34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Foxboro dog park trial put off
Top Headlines And, in a related matter, the town's ability to defend the suit brought by neighbors of the dog park - if it goes forward - now has a potentially bigger dollar sign attached. The town's insurer notified Town Manager Andrew Gala this week that it will no longer cover the dog park suit because the plaintiffs' attorney, Edward Valanzola, has withdrawn two of the allegations that triggered the town's eligibility for coverage. Other allegations remain. Selectmen Chairman Mark Sullivan said in an interview he would not support using town funds to pay for legal services in the dog park matter, and that he hoped other members of the board would likewise vote to turn off the spigot. The town is responsible under its policy with the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association to pay a $7,500 deductible, but not the hourly rate of its attorney, Sam Perkins. Selectmen and the conservation commission are defendants in the suit that Vanalzola filed in February on behalf of 17 abutters objecting to the dog park as a health and noise nuisance and an improper use of conservation land. The commission voted Monday to go along with selectmen's and Valanzola's joint bid for a continuance of the trial. Selectmen wanted the continuance to allow time for a committee it is forming to report on potential new sites for the park. Plaintiff Ron Costello read into the selectmen's records Tuesday a letter from Valanzola expressing appreciation for selectmen's effort to "find a solution that will avoid a trial," but also voicing concern that the site search committee may drag its feet. "While my clients also appreciate that the conservation commission voted last night to agree to the continuance, much of the evening was spent listening to presentations and comments by dog park proponents and commission members explaining why the current location is the best location and why the alternate sites listed in Mr. Resnick's memorandum would not work," Valanzola wrote. "...If it appears that there is little or insincere effort in locating a new site or participating in the committee to be organized by the board of selectmen, then my clients reserve the right to proceed in the pending litigation ..." A report by Town Planner Mark Resnick has identified potential alternatives to the park's current location at Cocasset River Park. It lists pros and cons for sites near the former town landfill, at the Lane Property off North Street, Gavins Pond, the former Camp Lincoln Hill, a parcel behind Foxboro High School, land between Cocasset River Park and South Street, and the Payson Road Recreation Center.
Post Your Comments patsfan333 wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:15 PM: " There are plenty of other places in Foxboro to exercise/intermingle your dogs. There are MUCH more important issues in Foxboro that need to be addressed. Why not build some type of community center for the children of Foxboro. I would certainly consider backing something like that. " cassidy29 wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:07 PM: " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:39 PM: " 8am to 8pm 7 days a week 365 days a year concession or insult?and who were guys with orange town worker shirts working their in jan.and feb?elvis?again you have been misled by your beloved dog cult. " What does this mean? Let's try to use our words, this doesn't actually make sense. " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:39 PM: " 8am to 8pm 7 days a week 365 days a year concession or insult?and who were guys with orange town worker shirts working their in jan.and feb?elvis?again you have been misled by your beloved dog cult. " cassidy29 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:07 PM: " All the issues will come out in court. The abutters are not the only ones with video tape. " KyraSkye wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:05 PM: " Can you not say pee and poo like every one else? Are you old enough to be polite? or does everything have to be vulgar to you? Come on- were 'suppose' to be adults who have grown out of the cussing stages- and the fact that you have to omit letters so your writing does not get deleted is pathetic. Be an adult and talk like one- not like a teenager just away from mom and able to do what you want to!!!!! " KyraSkye wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:00 PM: " Kingston is not Drew, If you knew what you were talking about you would know that. As for barrels of feces- that is taken away at the dog park and donations expense- not the town- How about the amount of feces created by the stadium? Are they 100% self supported from ticket sales? How about their 'improvements'? Who is really paying for them or for the park to be there? I know they are not self sufficient- whereas the dog park is. You call it a pen- I call it unused and abused land that is now being used for more than a juvenile delinquent hangout- it was- before people thought they could push a few others around- something to be proud of! Now it is becoming something to be ashamed of- How embarrassing is that? No longer known as the Home of the Patriots!!!! But known as home of the Dog Park haters... The Dog park that could have been... Because that is how Foxboro is going to be known. " kingston73 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:41 PM: " hey meldog, who's drew? you wouldn't be a conlon, would you? you write like one at least! Anyway, enough with the insults, lets get some facts down. Town workers didn't spend "weeks" working at the place, VOLUNTEERS did. I know, because I personally helped spread some of the wood chips. As for the place being near personal property, if