks we know each other? LOL
yes, anonymous, that's exactly it, we stirred up all this for our convenience. We have nothing else going on except for this. This has nothing to do with anything, and there were plenty of other people involed. Who have you been working with in the Brafferton proposal? I'll be happy to follow up with them.
Elaine, love the poop pictures, that's clearly locally produced dog poop. Hope you choose to post the ones I take.
Hey Mitch, who is the intransigent in reality?
You won't waste another minute trying to find a compromise that just might serve a bigger portion of the communkty.
If the compromise doesn't include your wish to walk your dog in Williamsburg you don't want anything to do with it.
I suspect that if someone suggested trying the pilot program in another park anywhere in Lebo, your reaction just displayed would be the same. Prove otherwise.
I will agree with one point you made, Mitch... you are busted.
So take your bone and go home, we're wasting our time discussing anything with you.
Dina, never inferred you know each other, never said it, never implied it and I don't give a damn if you do or don't. You both posted in support of the Williamsburg pilot program so why wouldn't you be lumped together.
Lets try this on for size. Lets mive the pilot program to Bird Park, OK? It'll serce a far greater number of residents, bringing in a greater number of $25 fees.
Sound fair? Enough of a compromise for you?
I'll support the pilot program if it gets moved to Bird Park. How's that for a compromise.
Anyone know either a Dina or Mitch living in close proximaty to Williamsburgh Park?
Just curious if these are real names. Please don't identify them as clearly they must have some reason for not using their full names.
Should we call them ---- partially anonymous contributors? Half anons?
Yeah Mitch, take your bone and go home! But don't you dare take that bone into Williamsburg Park, that's reserved for cats and turtles.
Elaine, I stand corrected, this is the greatest blog EVER!
6:29 PM, Bird Park already permits dogs on leashes. So do Twin Hills and Robb Hollow. They are considered passive parks.
Elaine
Then what is the pilot program about?
Plus what exactly defines a "passive" park? There is a sports field at Bird.
How the main park by the ice/pool complex. It is centrally located, serving a greater number of residents, it has playground equipment, pavillions, paths, trees, benches. everything Williamsburg has. So lets run the Pilot Program there. Fair enough Dina? Fair enough Mitch?
Dina, is there or is there not a sign saying No Dogs in Wiliamsburg Park?
No Dina, WB Park is reserved for people, have a problem with that?
Apparently if you're the person that said they are there at 9 walking their dog in violation of the code forbidding dogs.
Do you disregard all municipal codes or just the ones that don't suit you?
Hi Anonymous, I have to go watch the game now, but I wanted to answer a few of your questions. First, it was a joke about Mitch, we've been married for 23 years.
yes, my home is right by the park, several people on this blog are our neighbors and know us, so there's no reason to be outed, we use our names in our posts.
if you would like the pilot program moved to another park, the residents responsible for the Willamsbug request followed the rules, filed the appropriate paperwork and all the required "stuff".
Now that you know more about me, would you mind telling me more about you? Why any other park but Williamsburg?
I admit, I do not know the definition of a "passive park"
OMG, calms down, I know there is a sign, but truthfully, because of where I live, I don't go through the main entrance of the park so I really never noticed it.
So, by your standards I can take my cat, but not my dog.
If you read my post, I said check for me at 9, not my dog, or am I not allowed to be in the park now or post my point of view?
Active vs. passive according to Wiki:
"Parks can be divided into active and passive recreation areas. Active recreation is that which has an urban character and requires intensive development. It often involves cooperative or team activity, including playgrounds, ball fields, swimming pools, gymnasiums, and skateparks. Active recreation such as team sports, due to the need to provide substantial space to congregate, typically involves intensive management, maintenance, and high costs. Passive recreation, also called "low intensity recreation" is that which emphasizes the open-space aspect of a park and allows for the preservation of natural habitat. It usually involves a low level of development, such as rustic picnic areas, benches and trails. Passive recreation typically requires little management and can be provided at very low costs. Some open space managers provide nothing other than trails for physical activity in the form of walking, running, horse riding, mountain biking, snow shoeing, or cross-country skiing; or sedentary activity such as observing nature, bird watching, painting, photography, or picnicking. Limiting park or open space use to passive recreation over all or a portion of the park's area eliminates or reduces the burden of managing active recreation facilities and developed infrastructure."
