Unleash Scooby - Patriots' Day 2010

The Friends of Willard's Woods (FOWW) position in the Lexington Patriots' Day parade was number 80 out of about 85.  I actually didn't see much of the parade - it is kind of like being an extra in a giant historical epic movie. Behind us was  a group of World War II reënactors.  They had their own tanks - in some parades they have fired giant blanks (to the distress of parade authorities), but did not in this parade. This is a demonstration of concealing the contents of a can using a rubber glove, probably an attempt to avoid a  reënactment of some past brush with open container law.

Also behind us was a revolutionary group.  This might be a moment from an alternative history novel where armies from different times mix.

The dog is stuffed but the child is real..

These girls are the passengers in our float car.  The masks are pictures of their dogs.  No actual dogs were in the parade. 

The float car is ready to go.  This reminds me of William Wegman but this is People dressed as Dogs v. Dogs dressed as People.

Prior to the parade, FOWW sought a volunteer for the dog costume.  The costume turned out to be for Scooby from the cartoon series - there were many fans of Scooby in the parade audience. Scooby in the costume is about 7 feet tall.  Scooby started working the crowd immediately with high-fives and continued as we marched.

Early on, Scooby sat down with a family along the parade route.

Scooby delighted his fans with hugs.

Technology Transfer Key to Abutters' Concerns

Not all technology involves electronics and computers. We recently toured Sutherland Woods Conservation Area. This area has a big playground in the front with a woods in the back bordering on Route 2. I think Willard's Woods is a much better place to take dogs, but we did learn about some technology of interest to the neighbors of Willard's Woods complaining about dogs in their yards. The Conservation Commission has already deployed it successfully at Sutherland. Here is a snap of my dog narrowly avoiding a nasty leap to his death above the escarpment on Route 2 because of a fence:

The fence used at Sutherland is called a cyclone or chain link fence.  Not very rustic, so we would encourage this far more aesthetic handmade fence in use at Puolonka, Finland:

Fences are not a perfect solution, but it is fairly easy to keep dogs inside Willard's Woods.  Deer could still pass freely, bringing their bounty of ticks:

DOG PARADE IN MICHIGAN

The Friends of Willard's Woods part of the Patriots' Day parade will not involve actual dogs, but this is one from Michigan that does:

I OWN A DOG AND I VOTE

Get your magnet at the AKC site.  You can put it on your car. This dog one is probably some variant of a gun rights sticker.  Go to CafePress if you want this one too:

It should not escape notice that arguments about unleashed dogs are a lot like arguments about gun control. {Dog, Gun} problems are a result of a few irresponsible owners. {Dog, Gun} ownership is a right. We are taxpayers - {Dog, Gun} owners deserve fair treatment. We don't need new laws for registering and restricting {Dogs, Guns} - just enforce the laws that are on the books.

May 20, 2009 Arlington TM Defeats Green Dog Proposal

This is a brief excerpt of the Arlington Town Meeting when the Green Dog proposal was defeated.  The interesting part is the comments prior to the actual meeting.  The proposal is quite complex and detailed.  The 25 slides are here.

Lexington Conservation Commission Plans 2010

This is excerpted from the CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2010 ATM  - the section on Conservation. "ATM" means Annual Town Meeting, not automatic teller machine, although confusion is certainly possible.  This is not a photograph of the Lexington ATM either, rather a shura in sunny Afghanistan.

"CPA" does not mean Certified Public Accountant, rather the Community Preservation Act.  When a town adopts the state CPA, a surcharge of up to 3% of property tax revenue goes into the Community Preservation Fund.  This fund is in turn matched by the state and used for open space purchases, historic resources, and affordable housing.  Repeal efforts are underway in various towns in Massachusetts that have adopted the CPA.

Conservation
Under the CPA, which Lexington adopted in March 2006, at least 10% of each year’s CPA-surcharge revenue must be devoted to Open Space (along with the same allocations to Historic Resources and Community [Affordable] Housing) and additional funds from the Unbudgeted Reserve and the Undesignated Fund Balance can be used for Open Space purchases. At the Annual Town Meeting in April 2009 (Article 12), a $2,763,100 Community Preservation Fund (CPF) cash appropriation was approved to purchase a 14.2-acre parcel of land on Vine Street (the “Leary Land”)—which purchase closed August 11, 2009. The parcel will be conservation land except for 0.7 acre that is planned to be used for affordable housing. At the Special Town Meeting (Article 6) in May 2009, a $4,295,000 appropriation (also from the CPF) was approved to purchase a 7.93-acre parcel off of Lowell Street (the “Busa Farm”)—which purchase then closed on December 4, 2009. As specified in the purchase, the land was then leased back to the prior owner for continued use as a farm through April 1, 2011 (unless mutually extended) while the Town determines how best to use that land. Its use will be decided by a future Town Meeting after a Selectmen-appointed committee makes recommendations. (At the time of this writing, the Board of Selectmen is in the process of defining that committee and its charge from the Board.)


At this Annual Town Meeting, we may have the opportunity to purchase land off of Marrett Road (Cataldo/Cotton Farm) for about $3.8 million. (See Article 9) At the time of this writing, the CPC has not voted on whether to advance that purchase. Should it be presented to Town Meeting, this Committee will issue a supplemental report. Land adjacent to the 2009 Busa Farm purchase is also listed on the Warrant (Article 10, “Goldinger property”), but that Article is expected to be Indefinitely Postponed.


