Posting history from previous website - candidate surveys 2005 and 2006

 
For your information below is the posting history of City Council Candidates from the previous website. November, 2006 Maxine Beecher's response Maxine Beecher of 1351 Highland Avenue is a candidate for City Council District Four in the November 7th, 2006 election. Here are our questions and her answers to our survey on dog issues. • Balancing rights. How do you think citizens' rights to use the public parks should be preserved in the city? While dogs have no rights in themselves, do dog owners have a right to use the parks with their dogs, and do citizens without dogs have a right to use parks without any dogs present? How should we balance the rights (or even just the inconvenience) of competing citizens? Should park spaces and/or park hours be divided between dog owners and others according to some percentage - or do you think the current system of everyone sharing park spaces and times works pretty well? First of all, let me just say how lucky we are in South Portland to have a group like SoPoDOG looking out for our public spaces. You clean our parks. You lobbied for doggy-bag dispensers - and got them. You monitor and address our behavioral needs when it comes to dog walking issues. On behalf of the City Council, I thank you for your leadership. To answer your question: I favor the existing shared-use of our Parks. Some people like to walk their dogs in our parks. Others like to bike or jog. Still others seek quiet and solitude in these settings. The one thing these activities have in common is their "impact" on public spaces. Parks in South Portland work on a principle of mutual respect and consideration for other people's interests and activities. The only time this is not true is when there is a public safety interest to consider. And so far, dog walking hasn't risen to the level of that interest. So, I favor the work and compromise that's been done over the last several years. • Range of reasonable ordinances.  Do you think the current state of dog ordinances in the city falls within a reasonable range of compromise, or must they be changed? What measures restricting dogs would be too extreme to earn your support? What measures relaxing dog rules would be too extreme to earn your support? Please be specific as to voice control, leash restrictions, dog parks, seasonal or hourly restrictions, or the closing of specific parks or certain areas within parks to dogs. Councilors worked hard with constituents to craft our existing animal ordinance, which allows for dogs to roam off-leash, provided the owners can show that their dog is under "voice control." I believe this ordinance is working very well. The number of complaints are down this year. And I hope to see that decrease even more as the City begins working with dog owners on the public education component of this compromise. What measures would be too restrictive? Dogs and their owners should be afforded the same rights to play off leash in our parks as people engaged in other activities. I don't currently see a need for posting different hours for dog walking. And I wouldn't want to see dog owners and their pets banished to restricted areas within our parks. • Dog owners a breed apart. Is there a philosophical or practical reason why dog walking in the parks should be considered to be in a different category from other uses of the public parks, such as mountain bike riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, kite flying or tobacco smoking? Should dog walkers be singled out for special ordinances or special permits for their use of the parks? A group of citizens sat down last year and discussed the issue of special permits with City staff. Unfortunately, those talks were never completed. But the initial discussions produced any interesting set of ideas that address, among other things, the issue of non-residents bringing their animals to South Portland for exercise and whether South Portlanders should shoulder the burden of that impact. This committee came up with some fascinating ideas about who should pay and how. It's an interesting conversation. And we should always be willing to engage in similar conversations. Generally, I favor open parks for residents and non-residents alike. • Beach access. Willard Beach is currently closed to dogs after 9 a.m. from May 1 through September 30. Would you support allowing more time for dogs on Willard during May, September, or in the summer evenings, when experience shows that relatively few people use the beach? If so, with what limitations or what other compensating adjustments? The Willard Beach neighborhood is one of the City's most densely populated areas. Add to that folks from "away" who park along the streets to walk their dogs or to just walk the beach and you have an even greater density. The hours that are currently available for dog walking were arrived at through a great deal of compromise, the good-natured give and take of South Portlanders, trying to make this work. And I believe the current posting allows a little breathing room for everyone involved. The beach is also an environmentally sensitive area and rotating the impacts from sunbathers, dog walkers, kayakers, etc. seems like a sensible and responsible approach to me. • Enforcement and paying for it. How much effort and money should the city be spending on enforcing dog ordinances? How should such enforcement be funded? Do you think South Portland needs a full-time animal control officer (to cover animal welfare as well as ordinance enforcement), or the re-introduction