Elaine
I don't support the pilot program at Bird, I live near williamburg, I don't want to load the dog into the car and drive to Bird park. I will continue to walk my dog there, ordinance or not. Dina, not sure that I know you but you have probably seen my dog, with one of our family members. I've never thought of walking the cat, I might give that a try.
For you who give extra points to those who have lived in Lebo longest, I am 55 years old and have lived here all of my life, but who cares. Just because you have lived here a long time, you don't get any more say that those who moved in last year. You both pay taxes! Probably the new folks are paying more due to the inequalities in the assessment system.
Dina I didn't want your auto biography, only if you were real people or using a pen name.
I personally don't care if contributors sign or not as long as their submissions are thoufhtful, intelligent and contribute something pro or con to the discussion.
There are some people that post that sign their names and after reading their comments I wished I hadn't wa
wassted my time reading it.
The standards for the park weren't put in place by me, Dina, so I don't appreciate you implyiing that your dog is not welcome there because of my standards!
I appreciate that you want to open the park for your dog. I'd like the rules for the park to remain as they've been.
Apparently, if Elaine's post is accurate 80% of the comish's constituents don't care, 10% want the dog restriction lifted and 10% don't.
Were the numbers 60% pro dog vs 40% no dog, i'd have to concede and say I'm in the minority, its time to change.
But we don't have that do we?
Don't try to paint me out as a prick, I like the park as it is and I have every right to want that as you do to open it up for dogs.
I suggesfed tbe Brafferton idea to give every dog owner in Lebo a place to play with their dogs pretty much unrestricted. Its close to you and you don't have to take Bowser off his leash if you don't want to.
I find it disingenuous when Dave Brumfield asserts that 80% of Ward 4 residents don't care about this issue while 10% are on the opposing sides. The anti-pilot petition presented on Monday had 80 signatures while the pro-pilot petition has 30 signatures. A summer meeting in the park had significant representation from both sides and was very contentious. However, it supposedly lasted 3 hours. Due to my son's birthday party, I had to leave early. I am sure many other parents with children could not stay for such an extended amount of time. Yet, many cite the final vote taken at that meeting to be representative of our neighborhood's position. That is disingenuous.
Also, I must ask, when did dogs (animals) gain equal consideration and privilege under the law to my children? Do the dogs pay taxes? Yes, the park is for everyone. All humans are free to enjoy the park without a permit or fee. Forgive me, but it is difficult for me to understand the arguments for this pilot. Whenever in doubt, children should take priority over animals.
10:24 Kubit had an equal number of proponents for the high school project to counter the 4,000 wanting ro reduxe its cost.
Of course we never saw any hard copy proof.
That is funny that you say that, 11:05 PM. I told someone tonight how Kubit claimed that it was evenly divided.
Elaine
I believe Franklin makes similar claims about turf as well.
We do see a good turnout supporting turf when its an agenda item, but less than 1% of the community doesn't make a majority.
Laughable! What a big fat lie!
Old play equipment was replaced with new play equipment so I'm sure children's voices were expected.
Dina, you may not want to walk your cat in the park either. Read up on the small animal ordinance law of Mt. Lebanon.
Dina, I never said dog walkers (I own 2 dogs) who wanted to open Williamsburg Park to dogs had no children. I said I would like to see the statistics of the families of that are pro doggers verses the no doggers. I said my guess would be that pro doggers are empty nesters or have older children (teen and older). I bet the no doggers have teens and younger or entertain young grand kids at the park.
This isn't a joke to me, nor is this blog. Your carelessness with reading posts and knowledge of the ordinances is rude. Admitting and saying you will continue to break an ordinance is blatantly rude
Ben Franklin published Poor Richard's Almanac...anonymously, one of the greatest books still impacting today's life.
Its funny, Dina writes: "if you would like the pilot program moved to another park, the residents responsible for the Willamsbug request followed the rules, filed the appropriate paperwork and all the required "stuff" so that's that!
No more discussion, you're a baaaaad person for imposing "your" standards on her because she followed the rules and the "required 'stuff'."
But alas, this civic minded person goes onto say that if she doesn't get her way she'll continue in her civil disobedience and continue to walk her dog in the park.
The logic employed cracks me up.
Morning bloggers, ugh, another Steeler loss, looks like it may be a rough season.
Working today, so can't blog too much.
I actually like the idea posted by another blogger regarding the cameras, which will help the dogs,kids and enforcement. Thoughts?