In the CPC’s administrative budget, $50,000 is included to enable the Conservation Commission to do preliminary research such as land surveys and appraisals as part of the process of bringing future land acquisition opportunities to the table. (See Article 8(v))

Arlington Dog Fight!

Material provided by the Arlington Dog Owner's Group.  This is not a picture of downtown Arlington, but you might get the impression that Arlington is overrun with dogs after watching these videos.

Guide to Videos from Arlington Board of Selectmen hearing on Article 36.
This is the Arlington Dog Owner Group's (A-DOG) proposed vote under Article 36 under discussion:

To amend (appropriate sections) of the By-Laws so as to allow dogs to be off-leash, under effective owner control, from park opening time until 9 am, in all lands under control of the Parks and Recreation Commission except: those lands directly abutting school properties; within 15 ft of playground equipment; and by specific exclusion of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Part 1:
1. Presentation of Article 36 proposed vote by three proponents:

• Mary McCartney (TM member, Pct 1): reads proposed vote and reviews its assets, including only early morning hours, requirement for owner control, and flexibility for the Parks and Recreation to make additional changes
• Ann Smith (TM member, Pct 17): presents petition in favor of off-leash recreation signed by 900 Arlington residents, supplying list of these names to the Selectmen
• Susan Doctrow (TM member, Pct 21): discusses why the proposal is relatively conservative, citing leash laws in other MA communities as examples; she also says that it is complementary to the work of the Dog Park Task Force (on which she's also serving) currently evaluating possible fenced parks

2. Selectman Clarissa Rowe recommends that the Board vote "no action" and this is seconded by Selectmen Jack Hurd and Diane Mahon. While commending A-DOG's efforts, Ms. Rowe says that A-DOG must continue to educate dog owners to be more responsible before anything like this will be acceptable.

.


Part 2

1. For continuity, repeat of final lines (Part 1) from Selectman Rowe and "no action" motion
2. Selectman Diane Mahon raises concerns that out-of-towners will come to Arlington to use its parks for their dogs' off-leash recreation. Any plan like this should address ways to exclude outsiders, if possible.
3. Ann Smith and Susan Doctrow rebut this concern: A. Which towns and cities will such dog owners come from? For example, Somerville and Lexington already have facilities and provisions for off leash recreation. (Ms. Mahon's answer to this included Cambridge and Boston). B. Only early morning hours are proposed. People need to get to work or their kids to school and are unlikely to have time to drive very far. And, even if they do, the parks are virtually empty at such hours so the impact, if any, is questionable.
4. Susan Doctrow further comments on Ms. Rowe's statement that Arlington is too densely populated for this proposal, with a discussion of the successful off leash recreation program (over 20 yrs in operation) in New York City. Ms. Rowe answers that NYC has more parkland, and that the off-leash areas are further from residences, citing her visit to her daughter in NYC.
5. Public commentary begins, with Article proponent James Goebel, explaining that this proposal makes sense, and is much less complex than the Green Dog plan that Town Meeting voted against last year.
6. Article proponent Deborah Goldsmith states the need for a leash law change such as the one being proposed, for example, to help dog owners raise well-trained and behaved dogs. She discusses why the proposal with limited hours is reasonable. She mentions, in particular, how unproductive it is to have it be illegal to even use a 26 ft training leash. She also says that she believes it is time, and that another year without doing something will not help the situation.

Part 3

1. For continuity, repeat of final lines (Part 2) from proponent Deborah Goldsmith
2. Article proponent Ellen Kravitz addresses Ms. Rowe's comments that it is incumbent on all dog owners to educate, and correct the behavior of, irresponsible dog owners before there can be any change to the leash law. She says that dog owners are being held to a standard of perfection that is not expected of other groups. For example, even though there are dangerous traffic accidents, nobody says that other drivers cannot be allowed to have drivers' licenses until all drivers behave responsibly. Similarly, sports events are not cancelled because a few park users litter during such activities.
3. Article proponent BethAnn Friedman (TM member, Pct 15) stressed that last year's vote at Town Meeting against the Green Dog plan was very close (88 to 83), indicating that there is wide support for allowing dogs off leash under certain conditions. Ms. Rowe said that a proposal such as this can still be presented as a Substitute Motion at Town Meeting, even though the Selectmen will vote against supporting it.
4. Article opponent Mustafa Varoglu (TM member, Pct 8) says that he supports off-leash recreation under certain circumstances, and also is a member of the Dog Park Task Force. But, he doesn't support this proposal because it leaves too much decision in the hands of Parks and Recreation Commission instead of in the public and the hands of the Board of Selectmen. He did not like the previous Green Dog plan, and raised concerns about the views of this Commission, stating 3 members of the Parks and Recreation Commission were members of the Green Dog committee. (This is not correct, to our knowledge. Only one individual, Leslie Mayer, is part of both Parks and Recreation Commission and Green Dog Committee. As in other communities, the Parks and Recreation Commission is appointed by the Board of Selectmen to decide on details of park usage.)
5. The Board of Selectmen issued their final vote against A-DOG's proposal under Article 36. Selectman Kevin Greeley (Chairman of the Board of Selectmen) voted against his colleagues. He explained that, like last year, he feels that a lot of work has gone into this effort by the Green Dog committee, and that it deserves a discussion at Town Meeting. However, the vote was 4 to 1, so it is "no action". Mr. Greeley said we must keep talking about this issue, and joked that he wants to see all 900 petition signers at the Town Meeting when this is discussed.