of park rangers? Public Safety is my number one job as Mayor and as a city councilor. So, I can tell you with some authority that it doesn't come cheap. Furthermore, our sworn officers are always training for new demands. Our animal control officer is no different. South Portland currently splits the cost of this officer with Cape Elizabeth. Responsibilities are shared accordingly. Do we need a full-time animal control officer. Absolutely. But who will pay for this officer? The good news is that the City now leases a full-time officer to SMCC for the year. And there is a great deal of flexibility in that contract, which could mean that Willard Beach will have a greater police presence than ever before. I believe that we will find the answer to the enforcement question through these kinds of creative, cost-saving arrangements.   If you want to provide feedback to Ms. Beecher about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about her response to this survey, she can be reached by mail at 1351 Highland Avenue, South Portland, 04106, by phone at 799-8888, or by email at mbeecher@maine.rr.com .   Other relevant information for this candidate: A Labrador Retriever named Shadow was licensed to Ms. Beecher's home on Highland Avenue. Councilor Beecher joined in the unanimous City Council vote in 2005 to approve new dog ordinances crafted by the consensus of the initial members of the City Manager's committee on dog issues. ******************************************************************************************** Rosemarie De Angelis' response Rosemarie De Angelis of 30 Buttonwood Street is a candidate for City Council District Three in the November 7th, 2006 election• Balancing rights. How do you think citizens' rights to use the public parks should be preserved in the city? Yes, I have always supported all citizens having access to our beautiful parks and walkways. • Balancing rights (continued). While dogs have no rights in themselves, do dog owners have a right to use the parks with their dogs, and do citizens without dogs have a right to use parks without any dogs present? How should we balance the rights (or even just the inconvenience) of competing citizens? Should park spaces and/or park hours be divided between dog owners and others according to some percentage - or do you think the current system of everyone sharing park spaces and times works pretty well? I support the current ordinance as written. Any changes on this important issue should only occur after a committee large enough to represent all stakeholders has had time to examine the issues thoroughly. • Range of reasonable ordinances.  Do you think the current state of dog ordinances in the city falls within a reasonable range of compromise, or must they be changed? What measures restricting dogs would be too extreme to earn your support? What measures relaxing dog rules would be too extreme to earn your support? Please be specific as to voice control, leash restrictions, dog parks, seasonal or hourly restrictions, or the closing of specific parks or certain areas within parks to dogs. I support the current ordinance. I would support the exploration of this very important issue by a committee large enough to represent all stakeholders. Our parks and public spaces are a valuable resource in which everyone deserves to feel welcome. • Dog owners a breed apart. Is there a philosophical or practical reason why dog walking in the parks should be considered to be in a different category from other uses of the public parks, such as mountain bike riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, kite flying or tobacco smoking? Should dog walkers be singled out for special ordinances or special permits for their use of the parks? I do not have the answers. I have had animals all my life and value their role and the enjoyment they bring to most of us. I understand there are varying views on most topics in this city. I have always valued all residents and their perspectives equally. • Beach access. Willard Beach is currently closed to dogs after 9 a.m. from May 1 through September 30. Would you support allowing more time for dogs on Willard during May, September, or in the summer evenings, when experience shows that relatively few people use the beach? If so, with what limitations or what other compensating adjustments? I support the current ordinance and do not recommend any changes. I have never been opposed to dogs on Willard Beach.(1) • Enforcement and paying for it. How much effort and money should the city be spending on enforcing dog ordinances? How should such enforcement be funded? Do you think South Portland needs a full-time animal control officer (to cover animal welfare as well as ordinance enforcement), or the re-introduction of park rangers? I would continue to support the current ordinance unless a committee representative of all stakeholders recommends changes. There is much work to be done regarding the use of our parks and public green spaces. Balancing the budget with needs in our city is a complex process—setting priorities for expenditures requires thought, conversation and collaboration.   If you want to provide feedback to Ms. DeAngelis about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about her response to this survey, she can be reached by mail at 25 Cottage Road, South Portland, 04106, by phone at 799-0219, or by email at rdeangelis@southportland.org .   