Also, I do NOT repeatedly break any ordinances. I walked with a girlfriend in the park last night just before 9, and I did not bring my dog. Once I was told about the issue, I have never walked my dog in the park.
Anonymous, I'm not "making you out to be anything", you are doing great all on your own.
Have a great holiday weekend!
Why would we imbark on this journey to create an ord. that reads like the tax code? Not here, only there, for a fee, this park, not that park, etc. Top that off with an ord. that encourages neighbors to monitor and report other neighbors for doggy violations. When should we expect peace love and understanding to come with that atmosphere surrounding us?
We also don't need doggy vigilantes patroling our park at night. Why would a woman with a dog confronting a drunken group of rowdy teens be considered a good idea? I'm sure the police would not approve. If we notice a problem, we call the police. Besides, as i pointed out earlier. The park closes at dark. If it's ok for you to walk your dog at night, then why isn't it ok for the teens to be there at night? So, while we're at it, mabye we should change that rule also. Park closed at night, except for dog walkers and teens with permits. Later we can talk about letting alcohol in the Pavilion. By permit, of course.
This plan is unenforceable, as is the current no dogs policy. We have for decades lived with the no dogs ord., yet many dogs are there, and no fines have ever been issued. Why lick a gifthorse in the mouth? This is a backdoor attempt at getting dogs in WP, and....drumroll. WP ONLY. Once all this drama dies down, and dogs pass. We are still stuck with an ord. that encourages outsiders dogs to come here, and nieghborhood strife.
Dave claims up to 70 will come with permit. that's a lot of dogs my friends. Better get a leash for your 3 yr. old kid, or follow Dave's advice and pack em in a car and take em to Country Club, that is if you prefer a dog free atmoshpere. You'll be pretty disappointed though, there are dogs in that park also. We'll need to discuss a parking lot over there with this increase in use.
Buckle residents of Foster, Hoover, Lincoln etc. This batte may be coming to your doorstep soon. Care of our Ward 4 commissioners obsession.
Pandora's box has no lid.
Dina, I know you are at work, so maybe your hubby will be able to step in. I am trying to put faces and names together. Is the man who spoke at the Commission meeting and said that he was going to walk his dog through Williamsburg after the Commission meeting, your husband, Mitch?
Elaine
Bruce, all excellent points. Once this spreads to other parks, and it will-GUARANTEED, we will have even more neighbors fighting with neighbors.
Elaine
Elaine, Yes I a that guy! I presume you were the brunette who sat in the far left seat, front row taking notes at the pre-meeting? Nice to meet you. Entertaining blog although I would guess we are breaking into a private party.
A lot of mentions as to the numbers on public sentiment here in the Sunset Hills area that is affected. In all of the meetings that I have attended, this past Mondays, which was not given any public advance notice, was the first time the non-walkers matched the dog-walkers in attendance. The well-promoted meeting IN THE PARK was attended by up to 70 people and the straw poll taken showed more than a 2.5-1 advantage to trying a compromise.
Thiis 'compromise" is merely punishing us for doing what had been completely common practice before we attempted to change the regulation. Since the opposition refuses to consider even this ridiculous "Pilot", I choose to ignore both the Pilot and the Rule.
Lastly, I was not involved or enthused when this ordinance change was initiated back in January. No one was aware of a problem until someone started calling the Animal Control, who then reluctantly started warning walker. This intimidation riled up a lot of people who no longer felt welcome in their own neighborhood. Some anti-doggers have resorted to putting anonymous creepy letters in doors and email harassment. Blaming those who would change this unnecessary rule for the lower level of discourse is akin to blaming freedom marchers in the fifties for lynchings.
Yes. I went there.
Serious Mitch, Your going to mention an effort to repeal a dog ordinance in a little corner of Mt. Lebanon in the same breath as Jim Crow laws, Medgar Evers, and Freedom Riders.
Absolutely incredible.
Another incredible comment Mitch.
You wrote at 1:03: "Since the opposition refuses to consider even this ridiculous "Pilot", I choose to ignore both the Pilot and the Rule."
You didn't get your way so you're decided the dog ordinance is rediculous and you're going to ignore it.
Dina (your wife?) said the "anti-dog people wouldn't compromise. What does you defiance of the park code say about you?
Elaine, and people call us "wingnuts!". Unbelievable.