Baker had adhered to the rules your property wouldn't have been that close to begin with, there's supposed to be a buffer between park property and residential areas. As far as the stadium vs dog PARK, I'm willing to bet that when people drive there from "out of town" they buy gas, newspapers, drinks, and other goods in fboro. The town doesn't pay a dime for that park to be there, again, the money is DONATIONS! Don't you get it by now? " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:26 PM: " and screaming kids are still far more important than barking dogs!!who pss and sht next to private property!the kids are also more important than the abutters peace and quiet!!a couple people with dogs would never be a problem.50 in a cage is!!wake up drew!! " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:19 PM: " and who keeps compairing the pen to the stadium??the stadium creates millions in funds for the town.the dog pen creates barrells of feces??big difference!! " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:17 PM: " town workers spent weeks preparing the site-taking out the old docks -spreading chips -working on the bathouse-fixing the water etc..how dense are you??and maybe the abutters care about there peace and quiet enjoyment of their homes.the way you care about dogs? " kingston73 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:12 PM: " tj, You keep saying "close and move on"...fine, but what happens when something you care about is threatened? Would you want support? Of course you would. This issue has gone beyond "do you like dogs or not", its an issue of what is right or wrong, and what is wrong is allowing a spoiled minority to dictate town policy. These abutters just want to have their way, they don't care how they do it. You say yourself "the park does look better", who do you think made it that way? THE VOLUNTEERS WHO WANTED TO MAKE IT! I don't understand you lazy people who can only sit and critize the park founders and not actually DO anything useful. If not for these founders, the park would still be the broken bottle littered, graffiti covered place it was. Oh, so now that its been cleaned up and people are aware of it, now you want it to become a...what? A playground? A swimming hole? Last time I checked, there were many public pools, a billion play grounds, and exactly 1 single place people could bring their dogs. You keep talking about you not being willing to "pay" for this, when have you had to pay for it? ITS VOLUNTEER DONATIONS, NOT TOWN MONEY! How dense are you that you don't understand that? " bshwkd wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:08 PM: " We don't need to find an "alternative" site for the dog park. We have a good site right now, the best in fact. Why change? Foxboro is not an enormous town. It isn't possible to find a site for a dog park that would be so far from civilization that if a dog barked, he couldn't be heard somewhere, by someone! And most important, who will undertake the work necessary to create another dog park, with landscaping and pool, and who will pay for it? Cocasset river park was ready-made for the dog park. I wouldn't expect the dog park founders and volunteers to participate after they have been kicked in the teeth. They have done enough work for a humdred dog parks, without complaint. The foxboro dog park was a noble experiment and we learned a lot. We learned how easy it is to wrech something good. We learned how little civic support and cooperation it got when the chips were down. Is little league next? How about the new england partiots? What if someone complains? " tj wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:40 AM: " the park does look better than it did. By the way who was responsible for the condition of the park: the Con Com. Yet they will take no responsiility for the condition, instead they will say it was Recreation's (therefore the Selectmen's)responsibility. But then they will turn around and say that the Selectmen and Recreation have no authority. They want it both ways. and that's not right. And from what i have read the only consessions made were inspired by the court order not the cooperative spirit of the organizers. Again nice idea, wrong location, close and move on. " brwmstr wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:18 AM: " ohya, any and all work done on the old bath house was also done by volunters and mostly by Bob Flagg and son construction. " brwmstr wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:16 AM: " The only thing town workers did at that park was drop off woodchips. Instead of dumping them over next to parking lot they dumped them in the park where they were spead by park users. As far as the removal of the docks and other various debris around the park, that was done by volunters and hauled away by Dooley Disposal Services Inc. The water meter was fixed by the water dept., that is thier job. Why shouldn't the town plow the lot? It is a public park regaurdless of whether or not the dog park is there, the lot needs to plowed so that the public has access, just like every other public park in town. " dogparkpatron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 6:37 AM: " If the dog park people restored the park to it's previous condition, they would all be arrested for vandalism!! Should I repeat that? Vandalism - as in the park was a mess, broken fencing, broken glass, busted out doors to the bath-house, etc. That's why they spent their time and money cleaning it up. If this is what the abutters really want, and they keep bringing it up, then that says loads about them and their intent. It all boils down to NIMBY, no matter how they try to cover it up. And, for the record, it's NOT their back yard, it's ConCom property, not Baker or Conlon