Other relevant information for this candidate: As far as we are aware, Ms. De Angelis is not a licensed dog owner in South Portland. Councilor De Angelis joined in the unanimous City Council vote in 2005 to approve new dog ordinances crafted by the consensus of the initial members of the City Manager's committe on dog issues, which included two dog owners, two well-known Willard Beach abutters concerned about dog behavior, and city staff. On her initiative, she and two constituents from her district joined the committee, after its initial recommendations had already been presented to the City Council. This resulted in twice as many voices on the committee (not including Ms. De Angelis herself) consistently arguing for greater restrictions on dogs in parks, balanced against the same two citizen voices representing dog owners. No further consensus emerged from that committee. (Footnote 1) Ms. De Angelis' statement above "I have never been opposed to dogs on Willard Beach" is difficult to reconcile with the written record. Most specifically, she had written city councilors by email repeatedly in July 2004, seeking to have the council reopen the question of the extent to which dog owners should be permitted to use city parks, especially Willard Beach. She wrote, in part: "What other options do we have for open space for dogs that are not beaches? ... [Dog owners], too, are reasonable people and do not want to put others in danger/discomfort; I believe they will enter into discussions with an intent to come to a solution, even if it might entail the closing of Willard Beach to dogs." ******************************************************************************************** James Soule's response James Soule of 23 Whitworth Drive is a candidate for City Council District Three in the November 7th, 2006 election. Here are our questions and his answers to our survey on dog issues. • Balancing rights. How do you think citizens' rights to use the public parks should be preserved in the city? While dogs have no rights in themselves, do dog owners have a right to use the parks with their dogs, and do citizens without dogs have a right to use parks without any dogs present? How should we balance the rights (or even just the inconvenience) of competing citizens? Should park spaces and/or park hours be divided between dog owners and others according to some percentage - or do you think the current system of everyone sharing park spaces and times works pretty well? As a City Councilor during the 1980s and 1990s I pushed hard for-and was instrumental in-the creation and preservation of Hinkley Park and the Greenbelt, so I can tell you for a fact that we did not design our park system with the intent of limiting the leisure and activities of South Portlanders. We envisioned a park system that was inclusive and reflective of our needs. The people of South Portland are the stewards of our parks. And we are the constituents who determine the governing policies in them. I support unrestricted access to our parks. We now have an ordinance that recognizes "voice control" as a standard for appropriate behavior in our parks. And I'm satisfied that it's working. Furthermore, I know of no other city in Maine that has a group of dedicated dog owners who make this public policy work by routinely cleaning our parks and taking an active role in educating the public about the standards of good stewardship. I think we've got it just right here in South Portland. • Range of reasonable ordinances.  Do you think the current state of dog ordinances in the city falls within a reasonable range of compromise, or must they be changed? What measures restricting dogs would be too extreme to earn your support? What measures relaxing dog rules would be too extreme to earn your support? Please be specific as to voice control, leash restrictions, dog parks, seasonal or hourly restrictions, or the closing of specific parks or certain areas within parks to dogs. As I said, I know of no other group in Maine that's worked as hard as SopoDOG to find a lasting solution to the problem of competing interests in parks. It's taken a lot of years and a lot of work with the city to iron out a compromise. And I know it hasn't always been easy. I remember last year when Councilor DeAngelis in District Three (my opponent in this race) tried to single-handedly derail this compromise before councilors were able to vote on it. I don't believe South Portlanders were served by that kind of heavy-handedness. I know she never asked me or Brady, my dog, how we felt about being cordoned off in a section of Hinkley Park and restricted to a few hours of play each day. We didn't go for it. As a councilor who helped create our parks, I can tell you that we never imagined that a handful of people who don't like dogs would try to dictate their policies in our open spaces. Open spaces belong to the people of South Portland. Let's keep them open. • Dog owners a breed apart. Is there a philosophical or practical reason why dog walking in the parks should be considered to be in a different category from other uses of the public parks, such as mountain bike riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, kite flying or tobacco smoking? Should dog walkers be singled out for special ordinances or special permits for their use of the parks? Parks are for people-and their extended families. As long as the activities we choose in our parks are safe, environmentally responsible, and legal, we should promote every bit of enjoyment in them that we can. And I include walking my dog in that vision of public space. There was talk a year or two ago about "visitor" fee and permits during the process that resulted in the current version of the ordinance. Again, that process