Seems to be indicative of the New Lebo ethos.
Get a parking ticket-- ignore it.
Want to walk your dog in a park-- ignore the rules
Want to build an expensive high school even though 4,000 people ask for a reduced budget-- go ahead anyway
“The general ethos of the people they have to govern determines the behavior of politicians.” T. S. Elliot
We are totally screwed beyond belief.
Connie
Hi Dina,
I posted he suggestion about cameras in the park . It's amazing how behavior changes when people are under surveillance, and when tpeople believe that there will be consequences for their actions.
I also think that Mt Lebanon is at a juncture. My hope is that the residents believe that safe streets, safe parks and stable infrastructure are the foundation for a strong community.
If you are a parent, wouldn't you feel better knowing that your children were being monitored as they walk to school through an urban park?
I wouldn't be surprised to see downtown merchants support monitored streets where patrons can feel safer walking to their cars knowing that their streets are monitored.
John David Kendrick
I think that this should be played 24 hours a day on a speaker system attached to security cameras..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtXuKOfUPKw
LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE AND IF YOU DID NOT LAUGH AT THIS, YOU HAVE PROBLEMS!!!
Hey all, ready for the weekend??? TGIF!
Thanks John, I really do like that idea, even though my rebel husband has his own opinion, my kids love the park and I do think it would benefit both groups...
Bugsy, video was a riot, could not stop laughing.
OMG I THINK I HAD THAT ALBUM!!!
Thanks for taking this as seriously as it deserves :)
After listening to both sides, it sounds like there is common ground. Both sides seem to be against the fee. Are both sides against the pilot program? Would anyone support it? Anyone willing to sign their real name to it?
Elaine
Hi Elaine, I'm for the pilot program. I think we can give it a chance to see if it works, although I'm not in favor of the fee, I would pay it because I would like to walk my dog legally. I understand the concerns of the opposite side with the kids, so I agreed to the fee to keep it to local folks who were trying to respectful to the ordinance. Again, I do not walk my dog in the park now that I'm aware of the ordinance. All that was really asked for was a vote.
I really think the camera idea is a fair one.
But Dina, what about your "rebel husband" who would not support it? Mitch said that he has chosen "to ignore both the Pilot and the Rule."
I am confused.
Elaine
My anonymous opinion if you care to rrad it.
I'd prefer the park to stay dog free but.
If a majority wants it opened to dogs in some form or another I don't think there should be a fee.
i'm of the opinion that civic-minded adults shouldn't have to be policed. This Pilot program-f it is instituted is suppose to be a pilot program, a test. If it becomes a problem requiring police intervention it should be deemed a failure and cancelled.
Dina obviously does not realize the ramifications of this program!!!!
Connie
Elaine, all I can say is being married as long as I have been, this isn't the first, nor the last time Mitch and I will disagree.
He does not support the extra fee. It's a challenge because some folks say they don't want anything to change, yet they post pictures of poop in the park yesterday.
Before I knew about the ordinance and did walk my dog, I never came across an issue with children. I usually got one of two reactions. One, the kids really wanted to pet the dog. So, you hold back on the leash a little, check with mom/dad and if it was okay with them, I'd walk the child through petting the dog.
Second, I could tell by the child's face, despite my dogs mild demeanor, they were scared. Same thing, pull back on the leash and walk away from the child.
This area has so many other critical, major issues, I just can't understand why we can't simply try it.
I've taken some heat on the blog for breaking the law, and I've simply never done it. I use my name and have nothing to hide. I'm more concerned about the anger in the neighborhood. Just my two cents....expecting to get anonymously trashed for it.
The reason why I asked for names of those who support the program, 10:41 PM, is so that we don't have people "stuffing the ballot box." I know Dave Brumfield would never do that, but his supporters just may.
Thanks for signing your name, Dina.
Elaine
Elaine, first to your last point on "stuffing the ballot box":
This is what concerns me too. You see, whenever asked to show up at public meetings on this issue, dog walking proponents have always outnumbered the opposition. Usually by a very big margin. Yet, somehow our commissioners seem to get swamped with emails. Out of the blue someone claims to have a petition with a zillion signatures! When questioned most who initially expressed disagreement were shocked at how much the proposal was misrepresented. People were consistantly told that we wanted a "dog park" were dogs would run free... the last thing we wanted! Many of these people showed up at Williamsburg park to express support for legalizing leashed dog walking. If any "ballot stuffing" has been exhibited, it has been demonstrated by the anti-doggers.
