|
Board of Aldermen - Meeting Summaries February 7, 2005 The short of it is that the Aldermen put off voting on the proposed task-force until the next Aldermen meeting on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22. The discussion focused instead on the language of the proposed task-force (was it too restrictive or too vague) and whether to "recommit" the proposal (that is, send it back to the Programs and Services Committee to rework the language), or vote on the existing proposal. After an hour's discussion the board voted 14 to 9 accept the language of the proposal. Immediately after they voted not to recommit, one of the aldermen "chartered" MEETING SUMMARY After introduction by Alderman Johnson, Alderman Vance (ward 7) made a motion to send the resolution back to committee for revision. He stated that the issue was "worth studying" but felt the resolution was cumbersome and overly detailed. The motion was immediately seconded by Alderman Gentile. 16 of the
23 Aldermen present (Alderman Baker was absent) made comments on the resolution. As acting President in Alderman Baker's absence Alderman Sangiolo (ward 4) did not comment. This was the first real opportunity to get a read on the sentiments of the full board. Alderman Salvucci (ward 3): Is "totally agains" any change in the leash ordinance. It has been working fine for over 20 years and was put into law with wide popular support. Dogs should never be in areas where children play. He started to read the memo from Health Commissioner Naparstek as evidence of the public health danger but was curtailed due to time limits. Alderman Stewart (ward 4): Said he was tempted to vote for recommittal because he agreed with Alderman Vance that the resolution should be simplified. However, he also recognized the work put into this to date and felt it was important to move forward. Alderman Lappin (ward 8): Has no problem with formation of Task Force but felt the resolution was too detailed. "Let them (Task Force) do their job" without specific exclusions/instructions that may be incomplete. Alderman Gentile (ward 3): Voting for recommittal because resolution language was too vague. He wants clear direction and limited scope that specifies a pilot program limited to one or two parks. He wants it clear that Board retains control. Expressed surprise that broader scope is being considered since he thought the issue had little support from the Board and cautioned that expectations regarding any modifications to the leash law are too high. Introduced the petition from Wellington Park neighborhood with 81 signatures against any off leash times. Alderman Parker (ward 6): Supports Task Force given that final approval rests with the Board anyway and this shouldnt be delayed any longer. He will only support creation of fenced areas where children never play for off leash activity. Alderman Yates (ward 5): Wants the instructions of the resolution to be clearer so people aren't "chasing Alderman Linsky (ward 2): Commended committee for amount of work to date. Felt that the resolution included fair amount of instruction and felt Task Force should be given a chance to explore the options. Alderman Samuelson (ward 5): Agreed with Stewart that it was time to move forward; final responsibility still with the Board. Her motivation in working on this for the past decade has been that the current law doesn'tt work and is unenforceable. Wants to get the "parks back to the people" by trying to more effectively curb off leash activity. In a later additional comment, she noted that parks are underused many hours of the day and that dog owners are major users of open space. She also cautioned that the solution should be in the neighborhoods; one or two areas would be unworkable and would have parking issues. Alderman Lipof (ward 8): Supports creating a Task Force and letting them do their job. Agrees that parks should be "taken back by the peopl" and believes that only fenced in areas would be a useful solution. Alderman Danberg (ward 6): Acknowledged the emotion on both sides of the issue and need to move forward with Task Force "let's just do it." Alderman Albright (ward 2): Vote to go ahead. Felt that the conflicting opinions that detail was "too much" or" "too little" indicted it was probably about right. Alderman Hess-Mahan (ward 3): Noted that his Ward 3 was a hotbed of conflict and felt that it was time for a Task Force to look for the best answer. Alderman Harney (ward 4): Having been bitten by a dog as a child and then having a golden retriever as a part of the family for 13 years, he is sympathetic to both sides of the issue. Often took his dog to a little used nearby field to throw the ball. Alderman Schnipper (ward 7): Won't stop the discussion but indicated that as an "unabashed dog lover" she believes that dogs belong on leash for everyone's safety. Willing to let Task Force go ahead and do their work but could only imagine a very few things she would ultimately support. Alderman Fischman (ward 8): Believed resolution is pretty good. Wants to emphasize enForcement and the public relations issue in getting compliance from dog owners. Dismayed that there has been no offer from dog owners to curb all illegal activity while this is being considered. Alderman Mansfield (ward 6): Wants a "two-stage answer" to questions of if and how. Once the if is resolved, then it would be appropriate to form Task Force for how; otherwise the Task Force wont know what they are supposed to do. (Determine first IF the leash law should be amended, then decide HOW it should be amended). The 9 Aldermen that voted for recommittal (to send it back to Programs and services) were: Interestingly, all three aldermen from Ward 1 (Gerst, Merrill and Lennon) voted for recommittal but did not address the issue during the meeting. Comments from Alderman Merrill at previous meetings of Programs & Services suggest that he is totally opposed to any change in the leash ordinance. So, it appears that 3 are unlikely to support the resolution (Merrill, Gentile, Salvucci), 4 may support it with some change in language (Vance, Yates, Lappin and Mansfield) and two are unknown (Gersch and Lennon). END OF SUMMARY February 22, 2005 Alderman Gentile then introduced a series of proposed amendments to the resolution: Amendment #1 "Creation of any dog parks be limited to two geographically dispersed locations." Defeated by a vote of 16-4 with support from Gentile (ward 3), Coletti (ward 5), Gerst (ward 1) and Yates (ward 5). Amendment # 2 "Any recommended site must be no less than three acres in size." Defeated by a vote of 18-2 with only Gentile and Gerst in support. Amendment #3 "Off-leash hours shall not be allowed in Wellington Park in West Newton." Defeated by a vote of 17-3 with Gentile, Gerst and Yates in support. THE VOTE Most of the (long) discussion by Alderman Gentile was consistent with previous comments he has made throughout this process; "Any proposal should be a very limited pilot program," off-leash dogs are a serious public safety threat," "the law isn't broken, people are breaking the law and are proud of it," "known lawbreakers not to be trusted." Most of the discussion around the proposed amendments focused on letting the task force do their job. WHERE THE ALDERMEN STAND The following appear to be open to considering limited (fenced) areas for "dog parks": The following appear to be open to considering fenced "dog parks" as well as shared times at local parks: The following appear undecided at this point, or have not expressed an opinion, but supported formation of the task force: The following are unlikely to support any change in the current So, it has taken about fourteen months (since the public hearing) to get the approval of the Board to form a Task Force to evaluate potential changes to the existing leash law. The good news is that NewtonDogs Report problems with the website to webmaster Last Updated 3/23/06 |
Breaking News Minutes from recent task force meetings |
|---|