was never allowed to finish. As I mentioned, I helped create the park system with an understanding that people would be free and unfettered in their activities there, so I have a hard time getting my arms around the idea of charging our neighbors in other towns to walk and play in our parks. I certainly object to charging South Portlanders and their pets a fee for using the parks (aside from registering our pets, which is a state requirement). We're already paying a premium in property taxes. • Beach access. Willard Beach is currently closed to dogs after 9 a.m. from May 1 through September 30. Would you support allowing more time for dogs on Willard during May, September, or in the summer evenings, when experience shows that relatively few people use the beach? If so, with what limitations or what other compensating adjustments? I would be open to a study of the hours currently posted at Willard Beach. But I would prefer that we wait and see how the new dog ordinance is affecting the Willard neighborhood, as well as other areas of the city. I also want to make sure that the beach is allowed to recover from the numerous activities we currently demand of it before we tack on new hours. So, I would advocate for an "environmental impact" study to examine every activity, human and animal, coordinated with a behavioral study of beach access. Any changes we make need to be based in real numbers and science. • Enforcement and paying for it. How much effort and money should the city be spending on enforcing dog ordinances? How should such enforcement be funded? Do you think South Portland needs a full-time animal control officer (to cover animal welfare as well as ordinance enforcement), or the re-introduction of park rangers? South Portland is woefully short of sworn police officers. Did you know that, at this very moment, we have only four cruisers on the road covering roughly twelve and half square miles of city streets? That's four officers per shift. 24/7. Our officers are overworked, under-paid, and already have difficulty handling emergency calls, which include assaults, domestic violence, hate crimes, and an epidemic of bank robberies. So, the question I have for you is how serious are you about funding more animal control? I can remember a time when police officers routinely performed the duties of animal control officer during the course of their day. But I also recognize that times are changing. New crimes and public safety policies require new forms of community policing. We might train and empower our existing parks and rec employees to intervene and issue citations as a form of animal control. That's one solution. I'm sure we can work together and come up with more. The heart of the problem is funding-and our commitment to funding public safety. In the meantime, neighbors can help neighbors by setting a good example and reminding everyone to keep their animals under control. SopoDOG already does that, I know. Personally, I'm asking Brady to raise the bar and set a better example when we're out in public with his pals fetching sticks. Funding is the long-term solution. But it seems to me that this is as good a place as any to start tackling the problem of enforcement.   If you want to provide feedback to Mr. Soule about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about his response to this survey, he can be reached by mail at 23 Whitworth Drive, South Portland, 04106, by phone at 767-1343 or by email at rwschair@aol.com .   Other relevant information for this candidate: Mr. Soule has been a dog owner for many years and currently owns a Labradoodle named "Brady." ******************************************************************************************** Vincent Maietta's response Vincent Maietta of 199 Elderberry Drive is a candidate for City Council District Four in the November 7th, 2006 election. Here are our questions and his answers to our survey on dog issues. • Balancing rights. How do you think citizens' rights to use the public parks should be preserved in the city? Parks are important in our lives and access to them is equally important. Having visited large cities where some lack the adequate public space for walking, jogging, or relaxing it is easy to forget how lucky we are in Maine to have such great access to parks. We need to balance the safety and right to enjoy the space for all citizens. I believe it is possible for dog owners who choose to use the public spaces and those who do not to have dogs to enjoy the open spaces equally. • Balancing rights (continued). While dogs have no rights in themselves, do dog owners have a right to use the parks with their dogs, and do citizens without dogs have a right to use parks without any dogs present? Everyone should have access to our parks. With more congestion in our city I understand the need for dog owners to exercise their pets in open space. As city we simply need to ensure safety and fairness to everyone. • Balancing rights (continued). How should we balance the rights (or even just the inconvenience) of competing citizens? Other cities have faced similar issues and handled the situation quite well. In Portland they have created a dog park where owners can allow their dogs to run freely. As our city changes we need to examine the needs of both groups and I certainly willing to hear both sides. • Balancing rights (continued). Should park spaces and/or park hours be divided between dog owners and others according to some percentage - or do you think the current system of everyone sharing park spaces and times works pretty well? I am anxious to hear the concerns of your group on this matter. I would not advocate for dogs to run freely on a crowded beach during a summer afternoon for simple reason of safety. However, I understand the need for dog owners to recreate with their pets. • Range of reasonable ordinances.  