As for the fee, I think it's bullocks, but IF the pilot program goes into affect, I promise to borrow my wife's "License To Walk".
Itsa Jeanthing....
Could you donate the album? Also, I was wondering if Sparky the dog from the fire department would be an exception since the sign does not specify real or fake dogs. Just no dogs....Hmmmmmmm....
Mitch, I don't The "license to walk" is meant fou your wife.
Elaine, understand. That was why I said opinion rather than vote. As I said I'd like the park to stay dog free, but again if the majority of my neighbors wanted it i wouldn't complain.
Mitch makes some claims and that highlights why there should be a referendum on the pilot progam.
Can the election bureau conduct a referendum for an imdividual Ward or does it have to run in every Lebo ward?
Bugsy
Unfortunately it was lost in the great basement flood of 1994 :( On further thought it was " You're A Good Man Charlie Brown" in which Charlie put in his most introspective performance as a spelling bee champion who goes to Australia to represent his country and his dog.
Anon, that's actually pretty mean, but not surprising.
Good thing I was born and raised in a much tougher area then the "bubble". Sticks and stones....
Elaine, I get that's your blog, but that's the last time I'll respond to Anonymous.
SNOOPY....SNOOPY....WHY OH WHY DID YOU ROAM? COME HOME COME HOME!!!!
Dina, apparently you love to twist things and are just lopking for a fight.
You husband said: " I promise to borrow my wife's "licensse to walk."
Why would he need to borrow ' yoiur' license? It was my understanding that the permit was to be displayed on the dogs leash. Do you have two dogs, his and hers? Then maybe HIS comment not be humorous... maybe.
For someone that admonishes people to calm down, I'd suggest you need to lighten up a bit.
I thought the reports of people almost coming to blows was an exaggeration, but after reading Dina's comments and Mitch's rebel stance (you called him a Rebel, Dina, so don't yell at me) it easy to see how neighbors almost came to fisticuffs over this issue.
I'm checking out of this conversation. Those in opposition have been reduced to cryptic warnings of collapsing "ethos" and personal shots that are not funny. When it stops being factual or at least funny, I don't have time for it.
Bye....... for now.
Mitch, where is yhe cheap shot? You said you'd borrow your wife's "license to walk." maybe I've misunderstood the whole pilot program. I understood it to be that you bought a permit to walk your dog. That ypu, your wife, you kids, someone watching your dog, could take the dog for a walk in the park. Therefore borrowing makes no sense!
Ypur comment suggest your wife would have a permit and you would by all rights have a permit too.
I said I didn't think anyone should have to buy a permit at all if the program is implimented.
I voiced a similar opinion on student parking permits.
I opposed parking permits at the HS for anyone, but if they imposed them they should be imposed on everyone.
Tthought I was meeting you and Dina, part way. Guess there is no pleasing you.
Mitch,
I agree with you. Why pay a fee for your dog? You already pay high taxes.
Why pay a rain water fee either?
I have more control over my dog than the rain.
9:09 agree.
They ought to make the person that generates the rain pay the fee. Our taxes "were" suppoae to pay for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure to deal with rainwater.
Elaine, the straw vote Mitch was talking about, was raise of hands after most people left. Not even an exact number. Underhanded I'd say, pun intended.
I'm replying about your comment of stuffing the ballot boxes. So lets see, brave Dave F has the numbers, because there ARE exact numbers the commission and PAB are IGNORING! 30 signatures for the pro doggers and 80 signatures for the no doggers! Lets not forget that 5 people in one family signed the pro dog petition and 5 people wrote to the commission asking for their names to be removed from the pro dogger petition.
I'm calling out Dave Franklin, PAB member from Virginia Manor (far away from Williamsburg park) because he has commented here and I know he has this information but would rather come here with propaganda.
To be fair the PAB, commissioners, city manager all have these documents and numbers. If they don't listen to the numbers, what will they listen to? its not about residents, its about agenda's. I don't like the numbers game either. Look at the "vote" Dave Brumfield took at his park meeting and then draws statistics from! Disingenuous indeed!
So if the commission has petition for doggers and a petition for no doggers, how can they continue with this? Both petitions were filed correctly. Who wins?
