Here is an email sent by Dave Brumfield to residents in his ward concerning dogs in Williamsburg Park. Note how he is doing this before forwarding to his fellow commissioners.
Friends and Neighbors,Williamsburg Park Pilot Program draft
Please find attached the draft for the Williamsburg Park Pilot Program we discussed during our June Meeting. I am circulating this draft to every resident that emailed me on this subject but if I missed anyoneplease feel free to forward it. I had hoped to get this out to everyone sooner, unfortunately there were a few tangential issues that I had not forseen that took longer to figure out. I am going to give everyone two weeks to provide me with comments, concerns and/or questions. Please forward any such communication to me by email if possible. On August 23, 2013 I will make any changes that seem appropriate based on the comments and questions I receive. I will then forward the program outline to my fellow Commissioners for consideration during our August 26, 2013 meeting.
Thank you for your interest and involvement with this issue.
Dave Brumfield
Is Dave making his own rules? Is this going to carry over to other parks? Where is the $25 permit fee going? Will it be to pay for the Williamsburg bouncer who will be "carding" the dogs? This ought to be good.
38 comments:
I am a Mount Lebanon resident living outside of Commissioner Brumfield's ward. I am not allowed to apply for a dog permit for a Mount Lebanon park?
It doesn't look that way. Sorry.
Elaine
Isn't it fascinating that Ward I isn't included since it was that ward and its former commissioner who pressed for the $1 million purchase of this land from Scott?
Then again, one could argue that Ward I didn't really want the land for anything more than privacy...but we all had to pay for it.
Is ML going to have to hire park watchers to keep an eye on the things? Will someone be checking permits or whether dogs are on leashes?
Is this for the park that isnt actually in Mt. Lebanon?
No, Snoopy. Twin Hills is in Scott. The ordinance was changed to allow you to go there legally. You will have to pay a fee, if you and your master live in Brumfield's ward.
Just an FYI, the MTL teachers' union president was included in that eblast. The 90 days will carry us through November. Anything is possible in an election year.
Elaine
Geez, what will be next? Will Brumfield want his ward to secede from Mt. Lebanon?
Mme. Moderator: The essential problem is that everything is NOT negotiable in Mt. Lebanon -- negotiation implies not just listening, but hearing another point of view, and accommodating for it in some way (that is: compromise). The ability to compromise seems to be the one missing ingredient in municipal governance in Lebo -- whether we speak of the commission or of the school district.
Until or unless there is dialogue and the possibility of negotiation, there can be no civic democracy. The problem you have identified ("switch and bait") is simply the use of the good will of the citizens as a device to feint negotiation until the power to set final priorities is obtained by trick or device. On Wall Street that is called fraud. Here it is just politics as usual.
The Swamp Fox
1:02 Would you want to keep Mr. Brumfield if he did want to secede?
Mr./Ms. Swamp Fox, I was being sarcastic. Dave Brumfield approved the ordinance which permits dogs in Twin Hills, Bird, and Robb Hollow parks only. Yet, he has taken the law into his own hands to have a "pilot program' for his ward and his ward only. To participate, there is a fee. If Snoopy doesn't live in Dave's ward, then Snoopy can't participate, even if he lives in elsewhere in Mt. Lebanon. Dave seems to think that ordinances are negotiable.
Elaine
Mme. Moderator: Here is a suggestion to mandate the potential for compromise: we should write into our charter that every candidate must run with a single party affiliation, and that no party may hold more than 3 of the 5 seats on the commission, with a similar rule to be adopted for the school district under its own governing authority. This would require perspective, if not compromise, and a voice at the table for all.
An example of corruption, abuse, and disenfranchisement in the present system of cross-filing is the school board on which the value of the directors is unanimity, not diversity or compromise. Mere "public front" does not serve any legitimate interest, unless you believe that debate and democracy are not good for school (or municipal) governance. The Founding Fathers (and Mothers, as well, although the Mothers, who certainly influenced their political husbands, could not vote until someone listened to them, heard them, and compromised to bring the Moms of America into the system, too) would all agree.