Do you think the current state of dog ordinances in the city falls within a reasonable range of compromise, or must they be changed? I believe the current ordinance falls within a reasonable range of compromise. I would gladly accept input from your group on suggested changes or additions. • Range of reasonable ordinances (continued). What measures restricting dogs would be too extreme to earn your support? I would not support a measure restricting dogs from city parks. • Range of reasonable ordinances (continued). What measures relaxing dog rules would be too extreme to earn your support? Please be specific as to voice control, leash restrictions, dog parks, seasonal or hourly restrictions, or the closing of specific parks or certain areas within parks to dogs. Voice control is important for dog owners who are responsible and understanding of others personal rights and space. It is important we as a city deal with those who do not understand the need for controlling their pets as an individual issue. As I mentioned before the city should continue its practice of allowing dogs in city parks and within reason consider the future with an area for dogs to run similar to the park in Portland. • Dog owners a breed apart. Is there a philosophical or practical reason why dog walking in the parks should be considered to be in a different category from other uses of the public parks, such as mountain bike riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, kite flying or tobacco smoking? I do not believe dog owners should be treated differently than other residents using the park. I am glad the city now provides doggy bags at Hinkley Park and even better that the people I see with pets using bags to keep our parks clean. • Dog owners a breed apart (continued). Should dog walkers be singled out for special ordinances or special permits for their use of the parks? Special permits should not be required of pet owners. • Beach access. Willard Beach is currently closed to dogs after 9 a.m. from May 1 through September 30. Would you support allowing more time for dogs on Willard during May, September, or in the summer evenings, when experience shows that relatively few people use the beach? If so, with what limitations or what other compensating adjustments? I would support allowing for more time on the beach during times when relatively few people use the beach. • Enforcement and paying for it. How much effort and money should the city be spending on enforcing dog ordinances? How should such enforcement be funded? We should fund the enforcement through the police department with a full time animal control officer paid by the city. • Enforcement and paying for it (continued). Do you think South Portland needs a full-time animal control officer (to cover animal welfare as well as ordinance enforcement), or the re-introduction of park rangers? As stated above, we need a full time animal control officer. The park ranger program can be an asset to our city. In years past rangers were college students and those interested in a law enforcement career. They learned about dealing with the public while the city benefited from public liaisons in our busier parks during peak months. A few years back the park ranger at the city's boat ramp assisted in the first response to the Portland Welding Co fire by being the eyes are ears of public responders. If you want to provide feedback to Mr. Maietta about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about his response to this survey, he can be reached by mail at 199 Elderberry Drive, South Portland, 04106, by phone at 799-6176, or by email at maietta@aol.com .   Other relevant information for this candidate: As far as we are aware, Mr. Maietta is not a licensed dog owner in South Portland. ******************************************************************************************** David Bourke's response David Bourke of 61 Willow Street is a candidate for City Council District One in the November 8th, 2005 election. Mr. Bourke responded by mail to our survey on October 5th, but he declined to answer the questions we asked specifically, noting: Since I am a member of the City Manager's task force to develop a proposal for revisions to the ordinances, I must recuse myself from answering these questions. I am working with Claude Morgan and Glenn Picher on this project. It is our intention to work toward consensus on all issues. I am in full agreement with Claude and Glenn, and will continue to be in full agreement until our group presents to City Council. If elected to Council, I will continue to support the group consensus report. You can see his answers in the original here. Mr. Bourke also provided us with the following message by phone on November 7th, 2005: I support the changes which are going to be coming forth to the City Council tonight for a second reading regarding the definition for off-leash voice control, as well as the leash provisions as they relate to public sidewalks, streets, parking lots and the Greenbelt Walkway. I further support the revised definition of 'leash control', which basically means that, instead of 8 feet, it would be more flexible, to allow for a retractable leash. I am receptive to expanding access to the beach and other parks for dogs, and am willing to consider altering the summer hour restrictions