Council Candidate Views
 
Read below for views of candidates for City Council related to dog ownership in South Portland: Make sure you vote on Nov. 4th (or earlier if you want to!) -Crystal Steve Onos and Patti Smith (candidates for city council) share their views with the DOG: Steve Onos First of all thank you for your leadership and tireless efforts to solve this issue. My parents have lived just off the beach on Deake Street so I have 30 years of experience to draw from. I have talked with hundreds of people throughout the city and the consensus is that there are too many dogs on the beach in the summer. Willard has become a destination for people to bring their dogs from all over Greater Portland. I believe this issue could be resolved and long-term access for dog owners could be ensured with the following ordinance change: From May 1st-Sept. 30th, only dogs licensed to South Portland residents are allowed on Willard beach. This type of language has worked in Kittery and I believe that the vast majority of problems will go away with fewer numbers on the beach. If the city council implements all of the task force findings the situation will improve but if the number of dogs increases next summer we will be right back to square one. I would also support a full time animal control officer in South Portland who would patrol the entire city on a mountain bike 8 Months of the year to educate and enforce the rules so that everyone, including pets can enjoy our open spaces. Patricia Smith Greetings SoPo Dog Owners Group: Thank you for the opportunity to share some of my views with you. I was born in 1962 and grew up in Concord, NH and throughout my childhood my family had dogs and cats as pets. As an adult I have owned and cared for both cats and dogs and I have experienced their loving companionship first hand. I am a member of Therapy Pets International (a national group that certifies dogs and people on how to train dogs in therapeutic environments, hospitals, senior homes, etc.). I am also involved as an adoption evaluator with Aussie Rescue of Maine , to ensure that the adoption goes well and that match is compatible. I have also learned a lot over the past 15 years what constitutes responsible dog ownership. I feel as though my experience with dog trainers and others within the canine world (via my employer- Planet Dog) will be helpful in suggesting resources and ideas to the group. I am a strong proponent of open spaces and public access for all users, including dog owners. I do realize that we need to advocate for responsible dog ownership with all individuals who wish to recreate with their dogs off leash. Open spaces attract diverse groups of users. My vision is one were we can all coexist. I am in favor of increased education of dog owners using off leash areas and more consistent enforcement of the current rules and regulations. I do not favor any changes to the existing ordinances other than to find and sanction more areas in our city where dogs and their humans can recreate off leash in a safe manner. My hope is that this will take the pressure off of those areas that can sometimes be over used. With respect to easing the tensions between non-dog owners, vocal opponents to off leash dog areas and the SoPo DOG, I think that an attempt to bring representatives of each party to a neutral place to discuss ideas, possibly with a professional mediator, may help. I do believe that education promotes greater understanding and with that, a greater willingness of people to see different points of view. I hope that I have the opportunity to work with the SoPo DOG and other community organizations as a city councilor to bring these ideas to fruition. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Views of Mark Gandolfo and Jim Hughes for the DOG: Jim Hughes The council has been dealing with the "Dogs on Willard Beach" question for years, see-sawing between positions based on the council makeup. We've never come to a working compromise because we've never been able to get both sides to sign off on the decision. I was disheartened by the problem however, I believe your recent call for positive actions and attitudes along with some indication that the "Save Willard Beach " group are willing to discuss the problems are hopeful. I think the solution to the Willard Beach problem lies with agreement between SoPoDogs and SaveWillardBeach. Otherwise we'll just end up going back and forth depending on who has the most will to fight. I think the general dog issues, including off-leash access, will follow the resolution of the Willard Beach problem. If we can't come to a workable compromise and instead go to a referendum then the results of the referendum will indicate how strict the community wants to be. You have information about me from your Willard Beach Task Force questionnaire go ahead and use that again for this. If elected I'll support the task force recommendations. Mark Gandolfo Thank you for the opportunity to share some of my thoughts and feelings. I will generally focus on the dogs on Willard Beach (because many have asked me about it) but my thoughts can apply to all areas of the city. In a nutshell, I believe that allowing dogs to be brought into a public space is a privilege. I like this privilege and would like to see it continue. However, I also feel that any privilege can be modified and/or revoked if it is abused, the rules are not followed or if there is a substantiated public health/safety concern. I will say that revoking any public privilege is not a preferred choice and it should only come as a last resort and should not be taken lightly because once it is taken away it is probably gone forever. Before I would consider revocation, part of my decision filter would include finding out things such as: 1. Are the rules fair? 2. Are the rules clear? 3. Are the rules adequately advertised/known? 4. Are the rules adequately and consistently enforced? 5. Can we continue to afford providing a particular service/privilege? 6. Have conditions changed from the original intent thereby requiring modification or revocation? Maybe the general public was in favor of something at one point but over time that position has changed. 7. Can we do something to mitigate a problem? I would want to make sure that people were given every opportunity, reasonably possible, to succeed in keeping a privilege including penalizing those who aren't abiding by the rules (so that they don't ruin it for all). I would like to be clear though that if people are given every opportunity to succeed but don't take advantage of the opportunity because they refuse to follow the rules or a situation becomes a substantiated public health/safety I would not hesitate to vote to significantly reduce or eliminate the privilege. Yes, this does mean that unfortunately sometimes a few can ruin it for all. I would be open to considering a referendum question. Some additional comments: 1. I'm troubled that the Council took this on without first sending it to the Police, ACO and City Manager to handle. It is the role of staff to do the day-to-day work of implementing rules, finding solutions, solving problems and if all else fails then bringing the issue forward (with solutions/recommendations) to the Council for action. The public always has a right to address the Council but that doesn't mean that the Council takes on the job of doing staff work – delegation may be and often is the appropriate route - initially. 