34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (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Gala this week that it will no longer cover the dog park suit because the plaintiffs' attorney, Edward Valanzola, has withdrawn two of the allegations that triggered the town's eligibility for coverage.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.
View Comments » No comments posted.
« Hide Comments
|
patsfan333 wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:15 PM:
cassidy29 wrote on Aug 2, 2008 12:07 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:
cassidy29 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:07 PM:
KyraSkye wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:05 PM:
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:
kingston73 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:41 PM:
meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:26 PM:
meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:19 PM:
meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:17 PM:
kingston73 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:12 PM:
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:
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:
brwmstr wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:18 AM:
brwmstr wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:16 AM:
dogparkpatron wrote on Aug 1, 2008 6:37 AM:
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:
KyraSkye wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:57 PM:
dogparkpatron wrote on Jul 31, 2008 5:13 PM:
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:
dogparkpatron wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:08 PM:
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:
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 wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:07 PM:
Jessica Kosowski wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:50 AM:
brwmstr wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:26 AM:
brwmstr wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:21 AM:
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:
dogsrule wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:33 AM:
KyraSkye wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:45 AM:
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:
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. "