to allow for beach access in the months of May and September, as well as dog access to the beach between 6 pm and 9 pm in addition to the already existing 6 am to 9 am in the summertime. If you want to provide feedback to Mr. Bourke about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about his response to this survey, he can be reached by mail at 61 Willow Street, South Portland, 04106, by phone at 799-9491 or by email at davembourke@yahoo.com . Clarification of David Bourke's change in position on dog ordinances On October 10th, 2005, District One city council candidate David Bourke left us a message asking SoPoDOG to make the following clarification about a change in his position since the city dog committee filed its original report: I was just reviewing the packet which you [Glenn Picher] and Sheila Wellehan sent out to the candidates, and I found a couple things in there that concern me. First of all, in the attachments that were in the packet, there were notes from [City Manager] Jeff Jordan in which it specifically said that I did not agree with the recommended changes to the "at heel" and the "length of leash." That was indeed, my original position, but as you recall, at the ... [August] 8th [City Council] workshop meeting, I changed my position and agreed to go along with the majority, so that we would have consensus on this; and in your notes on that meeting, you did not say anything at all that would reflect that I had changed my position. I would certainly appreciate it if you would amend these notes before you make them public, and I think that will show that my position is the same as yours and the other members of the [city dog committee] group. (The report in question had already been published by Jeff Jordan on the South Portland city web site at http://www.southportland.org before SoPoDOG ever circulated the candidates' packets, and remains in its original form there.)  Other relevant information for this candidate: Mr. Bourke owns two Yorkshire Terriers named Skippy and Cookie. His sister, Jeannie Bourke, is a long-time member of SoPoDOG. Mr. Bourke has been active in the Willard Neighborhood Association and has in the past spoken before the City Council and the WNA urging the creation of a dog park, and for dogs to be restricted to leashes on Willard Beach. However, his positions on dog issues have evolved over time. (At his request, SoPoDOG has posted a clarification on one such recent change of position here ). Glenn Picher, SoPoDOG Communications Coordinator, who serves on the city dog committee with Mr. Bourke, notes: "While Mr. Bourke says he is in full agreement with me, I certainly could not make the statement that I am in full agreement with him. On dog issues, over the years, we haven't agreed on much. We did agree that our committee would send on to the City Council a compromise set of ordinance revision proposals that we could both tolerate. I will continue trying to work with him on the city dog committee to try to find the ground on which we can agree, and I give him a lot of credit for listening and for being willing to reconsider his positions." ******************************************************************************************** Skip Lucarelli's response Quirino "Skip" Lucarelli of 117 Summit Terrace is a candidate for City Council District One in the November 8th, 2005 election. We sent Mr. Lucarelli our questions by registered mail in early October. According to the post office, Mr. Lucarelli's package was received on October 3rd. Even after our deadline of October 15th, we still have not yet received a response from him. However, we did receive this phone message from him on Sunday, November 6th: I have no issues with [dogs], as long as people clean up after the dogs, and I don't care if they run wild or not... if they are under voice command. And I think it's great to have the animals around. But whoever owns animals needs to take care of them, and we need to put some rules in place that if somebody sees a dog making a mess, and nobody's cleaning it up, I think there ought to be a finder's fee for the person that turns them in, and I think there ought to be a good stiff fine for the person that doesn't clean up after them. That's about the only thing I've got to say. If you want to provide feedback to Mr. Lucarelli about your position as a voter on dog issues, or his response to the survey, he can be reached by mail at 117 Summit Terrace, South Portland, 04106, by phone at 799-3319. We aren't aware of any email address for him.   Other relevant information for this candidate: Mr. Lucarelli does not own any dogs licensed in South Portland. ******************************************************************************************** Claude Morgan's response Claude Morgan of 31 Elsmere Avenue is a candidate for City Council District One in the November 8th, 2005 election. Mr. Morgan responded by email to our survey on October 11th. Here are our questions and his answers. • Balancing rights. How do you think citizens’ rights to use the public parks should be preserved in the city? While dogs have no rights in themselves, do dog owners have a right to use the parks with their dogs, and do citizens without dogs have a right to use parks without any dogs present? How should we balance the rights (or even just the inconvenience) of competing citizens? Should park spaces and/or park hours be divided between dog owners and others according to some percentage – or do you think the current system of everyone sharing park spaces and times works pretty well? South Portland dog owners pay taxes. Therefore, they share a stake in what activities are promoted in public spaces. I think it’s important to remember that everyone leaves a footprint on our parks: Anglers leave behind fish hooks and fishing line; picnickers leave paper and plastic; mountain bikers damage root systems; and folks who fly kites indirectly discourage others from sharing the open space because of the far-ranging requirements of their gear. The answer is not banning or restricting one activity — in effect saying, this activity is “good” and this one is “bad” — but rather promoting responsible stewardship in all activities. • Range of reasonable ordinances.  