The Williamsburg Park discussion is during the last 6 minutes or so of the meeting. One of the PAB members gave an update about the Williamsburg experiment. Kelly Fraasch asked, "What if there was another park added?" Oh great. Now we will have more people fighting. This is exactly what I predicted. The animosity will spread throughout the community. Can't we just clear off an area in one of the passive parks for dogs and forget the neighborhood parks? Can't we just stick with the current ordinance and worry about more important issues? More time has been spent over this than the pool fiasco. That is worrisome to me.
Update September 4, 2013 5:36 PM Here is the soundbite to the PAB meeting concerning Williamsburg Park.
Update September 5, 2013 8:55 AM A Lebo Citizens reader sent this photo of the sign in Iroquois Park taken yesterday.
 |
| Iroquois Park |
More spending!!! The answer is always more spending!!!
ReplyDeleteWe have a pool that is bid $900,000 over the proposed budget. We have 2 purchaes properties at $2 million sitting idle. Wehave a bunch of people demanding $1.2 million in fake grass and suddenly the percieved unspent funds just vaporized into the aboveand then some and a tabled solution is build another park!
How about this.there is a fine, beautiful park just 5 miles away that provides miles of pleasant paths all open to dogs on leashes. Plus it even provides a fenced in area where the dog lovers can take off the leash so Fido can run free to his hearts content. Doesn't cosr the municipality a dime.
Or here's an alternative, lets buy everyone in Mt. Lebanon there own little wish. Own a duck, we'll build a pond. Like to fly R/C planes we'll build you an airstrip.
Kayakers, ask for your personal ragin' rapids!
Everybody's happy in the bubble, your wish is the commissioners command.
Step up to the microphone, let the commissioners know how you feel thatthere isno free space for yiur gerbil.
We have a lot of family vehicles with OBX stickers. Would they be happier if we built then a huge dune to fly their hang gliders from? Plus, I haven't been able to find the Lebo lighthouse.
ReplyDeleteAnother park? Kelly Fraasch why would u suggest such a thing? Is she talking about her dog park?
ReplyDeleteDave Brumfield said no other parks were to be considered because no one asked.
Get out of the ship fast the rats are starting to jump out.
(The plan is the ship).
Thee idea that any pilot plan would fix the current non-enforcement by adding more parks to enforce is insane!I
Which park is the lucky winner? Is Kelly going to orchestrate petitioners for another park?
I've supported Kelly thus far but this will be the end for me.
I just figured it out! I know why all of the silliness is going on with the commission, pool, dogs, suprindentendent's tweets!
ReplyDeleteWe're slotted for a reality show! Maybe replacing the Jersey shore!
Yeah 4:16 you could play snookie with your snide comments. So helpful, you are. Just a barrel of laughs!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Commisioner Fraasch, if you are reading, I suspect adding another park wlll solve nothing.
ReplyDeleteOne of the Ward 4 proppnent of the WB pilot plan said they would ignore the pilot plan and the current rules. So I imagine commissioner unless your new park goes in conveniently close to their residence they'll still want a Ward 4 dog accessible park or will continue to disregard No Dogs in WB rules.
So while on the surface it is an admirable attempt to make people happy, in the long run it'll probably just add another park to maintain.
4:46 lighten up! As I am learning about these issues, it is hard to make sense of them. It seems like so many people r only concerned with their own agendas, including our politicians and school board.
ReplyDeleteLike Yoda, you Speak. in Timbre not logic.
My comments are snide? Snide is a rather harsh description for a Joke!
Mt. Lebanon politics would be great fodder for a reality show. it would bring great ratings. You can't make this stuff up.
I updated this thread with a link to the soundbite of the Williamsburg discussion.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Anybody happen to see Brumfield with a giant doggie bag cleaning up the doggie poop before the photo's were taken ?
ReplyDeleteWho took the photo's - were they retouched by the PIO ?
Oh dog crap... Here comes the next issue.
ReplyDeleteAnyone catch The Almanac article titled "A Dogs Day In The Sun," about dogs swimming in the Mineral Beach pool in Findleyville?
