Onleash/Offleash Proposals
Summary Of The Two Proposals
Councilor Burke Proposal (supported by BARC)
- Dogs allowed on leash in all parks, in all areas of parks (except Gardens),
all day, throughout the year
- Dogs allowed off leash in areas to be designated by the City Council
- Creation of an Advisory Committee made up of a resident from each Ward
- Places designation and control of off-leash areas with the Wards
- No cost to the city
- No loss of public space
- Respects dog owners, parks, and families
Park And Rec Off-Leash (PAROLE) Proposal
- The overall Park & Recreation proposal designates 4 unusable areas as "dog parks".
- The overall Park & Recreation proposal designates 1 park per ward for limited off-leash access.
Two of these parks are considered unsuitable by BARC.
- Park and Recreation controls all access to the parks.
- Program success or failure is determined by Park & Recreation.
The Proposals
There were two onleash/offleash proposed ordinance changes submitted to the City Council on June 19, 2006.
One plan, submitted by Councilor Hobin, attempts to put into place an ordinance change that supports the
recent dog park proposal submitted by the Park & Recreation Commission. BARC does NOT
support this proposal. It makes no significant changes to the current situation, and enables Park &
Recreation to retain complete control over the program.
The second proposed ordinance change was submitted by Councilor Burke, and attempts to restore on-leash access to all areas of all parks (except Gardens) that
was taken away a few years ago when the whole off-leash debate began. It also creates an advisory committee, made up
of one resident from each ward, that will work with the City Council to identify and create off-leash areas in the parks.
You can read what the modified ordinances will look like here:
What Can You Do?
Both proposals will be going to the Legal Affairs Committee on Monday, June 26, in City Hall, at 6:30.
This is a public meeting, and your attendance is greatly appreciated. It's up to the chair of the committee
to decide whether to take public input or not, but just being there can make a statement too.
It is critically important that you let your Ward Councilor and At Large Councilors
know that you support Councilor Burke's proposed ordinance change. You can call your ward councilor, you can send them a letter,
or you can send them an email. Your opinion DOES make a difference, but they need to hear from you.
Contact information for city council members, and the mayor, can be found here.
Dog Committee Findings
In 2004, the Dog Subcommittee was appointed by the Parks & Recreation
Commission to find off leash areas for dogs and their owners. The
subcommittee found that a single use dog park would not meet the
needs of either the dog owners or their neighbors. The Subcommittee
bases their recommendations on the following findings:
- Dog owners wish to exercise their dogs and socialize in their
own neighborhoods.
- Dog owners do not want to be forced into a remote, potentially
unsafe location to exercise their dogs.
- Neighborhoods do not want a single use dog park in their vicinity.
- Citizens do not want tax dollars spent on dogs
- Citizens do not want public land used for a single use dog
park.
- Dog owning citizens with limited mobility want secure and safe
locations with walkways close to their homes.
- A single use, single location dog park would be used less frequently
than the local park solution because of the time and effort needed
to go to a park.
|
BARC Opinion
There seems to be some misinformation floating around (or just bad reporting) regarding the dog plans that were recently submitted to the Beverly City Council. The plan being submitted by Councilor Burke has been assumed to be the Green Dog proposal that was never given fair consideration by the city council. It is not. If anyone had bothered to read the proposal, they would have seen it is a brand new plan that has nothing to do with the Green Dog proposal.
Although the primary focus of discussion regarding dogs in Beverly has been about off-leash access to existing city parks, people forget that
summertime, on-leash park access was seriously compromised at the same time. If you're a mom, and you want to walk your dog and your 5-year-old down to the local park so your child can play on the swings - you can't. Having your leashed dog in the vicinity of playground equipment is currently illegal. If you and your family want to watch your 7-year-old play baseball in one of Beverly's parks, or go to Independence Park to watch the Homecoming fireworks, your leashed dog is not welcome. You want your dog at these kinds of events because interacting with people makes for a better dog. Doesn't matter - you're breaking the law. Councilor Burke's proposal attempts to rectify this silliness by restoring access to all areas of all parks (except Gardens) for anyone who has their dog on a leash. If your dog is leashed, you should be able to access any park, any time of day, any time of year. We are not children. The current ordinance is an insult, and is family-unfriendly. Is this what we want Beverly to be?
Another key concept in Councilor Burke's proposal is that the City Council and an advisory committee made up of a resident from each ward work together to identify appropriate off-leash areas and times in each ward. This makes perfect sense. Who better than the ward councilors and interested residents to determine what's best for their wards? It places control where it belongs - with the wards.
In contrast, the Park And Recreation Off-Leash (PAROLE) proposal continues to be hostile and punitive towards dog owners. As the acronym suggests, as a dog owner you are guilty of a crime, and you need to be monitored and controlled. Also, it pulls control of off-leash areas away from the wards, making it subject to the anti-dog sentiments pervasive in the Park & Rec department.
The newspapers continue to report that the PAROLE proposal includes 4 dog park areas. They fail to mention that none of these 4 areas will ever actually come to fruition. Putting them in a plan doesn't make them real, and continuing to report these as "fact" to the general public is irresponsible and misleading. Janet Gottschalk did an excellent job of explaining the problems with these 4 parks in the forum area of www.beverlybarc.com.
That any of these 4 areas will actually become a "dog park" is highly unlikely - if not impossible. The public should not be misled any longer.
A vote for the PAROLE plan is a vote against dog owners, and shows no genuine interest in changing Beverly for the better. The families that own dogs deserve more consideration than what this plan offers. Councilor Burke's plan, in contrast, is respectful of the community, of families, and creates an environment for positive change in the future.
|