I tell you no one wins. The neighborhoods lose. It will be a wait and see as to whose dog gets killed first or someone gets their nose bit off by a dog. Lets cross our fingers and knock on wood that a child doesn't get mauled.
If its my kid that gets bit or my dogs, let me tell you I will sue Mt. Lebanon, the commissioners that voted for this and I will sue the petitioner starters as well. No BS here, I know it can be done.
I am not like Dave Brumfield who says he talks to anyone willing to talk to him about this issue. I talk to everyone everywhere in every ward! People that don't care, also mention they don't want to fight. We live in a country where people fight for us. People don't know how to fight or why. I'm sure if a tank rolled down the streets of Mt. Lebanon most wouldn't know what to do. Our commission wouldn't notice because they have their own agenda and the police would be too busy with demeaning work monitoring dog poop and tags.
I am so disappointed with the commissioners and their back room deals. They dont think these things through. I think their mentality is still about trying to impress their college professors or beef up their resume for future jobs. I would venture to say some wont live here in 10 years to deal with the future ramifications of their actions.
I used to feel ashamed because of the wealth in Mt. Lebanon, now I'm ashamed because of our local government.
Jake
I must also comment about the fee. This is like pay to play in the schools. Or comparr it to a fast pass at amusement parks. Money gets you priority treatment.
I detest the above as it creates a caste system of sorts. Nice. Someone can pay more money than you but doesn't have to wait their turn in line. Yes, teach our kids in preschool to wait their turn, don't cut line or you will go to the back of the line. But if you have more money u can buy your way out of the rules.
This applies to power as well. If you have the money or power you can do whatever you want without accountability.
I think the fees collected better go toward the township for when (not if) they get sued.
Jake
Jake, thats why students now pay to park at the high school (well to date that isn't accurate they park at the church on Washington) while no one else has to.
1:08. Wonder how many students park? Isn't this a walking neighborhood? I do worry about my child walking to the highschool. I worry about them driving, too. Seeing that a mother walking her 3 children in a stroller gets killed on Washington Road... I digress. But what is Mt. Lebanon doing about that? I guess all these new sidewalks are homage to that terrible, terrible tragedy.
I prefer the days of having to walk to school up hill both ways. I digress again. I want to leave my comments for the dogs, but really I joke; I fight for the kids.
I don't think dogs should be a priority above children's safety.
Jake
PS. I am going to sell riders to homeowners insurance for those that will walk their dogs in parks meant for children. Otherwise, minimum price for dog owners, should the unexpected happen is average $30, 000 per incident. Incident has nothing yo do with whether or not your dog was surprised by a curious toddler or provoked. Yes, when u walk your dog, own it, you are taking a $30, 000 chance. Check with your insurance carrier to see how much an incident will cost you personally. This has nothing to do with Mt. Lebanon.
And let's admit if many dogs are put together with many children,(say 30 dogs, 30 kids for example) laws of statics will prove the probability of an incident will become much more likely.
Jake, i do not know hoew many students parrk. The board's expectation of revenue or the amount they took in last year was $5,000 if my memory serves.
Funny, that's exactky what they paid in bonuses to the five admistrators.
Let's take a little tally here.
$8/month rain fee
$25 parking fee
$40 sports fee
$40 intramurals fee
So if you're a family with one hugh schooler, one dog and you reasssessment was neutral, your payments to the local governing bodies jumped by $200/year easy. Two kids, two dogs even more. Plus higher parking meter fees etc.
Keep repeating the mantra, the municipality didn't raise taxes and the district's increase was a mere pittance. Get ready for the trash fee too, that they're working on.
Jake, have you visited the dog park and walking path at South Park?
I was surprised by it, since I gone out there for a walk in a while. Not pleasantly, and I may have to cross that area off as a favorite walking spot.
But I saw what I'd estimate to be 20 dogs in the unleashed area at any one time with kids inside as well and things seemed fairly safe.
I did witness abattle between two dogs that the owbers seened tio get under control quuckly.
I winder if the county has any reports on this area, attacks, bites, dog droppings. I know horses pies are not uncommon throughout the park.
Jake, since you mentioned insurance, you're not the famous "Jake from State Farm" are you? What are wearing... khakis?
Just funni' ya.
Jake, you must get that a lot, because that is exactly what I was thinking when I saw your name for the first time! Well, That's a lie. I think of it every time I see your name.
Elaine
Post a Comment