property extension. Nice try, though. " meldog3000 wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:50 PM: " town workers spent weeks working at the pen-removing the old docks-spreading chips-working on the bath house-fixing the water supply- was that all for free??and by the way they plowed a lot more than barbara thinks.that was jan.and feb. 07-before the pen opened-in may of 07 not sep. 06 like some would have u believe. " KyraSkye wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:57 PM: " No town money was ever spent to open the dog park- or for that matte to maintain it- Everything is donated- When the snow removal people come through the 4 days/times they did last winter- they did a quick sweep- they did not clear the whole lot- they gave us a single path in and out- one path- the same one they used- to come and go- Trash removal, water, is all paid with donated money- not town money. The lawsuit will be defended whether you like it or not- We are not backing down- never have and never will. We have tried to work with everyone to make everything peaceable- yet we are still intimidated by people to come to the park. If you really want to make it a 'RESIDENTS' only park, please make ALL parks- venues- and public places PRIVATE- RESIDENTS ONLY- there are hundreds of acres of land to be used- the land that was developed is accessible to everyone- with or without dogs- I for one want people to come in and see how awesome the place is- don't have a dog? no problem- please sign in- per the court order- and all are welcome! We don't discriminate against people with or without dogs!!!!!!!! " dogparkpatron wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:13 PM: " tj, you won't change my position and I won't change yours. I just hope the land court judge finally gets to rule on the original issue, proper passive recreation usage. " tj wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:52 PM: " Again you say it costs nothing but then tell me the costs i cited are standard with any town activity. Which is it; are there costs or not? And i am more than willing to pay for kids and people, not for dogs, please stop equating your dog with humans. As for the gun club it is private on private land, it also superceeds the current residents, unlike the dog park. I would absolutely support you if you want to restore the park for human use. But that's not what we talking about. Again, nice idea, wrong location, close and move on. " dogparkpatron wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:08 PM: " hey tj, I'll tell you who pays for the dog park: NOT the town! And along your line of thinking, I guess there shouldn't be sports fields, in fact some located right next to the dog park, because I don't have kids that play sports! So those fields are NOT for EVERYONE in town. And the gun club, their shooting sounds like a damned war being waged every weekend, I guess they should close down because not everyone in town owns or shoots guns, it doesn't serve 100% of the population. Why again should the town support ONLY 17 people, some of whom are only kids, instead of the majority of the town, you know, the greater good? You know as well as anyone that over 1/2 of those on the lawsuit couldn't hear any noise from the dog park from their properties if they tried, they're too far away, there are parking lots and soccer fields and other houses between their houses and the dog park. When I was on Milton Lane recently visiting someone who lives there, when I knocked on their door, all I heard was two dogs from homes on Milton Lane barking! One was her dog out in her backyard, and the other was her next door neighbor's dog, and they live on the side of Milton Lane that does NOT abutt the park. Go figure, eh? " tj wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:45 PM: " Sure, take the 2 best acres and give them to the dogs. If the rest of the park is so great then why not bring your dogs there where they can run off leash so long as they are in the control of their owner (just like in thhe park). By they way who pays for the water so you can bathe your dog? who pays for the delivery of the wood chips? Who pays for the plowing of roads which were never plowed before? Who paid for the attorney? Shall I go on or do you get my point? And as far as ConCom goes, they are an embarassment to the Town in the way they've conducted themselves. The best they could do is resign enmass. again if it is something everyone can use I'll support you 100% but not for something so frivolous. Bottom line, nice idea, wrong place, close and move on. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:43 PM: " tj it is open to all residents. The park is huge only less than two acres, that were previously fenced off, are set aside for the dog park and even then, anyone can go inside those two acres. Nobody is asking you (or the town) to pay anything, never have, never will. As for dogs not paying any taxes, yes they do. What do you call the fee for a dog licence?? That is a tax. The town does not spend any additional moneies on the operation of the dog park. You seem to think that because the ConCom voted to allow the court case to continue, they are so how admitting to being wrong. that is not the case. The ConCom never wanted to go to court over this issue, but the lawsuit was brought so the ConCom defended. It was only after any deadline for the current park to close was removed, did the ConCom agree to the extention. And if any deadline is put forth again or if the selectman order the park closed, I think you'll see all parties back in court ASAP. " tj wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:07 PM: " Again, if it is something for everyone (swimming hole, etc), I'll support you and the town financially and