Imagine what our country would be like if we were actually governed on the principle of no respect for public dispute among office holders? Where would Ms. Cappucci, Ms. Birks, Ms. Linfante, Ms. Posti --for example --and the other elected woman leaders of this community stand on "inclusion and respect for diversity of opinion" then?
Hypocrisy is always the Mother of Tyranny.
The Swamp Fox
Mme. Moderator: My proposal would clearly require that we go to a municipality-wide ballot, giving up the archane Ward system, so that the top vote getters would be declared elected, until a majority of one party prevailed, and then the highest vote-getters of the opposing party (or parties) would round out the governing board. To prevent fraud or manipulation of the system, a "party" for these purposes would have to be any organization recognized as eligible to participate in the PA vote for presidential electors, or for governor -- so no local splinter or phony groups to tilt the system.
The Swamp Fox.
A rainwater fee,
A garbage fee,
A dog poop fee.
First he poops on all sports but swimming, then he poops on his own Ward.
"Dog Poop Dave" Brumfield is really bad news. We need some tar and feathers.
The $25 fee is per dog! This could generate some good revenue. With the fees and the fines collected, this could be more lucrative than signage around the ball parks.
Will it go toward turf, sidewalks, or flood victims?
Elaine
1152 you didn't sign your name, but you don't need a permit to violate the Scott Township's rules. You can just drive your car to Twin Hill Drive and walk you dog in Scott. The Mt. Lebanon Nature Conservancy will even chip in charitable dollars to buy your doggie pick-up bag. Who knows, maybe the Conversancy will chip in for the 4th Ward dog park too.
Elaine, Let's turf the Golf Course.
Yeah, just like Cool Springs! Ask Dan Remely how that worked out.
Elaine
Cool Springs never had turf,. That is why it turned to mud just like some holes at our golf course.
Cut and paste this link into your browser,
http://www.golf.com/photos/dave-pelzs-golfers-paradise/dave-pelz
Then click on the pictures 8 times to see how nice our golf course could be.
We could repair the storm water damage with the profits from the golf course.
Sounds like a plan. Email the commissioners wirh your idea. Let's get back on topic, the Williamsburg Park Pilot Program, OK?
Elaine
Clarification needed---is that $25 per dog or $25 per poop?
Williamsburg Prak POOP program
5:04 PM, $25 per dog permit. I don't know what the poop fine would be. Brumfield will have the police and animal control counting poop piles and checking for permits DAILY. According to his draft, Brumfield will be checking once a week, poop and permits.
Elaine
Elaine:" Additionally, the Mt. Lebanon Police Department will make periodic sweeps through the park daily (primarily by using animal control personnel)"
Periodic sweeps daily...
Mme. Moderator: I caught your tone, but wanted to sound a note on the larger issue that there is no tendency to representation in this town, not even to cooperation. We seem to share the same view. If only our "leaders" would be worthy of following.
The Swamp Fox
Outrageous comes to mind. The location of the park would self-select dogs that live in the neighborhood. Next will be permits for ward 4 kids to use fields.
That fee is a good idea. $18 for two hours use per child.
$36 for two hours of submarine racing in the parking lot at Brafferton
It is all about power and control. Beware my friends.
Connie
Connie, Dave still thinks he is president. This is what you get when there is no opposition on the ballot. We're going to have four more years of this.
Elaine
Swamp Fox says, "Imagine what our country would be like if we were actually governed on the principle of no respect for public dispute among office holders?"
We're already there, pal. This isn't about closing the barn door before the horses run. It's now (here and nationally) about how to corral the ones we can and put down those we can't (figuratively speaking, of course. don't want to be accused by some Cali-Lebo transplant whiner of making a threat).