Do you think the current state of dog ordinances in the city falls within a reasonable range of compromise, or must they be changed? What measures restricting dogs would be too extreme to earn your support? What measures relaxing dog rules would be too extreme to earn your support? Please be specific as to voice control, leash restrictions, dog parks, seasonal or hourly restrictions, or the closing of specific parks or certain areas within parks to dogs. Our “open-spaces” policy is largely successful, though we are currently being flooded by dog owners from neighboring communities. They’re being forced out of the public spaces for which they pay taxes. Outdated restrictions and unimaginative public policy are the reasons for this sudden influx of new users. Polls show that South Portlanders overwhelmingly support of a “voice control” policy in open space. City Councilors should therefore respect the wishes of dog owners and get back to business of municipal government: managing revenues responsibly, maintaining city services, and ensuring a strong community. • Dog owners a breed apart. Is there a philosophical or practical reason why dog walking in the parks should be considered to be in a different category from other uses of the public parks, such as mountain bike riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, kite flying or tobacco smoking? Should dog walkers be singled out for special ordinances or special permits for their use of the parks? The city should foster activities that promote community and responsible stewardship of publicly-owned shared spaces. Dog walking is no exception. Dog owners in South Portland regularly clean our parks, educate folks about responsible pet ownership, and promote all types of civic activity and dialogue. They also clean up a lot of human debris in those efforts. For some folks, walking their dog is their only physical activity. For others, walking a dog is akin to taking a walk with a friend or a family member. The city shouldn’t be in the business of discouraging that activity or any other activity that promotes a healthy use of our public space. Oh, and here’s an interesting fact: Studies show that crime rates goes down in areas where dogs and people share activities. • Beach access. Willard Beach is currently closed to dogs after 9 a.m. from May 1 through September 30. Would you support allowing more time for dogs on Willard during May, September, or in the summer evenings, when experience shows that relatively few people use the beach? If so, with what limitations or what other compensating adjustments? I’m personally satisfied with the current time restrictions at Willard Beach, but I also recognize that they are arbitrary and bear little resemblance to the actual patterns of people. May 1st is a little too early for sun tanners and beachgoers. Likewise, September 30th is a little too late. So there is quite a period when the beach is simply not enjoyed by anyone. Perhaps we could tweak the time restrictions to maximize everyone’s experience. • Enforcement and paying for it. How much effort and money should the city be spending on enforcing dog ordinances? How should such enforcement be funded? Do you think South Portland needs a full-time animal control officer (to cover animal welfare as well as ordinance enforcement), or the re-introduction of park rangers? South Portlanders clearly want stricter law enforcement in our parks and public spaces. As a dog owner who cleans Bug Light Park one Sunday each month, I can tell you, firsthand, that folks are ignoring our laws regarding litter, public decency and intoxication, and even hazardous-waste disposal. Police are here to enforce the laws that are important to our community. If we care about the responsible stewardship of our parks, then we must demand that our City Councilors respect our wishes and instruct our police to protect the assets we hold dear. Citizens determine municipal priorities; not Councilors. How do we pay for it? How about offering students at SMCC who major in law enforcement an accredited stint as part-time park rangers? We can tap any number of resources if we start thinking outside the box. • City dog ordinance committee. What do you think of the work so far of the city committee on dog ordinances? Do you generally support its initial recommendations? Do you think its membership, procedures or recommendations should change? If so, how? I support the initial recommendations of the dog ordinance committee. A park-wide permit system will generate revenue from dog owners in neighboring communities and restore accountability and responsibility in our own community. Ultimately, we’ll end up exporting this model to friends and neighbors in other towns. It’s that good. The recommendation arrives out of consensus. It’s innovative. It’s a long-term solution. More important: South Portlanders arrived at this solution; not our City Councilors. If you want to provide feedback to Mr. Morgan about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about his response to this survey, he can be reached by mail at 31 Elsmere Avenue, South Portland, 04106, by phone at 799-5259, or by email at cvzm@maine.rr.com .   