The following is a Letter to the Editor, submitted by Chris Wiswall. It is an excellent synopsis of the issue and where we stand today.
You may have seen some articles in the paper recently about how Beverly dog owners have achieved some kind of victory and are now allowed back in the city's parks. Hopefully the dog owners raised an eyebrow and asked themselves "We were banned from the parks? How did that happen?"
This is very important to understand: In Beverly, there are two conflicting laws relating to dogs in the parks. One (4-26) states that dogs are allowed in the parks, on a leash, before 8 AM and after 9 PM, Memorial Day to Labor Day. They're allowed all day, on a leash, the rest of the year. This "leash law" was passed in the early 70's. The other law (16-3) states that dogs are not allowed in the parks - period. This law was passed in the early 90's. So can dogs be in the parks on a leash - or are they not allowed at all?
During the summer, someone in the city government decided they would enforce the "No Dogs" law, and "No Dogs Allowed" signs went up in the parks and at the beaches. Dog owners were furious, and steps were taken to get the matter resolved. This ordinance conflict is the source of most of the problems between dog owners and city officials.
In the fall, the city council created a subcommittee of three Parks officials, three interested dog owners from BARC (Beverly Animal Resource Committee), and three non-dog-owners. They were charged with coming up with recommendations for acceptable use of the parks by dog owners and their dogs. As an interested dog owner, I attended these meetings. They met about every two weeks, and were making some modest progress.
I believe it was a town meeting on 11/4 where Peter Gilmore, the City Solicitor, blindsided the BARC members in attendance by stating it was his belief that the ordinance that was passed later - (16-3), the "No Dogs Allowed" ordinance - took precedence over the earlier leash law. (Two BARC members that are lawyers disagree with this interpretation.) This is the day that the dog-owning citizens lost their rights to have a leashed dog in any of the city's parks.
What does this mean to you - the average taxpaying, dog owning citizen? It means you not only need to be familiar with the laws of your city - you have to know WHEN they were passed! It means you have to know how your particular community will choose to interpret conflicting ordinances. It means you may or may not get a ticket for having your leashed dog in a park - depending on the whim of the person giving you the ticket!
This is preposterous!! Citizens shouldn't have to know WHEN a law was passed so they can be sure they're not breaking a law that may conflict with some earlier law!
The Gilmore pronouncement changed the tone of the BARC/Parks meetings dramatically, and they became a sham. The Park officials, believing they had to give nothing up now, were resistant to any reasonable suggestions. They now considered any concession on their part to be a major concession. The BARC members repeatedly pushed for the group to agree the ordinance conflict had to be resolved - and recommended the later, conflicting "No Dogs" ordinance be repealed. The Park reps would fall back on the Gilmore pronouncement and felt no resolution of the ordinance conflict was needed. The meetings took a turn for the worse. The Parks reps picked and chose the suggestions that suited them best. This is how recommendations like increasing fees, increasing fines, creation of a dog park that nobody wants in their neighborhood, and extremely limited access hours came about. What dog owner would want any of these things?
Repealing 16-3, the "No Dogs" law, would cost nothing to anyone in the way of money, and would involve a minimum of time. The alternative proposal being recommended will involve additional expense to the dog owners who are being unfairly excluded from the parks. There will also be a significant expense of time on the part of the city officials who will have to have more town meetings to get a dog park established, deal with more irate citizens who don't want a dog park near their house, as well as petition the state legislature to allow the fine increase.
Can't common sense prevail just this once - and the "No Dogs" ordinance (16-3) be repealed? Doing this is win-win-win for the city councillors, the dog owners, and the citizens of Beverly.
There is a town meeting at the Senior Center January 7th, where the subcommittee proposal will be submitted. Dog owners and all other citizens who hate to see their time and taxes being wasted, PLEASE attend the meeting and let the city council know you don't support this proposal - and want 16-3 repealed instead.
Chris Wiswall
|