It won't be long before those wonderful Lebo caretaking canine demand access to the new pool for themselves and their human pets! LOL
6:24 PM, I took the three photos of Williamsburg Park. I photoshopped in the kids and mom and removed the drug dealers and meteors. There are never any kids in that park, remember? If you look carefully, you will see a unicorn hiding behind one of the trees.
ReplyDeleteElaine
maybe mastifs only in main, boxers only in Williamsburg, terriers and collies only in rockwood and iroquious, and then the hot dogs only in meadowcroft. proper dogs in proper spaces. Not sure what to do about Pitbulls.
ReplyDeletePitbulls are housed with the PIO !
ReplyDeleteThe commission looks silly compared to the school board.
ReplyDeleteLol. This would make a great reality show! OMG. Perhaps we could pay off Versailles at the same time, I mean the high school, with the income from the show.
ReplyDeleteWhen I move far, far way from Mt Lebanon, I am simply going to remember how people treated each other.
Come on people. Some people love their kids, some people love their dogs, and some people love both. Can't we be KIND to each other?
I had a birthday party for my son at Williamsburg Park and it was absolutely LOVELY. Didn't see any dog mess or a disrespectful person. It was beautiful. Come on people, now... try to love one another right now!
ReplyDeleteWP is only two blocks from Dormont. I'll bet those residents won't pay Brumfield $25.
Nice 11:52, reminds me of a scene from the movie "Kelly's Heroes" with Clint Eastwood and Donald Siutherland.
ReplyDelete"Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!" [we still have to resolve dogs or no dogs in Williamsburg Park]
You all should stop hyperventilating and get your facts straight on this.
ReplyDeleteNobody asked for "another park".
The way I hear it, the question was what if we "considered another park" as in adding the ability to walk your dogs in another or "different" park. Nobody in this meeting was considering adding a new park for walking your dog.
Keep the conspiracies coming. I love 'em! I find them entertaining.
1:04 duh! We knew that!
DeleteKelly needs to get out of the dog park and the swimming pool business.
ReplyDelete1:04 why don't YOU learn to comprehend.
ReplyDelete"Considering another park" means "another park!" its right in your repeat of.. what do you want to call it... a question... a proposal... an idea?
Commissioner Fraasch earlier proposed a new dog park at Robb Hollow. That would be a "NEW" park since there is no dog park in the municipality.
If her suggestion was to allow dog walking in "another" existing park in addition to Williamsburg, that is 'adding' to the cost for dog parks. Remember the pilot plan includes increased police patrols and some are considering survallence cameras. So that increases costs!
You are right in that the consideration could possibky mean crossing Williamsburg out of the pilot plan, which I addressed by commenting that the Williamsburg dog walkers wouldn't be happy.
So play with semantics if it makes you happy,but my comment covered all the possible scenarios of "another park."
It wasn't conspiracy theory, it was deductive reasoning. Something our elected officials don't employ much as witnessed by the silly hastily passed field ordinance that yielded one lousy sign.
Glad I entertain you though.
1:40 you doo doo so continue to amuse.
ReplyDeleteI can see a semantics argument brewing already so let me try my best to cut it off at the pass.
In this context, the reference was made to a individual who was worried about dogs in Williamsburg Park. The comment was (paraphrasing) "what if we add this ability to walk dogs to another park" or as Elaine quotes, "What if there was another park added". In context, the last quote should be read as thus: "I understand you (the "you" being the person discussing Williamsburg Park) have an issue with having dogs at Williamsburg, however the policy we are addressing may not apply just to that single park. What if there was another park added? Could you evaluate this idea any clearer if personal emotions were taken out of your evaluation of Williamsburg Park?"
The people in the room certainly understood the context as the conversation went on smoothly from there. Nobody in the room thought anyone was suggesting adding a new dog park to address the issue at hand.
Instead, the headline of this post (as well as some comments such as your own) read that the Parks Advisory Board is actually considering adding another park to our list of parks and that this park would be for the dogs and that they are doing this due to a comment from a commissioner.
None of this is true. And THAT is why I find the hyperventilating so amusing.
Ccorrection--
ReplyDeleteSo play with semantics if it makes you happy, but my comment covered all the possible scenarios [I COULD IMAGINE] of "another park."
I don't relish more municipal expenditures that will eventually take more money out of my pocket.