2. As a resident, I am getting frustrated by the way some people are treating each other, no matter on what side of the issue they stand. I respect and appreciate passion, but public attacks on a person's character or disrespectful tones aren't helpful or productive. It is a turnoff and would not help me make a better decision – quite the opposite. 3. I would recommend that you continue to provide substantive recommendations/solutions to the Council as they work through each of the committee's recommendations. I would also suggest that as your group comes up with ideas that you consider some of the things a Councilor has to concern himself/herself with such as: a. Is a particular recommendation, rule, regulation fair to all involved? b. How does this privilege fit into our comprehensive plan? c. Can the city afford a particular action, if not, how do we pay for it? d. Are we currently staffed to implement and enforce? If not, what is needed and how do we pay for it or shift around responsibilities? e. Is there a clearly substantiated public health/safety risk that needs to be controlled? f. Does the cost outweigh the benefit? g. What does public access mean in a general sense – from a public policy point of view. Some things (not all inclusive) that I think are reasonable to consider are: * Clearer signs at all entrances, * Changing the hours to coincide with existing noise ordinances (7AM-10AM) * Implementing a small "user" fee to help pay for enforcement, staff, etc. But this will definitely need to be well crafted and thought out because it will tax staff's time. We might find out that it just isn't doable. (I think you should find creative ways to implement this and recommend to the council) * During the summer, change the hours of the ACO to coincide with whatever hours that dogs are allowed. If he/she is on the beach then rules can be enforced, presence often leads to compliance, he/she can educate the public, etc. * Institute a better education campaign (you can help here) including having "users" sign a statement that they've been given the rules and understand them. * Issue citations when needed. Hitting offenders in the wallet will strike a chord and word will get around and those offenders will begin to conform or stop coming. * There needs to be a general shift from the "me" culture to one in which everyone takes any privilege seriously and follows the rules all the time. This is the only way that any type of privilege can be sustained. I'm also enclosing my campaign flyer which contains a picture, personal information and other areas that are important to me. (This is under "Files" on the Discussion Group). Tom Coward Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these issues that are of interest to many people. First, however, you have invited the candidates to send information about themselves. I am 54 years old, and have lived in South Portland with my family since 1984. (We did reside temporarily in England from 1990 to 1995, but kept our domicile in South Portland during that time.) I graduated from the University of Maine School of Law in 1981, and have practiced law in Maine since that time. More recently, I have been a Maine licensed real estate agent since 2003. My wife, Deborah, and I work as a team with two other brokers selling real estate at Keller Williams in Portland. (Our team website: www.trubritrealty.com ) I have served on the South Portland Board of Appeals for the past 12 years. I decided to run for City Council because I think I can help get the City through the tough times that will be surely coming, given the current financial and economic climate, both in Maine and worldwide. I think the South Portland City Council has lacked foresight and has neglected necessary forward planning. I hope to contribute to changing this trend. On the specific issues relating to dogs in public spaces, either on- or off-leash: I would start with first principles: Public open spaces should be available for use by the public as the public wishes, so long as such use is not unreasonably detrimental to other people or their property. Obviously, after this, the first concern is the health or safety of the public. I would be in favor of restricting or regulating public use of public spaces if there is an actual (or a reasonably foreseeable potential) threat to public health or safety. Beyond health or safety issues, the question is whether there are threats to esthetic or "quality of life" values that should be addressed. I would be in favor of reasonable regulations or restrictions on otherwise unfettered public use of a public space in order to enhance or protect these values. However, in every case, any restriction on free public use must be such as to address the particular harm to be prevented, and must be the least restrictive regulation that would address the actual problem. There have obviously been plenty of claims and counterclaims concerning the behavior of dogs (and dog owners) in South Portland, both as to Willard Beach and in other public spaces. I think the recent Task Force report has cleared away much of the underbrush surrounding these issues. For instance, although there is some dissent on the point, the Task Force essentially failed to find substantial direct threats to health or safety arising from the use of Willard Beach by unleashed dogs, within the existing rules. In all honesty, I have not yet made up my mind on these issues. However, I think it is reasonably clear that further restrictions on dogs on Willard Beach will need to be justified on esthetic and quality of life grounds, and not on seemingly unsupported fears for public health and safety. In that connection, I would note that the presence of dogs on Willard Beach is already restricted to three early morning hours per day in the summer months, and I remain to be convinced that further restriction is reasonable. I do agree with the "anti-dog" group (if this is not an unfair characterization) that somewhat better enforcement of existing regulations would be helpful. I do think that the South Portland DOG has done a very good job of cleaning the beach and encouraging responsible use of the beach by dog owners. I also agree that the Task force recommendations concerning detailed regulation of dog owner conduct (not allowing dogs above the high tide mark, leashing dogs when talking to other dog owners, and so forth) are unenforceable, even if sensible. Perhaps these could become a voluntary "Code of Conduct" rather than an ordinance, as such? It would be very helpful to initiate and continue a discussion between SoPo DOG and the 'Save Willard Beach' group on these issues. I recognize that tempers have become very frayed over time, and that some things have been said that are too much in the nature of personal attacks to be helpful. I would suggest considering mediation of these issues, either informally, or possibly even formally through a mediation service. Please see the article on page two of this publication for some ideas: http://www.mainemediators.org/file_download/14/December07Bulletin.pdf. Well, I know I was asked for a short response, and I find that I have written an entire pamphlet, if not a novel! Please feel free to get in touch with me for further discussion or questions. --Tom Coward Phone: 207-329-8637 http://www.trubritrealty.comhttp://www.mainemediators.org/file_download/14/December07Bulletin.pdfshapeimage_1_link_0shapeimage_1_link_1
Sunday, November 2, 2008