The Commissioners believe dogs cannot be without a leash in PA but that is not correct (see Mt Nittany Conservancy for more clarification on how they manage dogs on their trails). The PA law states an owner must have “reasonable control” of their dog at all times. Here is the law section for PA:
§ 459-305. Confinement and housing of dogs not part of a kennel
(a) Confinement and control.–It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any dog to fail to keep at all times the dog in any of the following manners:
(1) confined within the premises of the owner;
(2) firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it cannot stray beyond the premises on which it is secured; or
(3) under the reasonable control of some person, or when engaged in lawful hunting, exhibition, performance events or field training.
All of this permitting, etc. is exhausting to me.
To add some clarification from someone who is in Williamsburg Park rather often...
The question RE: Dogs in the park has come up because there already are people who are ignoring the sign and bringing their dogs to the park.
There is a group of people who have 'flooded' (for lack of a better term) the parks meetings demanding that they be able to enjoy the parks with their dogs (some people on the verge of tears of course). This group also distorted the facts by saying that the park is "rarely used" which is not true.
There is also a group of individuals who are very much against having dogs in the park. The child of one of these individuals was actually bitten by a dog in the park.
The municipality up to this point has been rather laissez faire about the issue. The police have basically refused to enforce the laws, stating they have better things to do.
There was a public meeting at Williamsburg park (my wife attended as I could not because I was out of town). The meeting was well attended and got very heated (as any meeting will be that deals with dogs and children). In the end, the proposal that Mr Brumfield sent out was the compromise that was agreed to.
This issue is extraordinarily emotional for some people (me excluded). I sent my thoughts to the commission on the issue (which are basically ambivalence - let the dogs go there as long as the owners are being responsible, the dogs are leashed, the owners are cleaning up after the dogs, the dogs are staying out of the child play areas and service dogs being exempt from restrictions). I don't understand the fee they came up with and where it will be going? Maybe to pay for another enforcement officer? (I doubt they would get enough money to fund that).
I think the added enforcement is a step in the right direction though.
Jack, the voice of reason, as usual. Thanks for your viewpoint.
I don't get the permit thing or the fees either. Either enforce the existing ordinance or change it. It sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare. Just don't bend the rules to suit your own ward.
Elaine
Jack said his attitude is "basically ambivalence "
John Ewing
On the dog issue, I am ambivalent (when you compare to my opinions on the subjects of turf, bonds, taxes and taj mahal schools, my opinion on dogs is very neutral). I see both sides. People who have kids want them to be protected. People who have dogs want to go out with them. Both have valid wants.
I should disclose, while I do have a child, I do not have a dog (I'm allergic to them).
This is a case where a compromise is very achievable. I do think Mr Brumfield at least tried to get people involved (although, I do think he was surprised at the turnout of the meeting at the park). I am not a supporter of his, but on this issue, I think he at least is trying to do the right thing. I don't know what authority he has to set up a pilot program for this. If people are interested, they may want to attend a parks meeting and ask about it.
I'm confused... If I, an over-taxed resident of Dave B's ward, wants to walk my dogs in this park I have to pay a fee of $25 each dog? But others living outside Dave B's ward don't have to pay a fee? Where is the money from this "Fee" going? Aqua Club, Lacrosse or like the missing Parking Ticket money... But has ANYONE suggested to Dave B. that just maybe he should spend more time addressing the old Pizza Hut building and the eyesore across the street and the old Pub & Pizza eyesore.
4:05 AM, in order to pay the $25 per dog membership fee, you have to be a resident of his ward. I would not be able to sign up my dog, Timmy, and bring him on a leash because we don't live in Dave's ward. I guess it will be kinda an exclusive doggy country club. Had any money been left over from the swimming pool bond, I mean the Rec Bond, it could have gone toward a free dog park in Robb Hollow. At least, that is what Kelly Fraasch was proposing. Franklin shot that idea down during a Parks Advisory Board meeting.
Elaine
4:05, In order for Mr. Brumfield to address the old Pizza Hut building 191-J-26, he would have to move to Castle Shannon, wait a couple years, then run for a Borough Council seat. The Pub & Pizza, 141-S-305 is having issues with Sewer Rental charges.
Post a Comment