politically against those who would oppose such a use. But I am not willing to pay for a few people to socialize their dogs and there are plenty of places to take your dog. The dogs don't pay taxes. Although i know a pet can be an important part of a family, it is still a pet, not a human. It doesn't have the same rights as a person. I have no interest in paying to defend your pets rights. So now that ConCom has seen the light and quietly relented its is time for the rest to do the same. Close the park and reopen it to all residents. " Jessica Kosowski wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:50 AM: " Hi, this is Jessica Kosowski from The Sun Chronicle. We've noticed that this is an important topic that always draws a lot of response. Of course, you're still welcome to comment on this story, but we've created a permanent forum on the Foxboro Dog Park. Visit http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum then click on Foxboro to comment. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:26 AM: " As far as the number of residents vs. non-residents, there are many documented reasons as to why some Foxboro residents are temporarily staying away. When this is all said and done and the controversy and the constant intimidation from the plaintiffs is over, you will see the town residents back in droves. When this park opened there were overwhelmingly more residents than non-residents using the park. It will return to that ratio when things are back to peace and quite. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:21 AM: " Who is arrogant and Self righteous? Let's see, a group of citizens, with all proper allowances, clean-up an un-used, filthy, disgusting, vandalized park, at the cost (their own raised monies) of over $10,000 and hundreds of volunteer hours, only to be told a couple of abutters don't like the park so you have to close it. Which is the arrogant and self righteous group there, the abutters or the park founders? What makes you so certain "this is almost over"? The town does not have to fund any lawsuit. If the Valenzola decides to proceed again the MACC will be happy to defend the ConCom. Now that the lawsuit is just down to whether or not the dog park is an appropriate use of ConCom land, it's a slam dunk. Do the research, there are hudreds if not thousands of dog parks on ConCom land in this state and this country. " tj wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:53 AM: " Wow, the arrogance and self righteousness of this group has certainly changed to a bitter, attacking rant. I think that you know the end is near. There is no way the Town will fund a law suit for 25 - 30 residents and 100+ nonresidents. If you want reopen the park to something that is usable by everyone in town, I'll support you. But please don't tell that even if i don't have a dog it is a great place to go, to make that arguement shows your willingness to justify your cause regardless of commonsense. I am sick of the whole thing and I am glad it seems close to ending with the closing. We have more important things than worrying about whether or not dogs are getting enough socialization. " dogsrule wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:33 AM: " Hello??? Valanzola.. In case you are confused - YOU and YOUR CLIENTS are the ones who wanted the continuance.. don't play the threat "we will go ahead with the lawsuit" crap now. Why wait..? let's get it over with! That is what the Con Com wanted in the first place or were you not listening? Oh ya, you were too busy mouthing off about irrelevant b.s. " KyraSkye wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:45 AM: " I sincerely hope that the tactics being used are not dirty tactics. I hope that everyone- and in a perfect world- could get along. Dog park users have and are willing to spend time, put up sound blockers- a berm- and we have already limited the hours. This is public land- not an extension of anyone's back yard! Why anyone would buy a home abutting conservation land- when you don't want anything behind you, is beyond me. The dog park is better than anything else that could possibly be there- A children's park- hours sun up to sun down, a music venue- hours- evening to 11 pm- who could play there- any teenage band hoping to get a little exposure, large bands- Rob Zombie, Metallica, HEM. Oh and a Patriot Autograph signing day!!!!! Why is it that a few- and I use that loosely- are able to decide what is okay for land when the majority want it to be one thing- beneficial to the whole town- even non-dog owners? Who really cares that people from out of that town come to visit? It brings in extra revenue, oh I'm sorry, I am learning that just like in Florida Money Talks. Residents- the few- do not want the extra revenue- they can pay the extra taxes themselves, they don't need the money the gas tax, cigarette tax, or any other tax that visitors are paying to keep their taxes low. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:18 AM: " The trial is put off but the dog park is still there. The nuisanse claim has been withdrawn so now it is just down to wether or not a dog park is passive recreation. Good luck with that one Valanzola!! I wish the BOS good luck on finding an alternate site that doesn't cost the town any money. God knows we are gonna need it now that out town counsel bills are going to increase dramatically. Much of Monday nights ConCom meeting was spent on showing how and why the current site is the best location because IT IS. Compromize is always the best solution. If that means making Cocassett River Park acceptable to the neighbors, so be it. The Proponents of the park have been saying that for 18 months now. They can and will make that site quieter so that all parties will be happy. " or
|