Perhaps you do love higher taxes and and that is why you take issue with me rather than dog parks.
The reason there was no question about what Kelly meant was because she had already discussed Robb Hollow Park and her intent in that park.
ReplyDeleteI took the comment to mean, "What if we added another park to the pilot program?" The animosity will just spread throughout Mt. Lebanon.
No conspiracy theory. i can see how people would be confused.
We will find out more details on Tuesday, during the Discussion Session.
Elaine
Then I apologize if your version of the meeting conversation is accurate. BUT...... it is my understanding we already have at least one Mt. Lebanon park, Twin Hills, where residents can walk dogs. Is that a correct assumption on my part?
ReplyDeletePlus, am I correct that Fraasch presented a plan to construct a dog park at Robb Hollow? By asking if "another park" would be acceptable, was she testing the waters for a new look of her Robb Hollow plan, which would be more expensive I suspect than just letting dogs into Williamsburg.
Without a declaration of exactly where "another park" would be, we have no idea of whether "another park" will cost more money or not.
Guess its up to Kelly to tell us what she had in mind!
Elaine were you "in the room?"
ReplyDelete2:22 I admit I wasn't in the room and have listened to the recording so its impossible for me to get the implied suggestion.
ReplyDeleteYou paraphrased Kelly's comment, why not write actual quote?
11:52 the dogs aren't the problem; the owners are the problem:
ReplyDelete1) Twin Hills has doggie bags donated by the Mt. Lebanon Nature Conservancy because owners won't bring their own bags.
2) One park neighbor defaced public property by painting out the word "dog" on a public park sign you paid for.
3) Another neighbor refuses to pay the dog fee and will walk his dog where it doesn't belong because that is what he wants to.
4) If the dog owners can't behave themselves why are Brumfield and Fraasch catering to them?
5) Some dog owners have to be told NO before they will behave themselves. Would you have had such a nice party for your child if dog pooh and urine were plentiful in Williamsburg Park?
Sanitation and common sense trump being Mr. Nice Guy.Why do you think we have a NO DOG ordinance to begin with?
I'll leave it to Brumfield and Fraasch to ruin their own reputations by pushing reckless ideas on the public. Next year the newly renovated Williamsburg Park won't be so wonderful for a birthday party after Dave and Kelly's friends get through with it.
2:22 which park do you think Kelly had in mind?
ReplyDeleteDid everyone in the room that "understood" the suggestion jump up and demand opening their neighborhood park to dogs?
All said and done, that is still the real issue, isn't 2:22.
Which park goes to the dogs?
she only has one park to add. Main Park. The others are not in her ward. "I" hear her ask the question, but it was just a question. It did not go any further than that.
ReplyDeleteHints, allegations and things left unsaid.
Ask Morgans to resurtect the results of the Lebomag poll asking how many people would work on, donate to or help maintain a dog park.
ReplyDeleteWasn't much entusiasm shown.
Are you suggesting she was 'asking' to open Main Park?
ReplyDeleteAnd are you also suggesting that a commissioner may only proposal (ok... ask) or vote to change the ordinance on dogs In parks in thwir ward only?
Any commissioner could make a suggestion to open any park in the bubble up to dogs. You're talking nonsense when you say she has only Main to add.
Twin Hills does not have doggie bag donations. At one point, there was a dog waste container but it was abruptly removed when the park banned dogs for period of time this year. It's a very clean park according to users who go regularly and frequently just pick up trash when it is observed.
ReplyDeleteI understand that since this is a "Pilot Program," the commissioners can vote to move forward with the program on Tuesday. No public input or hearing is required. If the "Pilot Program" proves to be successful, then a public hearing is required before the ordinance is amended. Again.
ReplyDeleteElaine
10:37 PM, yes but it wouldn't be a good idea if Kelly offered a park in a ward of a commissioner who opposes the plan.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Isn't that why Brumfield is pushing Williamsburg? It's his ward.42
ReplyDeleteSo, i'm the guy that's making the comments in the audio. Beat me up if you need to. Kelly did not offer up any park in particular, I brought up Main since i know that is her ward. She did not specifically mention Main or any other park, she just posed the question. I responded that it would then be unfair to 2 parks, and not just 1. We want dogs in our parks, or we don't is what i said.
ReplyDeleteIt's odd how people can distort facts so quickly. if you really listen to it, there should be no question of what was said.
So i will state. This is a problem that has been created where no problem ever existed. No fines have ever been issued in WP. We have lived in peace with that sign for 30+ yrs. At worst, you would be asked to leave, just as you may if you bring your dog to Howe Elementary. Big Deal!!
2 officers patrol 8 S. Hills communities for our animal control. Patroling WP is not a high priority item. The plan is only enforceable by neighbor reporting neighbor. There's a block party topic of interest!
This plan does not keep them seperated from our kids It encircles them, literally, and on their bike path. This is local politics at it's worst.
Much ado about nothing.
it's just after noon. there are almost 40 down there with the kids. noon on a friday.
ReplyDeleteBruce, nobody is trying or going to verbally beat you up... I hope.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you for the most part... It is much ado about nothing, our parks have been operating near as I can tell with relatively few issues or problems for a lot of years. I'd like it to stay that way, but I understand that things do change.
I never thought I'd see the day when there would be restaurants catering to owners with dogs or stores allowing people to enter with their pets. I won't patronize the one that do, but apparently there are enough dogs ownwrs out there that my business isn't a great loss.
That is why I saw no problem opening WB up early in the morning or nesr dusk to give the fog walkers an opportunity to use the park. No fee and if dog droppongs become an issue the pilot program shuts down.
As you said Bruce, there's been no enforcement, but now we might add police patrols, security cameras, waste pick up, so it not much ado about nothing. It could be, but its not shaping up that way.
As for Kelly's comment of another park. I'm still betting she was looking to see if there might now be interest in her Robb Hollow doggie park. Which is much ado, and still needs a lot of dicussion.
Any change would need to be enforced. But the ord. is not enforced now, so changing the law will not change that, it will only lead to more dogs here. As for more Parks. The comment was unrelated to the Dog Park. That is a real proposal in front of the commiss. It was meant as an additional park to the pilot program. Honestly, if we were to say let them in all the parks, i'd say i don't like it, but i won't fight it either. If this passes it will eventually to all parks anyway. People will want the same for their neighborhood, and why not? Status Quo is fine by me, let's just "let it be".
ReplyDeletesorry for anon. pretty obvious that was me.
ReplyDeleteThe first item on the agenda for Tuesday's Discussion Session is:
ReplyDeleteProposed pilot program to allow dogs on leash in Williamsburg Park.
http://mtlebanon.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1827
Twenty minutes is set aside for that discussion. Twenty minutes is usually allotted to big issues. I can't believe that much time will be wasted on this topic.
The Discussion Session starts at 6:25 PM.
Elaine
4:06, I wish the topic had never come up and things stayed as they were.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the cat... er dog... is out of the bag and I don't think its going back in.
You say you wouldn't llike opening all parks to dogs, but you wouldn't fight it.
I'm not ttying to be an adversary but you give 3 conflicting opinions.
1. I'd like to keep the status quo
2. If all parks are open to dogs I won't fight it
3. If the pilot program passes it will eventually open in every neighborhood park.
I like you would like to see the current rules stay in place, but I'm willing to try a very structured pilot program, if and only if a majority of the residents in which ever ward it is going to be tried agree to the test.
I'm assuming since voters can only vote for their ward commissioner candidates, a referebdum can be ward specific at the polls too.
Want a ward 4 park open for dogs, put it to the Ward 4 voters, simple as that.
Spell out the plan and put to a vote. None of this pitting neighbor against neighbor, name calling, etc.
Want the status quo, get out the vote.
Want to walk your dog in the park, get out the vote.
How hard is that?
Hi Bloggers, I'm sure I was missed, auditors in the office means 15 hour work days. I thought about logging on tonight hoping to see that as Williamsburg park neighbors, we has considered some viable solutions.
ReplyDeleteMuch to my dismay, it's not the case.
First, thanks Elaine for the lovely pictures of the park, I really love that park, it was part of the reason I bought my house.
Bruce, you say it's much ado about nothing, but I was there when you to,d the group at Williamsburgh that you proposed a similar pilot program to what Dave is proposing. The whole reason that there is an issue at all is because neighbors want to TRY a pilot to potentially walk their dogs in the park legally.
You guys should have seen the actual neighbors post meeting talking to Dave about the division in the neighborhood, no good can come of that.
Not sure what Kelly or her dog park with high fences and loose dogs, or her charge for garbage bags has anything to do with the issue, but I'm sure someone will fill me in.
Maybe it's rose colored glasses, but I refuse to believe that the group of neighbors can't come up with a feasible compromise and solution.
Was there any progress on timeshare while I was working this week?
P.S. Timeshare doesn't cost a dime! Let's put it to a vote...
ReplyDeleteWord on the street is that Dave is removing the $25 fee, Dina. The Pilot Program will be discussed on Tuesday in Conference Room C, Municipal Building at 6:25 PM. Citizen comments start at 8 PM in the Commission Chambers.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Great! Thanks Elaine!
ReplyDeleteDina, your anonymous adversary from the other discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem thwt educated MtL neighbors could arrive at some sort of compromise pilot plan to vote on.
As I said before, I'm not a fan of dogs, butI can't see any reason to deny dog walking in hours that the park isn't heavily used.
Put clocks and cameras in the parks.
ReplyDeleteI still want to know if sparky the fire dog is allowed in the park?
ReplyDeleteI merely mentioned USC's code, of course, that would apply to ALL parks, not just WP. If we insist on dogs then we should do it everywhere. I've been consistent on this point since Jan.
ReplyDeleteSo, if there is a cap how can I be guaranteed a spot? Living right next to the park, what if I don't get a tag because someone 2 streets away beat me to it?
ReplyDeleteHow is that fair? I think the fee should be there also to make sure obne has a vested interest. What if my neighbor decides to get a puppy? I guess their puppy is out of luck, too.
Hi Anon, yes we may see other points differently, but I'm very glad that despite that we can see past them to be fair and hear each others point. More of that would go much farther than the neighbor versus neighbor I've been witnessing for the last seven months.
ReplyDeleteHaven't heard about the capping the number of dogs point, does anyone have more information on that?
Would like to understand it better.....
Yes, Dina, word on the street is there will be a cap. So not only do you have to live in Ward 4, you have to be quick to sign up. Being that you and your hubby have been the only ones who have said that you will participate, I don't think you have anything to worry about. If you go to the meeting on Tuesday, I would love to meet you.
ReplyDeleteElaine
So now a free park becomes a fee park.
ReplyDeleteDropped the R, that is a little bit of a coincidence.
Apparently, dog walkers will have to be quick or be well connected to get their hands on a permit.
This idea gets weirder and weirder everyday. Heaven help us if this Brumfield guy gets another term as a commissioner. Dina I'd vote for your dog before him.
the town is going to the dogs.
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:43, although I would have expressed myself differently about Dave, your comment was very funny and made me laugh. Yogi thanks you for the vote!
ReplyDeleteElaine, if all goes well at work, I plan on attending, and would love to meet you as we'll. Looking forward to it.
12:55 what about hot dogs?
ReplyDeleteIf you have a picnic in the park, $25 per hot dog could be very expensive.
You worry about dog "poop" and "pee" and their owners not cleaning up BUT guess what all those deer are doing? Plus their wonderful tag-a-longs the ticks. Ever hear what raccoons leave behind as far as diseases go? Maybe Dave B. can hire one of the Doggy-Poop-DNA companies. It's spending money so he'll be all for it! He then can hire a bunch of Poop-Cops and Detectives too. He'll love it...
ReplyDeletePeople should be able to responsibly walk their dog(s) on a leash in the parks. They should pick up after their dogs and respond to cues from kids, adults, or whomever, when they don't want to be approached. We all need to tolerate each other and be respectful at the same time. Start this now, please.
ReplyDelete9:31 that sounds great on paper. Have u ever heard of Asperger's? Autism? Some do not know how to respond to the cues of others or their dogs, disorder or not. Even Cesar Milan was not able to predict every single bite he has gotten.
DeleteYour use of the word responsibly seems very loose to me. I think it's irresponsible to allow a dog, even on leas, to walk through a park and play area for children. No matter how well you pick up your dog's poo, you won't ever get all of it.
Let's just drop it and agree to disagree.