Other relevant information for this candidate: Mr. Morgan owns a German Shepherd mix named Kuchen. He has been a member of SoPoDOG for a couple of years and currently serves as it president. He also serves on the City Manager's committee on dog ordinance revisions, as does another District One candidate, David Bourke. ******************************************************************************************** Anton Hoecker's response R. Anton Hecker, Jr. of 183 Marriner Street is a candidate for City Council District Two in the November 8th, 2005 election. Mr. Hoecker responded by email to our survey on October 15th. Below are our questions and his original answers. Below that is one more general comment from Mr. Hoecker, provided with his answers to the survey on October 15th, and also two updated statements from him on dog issues, received later. • Balancing rights. How do you think citizens’ rights to use the public parks should be preserved in the city? While dogs have no rights in themselves, do dog owners have a right to use the parks with their dogs, and do citizens without dogs have a right to use parks without any dogs present? How should we balance the rights (or even just the inconvenience) of competing citizens? Should park spaces and/or park hours be divided between dog owners and others according to some percentage – or do you think the current system of everyone sharing park spaces and times works pretty well? I think that the rights for all should be preserved through compromise and the recognition of each others point of view. I do believe that local citizen’s with dogs should be able to use the parks. I also believe that non-dog owners should be able to use the parks without dogs being present or at least always on a leash. I support a mix of possibilities in how to use the open park spaces. Hinkley Park for example could be divided into leash and non leash areas. The trails could be a leash area and the fields closest to the street to the west of the power line could be a non-leash area. The existing hours at Willard Beach work relatively well with one caveat. Many non-dog people stop using the beach area from October 1st to April 30th giving dog owners nine months of dog beach to five months of shared beach time (which often is disregarded). I have had people tell me that they have stopped going to Willard Beach completely. People say they are concerned about dogs chasing them while jogging, jumping on themselves and their children, and chasing wildlife. In addition, people have commented on the dog waste, especially when it accumulates all winter, and they have kept their children from playing on the playground equipment after observing dog’s urinating on the posts. Also people have mentioned that even during the "restricted" periods they are concerned about these issues because some people disregard the rules and bring their dogs to the beach at anytime. • Range of reasonable ordinances.  Do you think the current state of dog ordinances in the city falls within a reasonable range of compromise, or must they be changed? What measures restricting dogs would be too extreme to earn your support? What measures relaxing dog rules would be too extreme to earn your support? Please be specific as to voice control, leash restrictions, dog parks, seasonal or hourly restrictions, or the closing of specific parks or certain areas within parks to dogs. I would like to see changes in the ordinance. Some of the changes noted in the packet from the meeting of July 20th would be a good start. I like the proposed change to include the Greenbelt, sidewalks, and other public ways as leash zones. I think the use of retractable leashes is fine. I know dogs like to run out and back to their handlers and the extended leash allows for that. I would like to see a dog park or rather parks where dogs and owners can get together, hang out with friends and let the dogs run free. Two areas would be great so that we could switch back and forth to let the grasses grow. This could also allow non-dog owners more access to other parks without fear of dogs interrupting their time. I have had people suggest closing the main part of Willard to leash free dogs and have the end closest to Fort Preble for a few hours a day be an off-leash area. There are also beaches next to the break water at Spring Point Light House that could be a dog beach. • Dog owners a breed apart. Is there a philosophical or practical reason why dog walking in the parks should be considered to be in a different category from other uses of the public parks, such as mountain bike riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, kite flying or tobacco smoking? Should dog walkers be singled out for special ordinances or special permits for their use of the parks? I think there is an inherent difference between unleashed dogs and bike riders, boarders, rollerbladers etc. To me the loose dog represents a potential safety hazard. Unlike the human powered activities listed, most would assume automatically that the biker is not going to run me over, or that the kite flyer is not going to bump my kid down, or that the skate boarder is not going to purposely jump on me. The unleashed dog that starts running towards someone can make a person who is unfamiliar with the dog frightened. If the dog is barking or jumps up on the person, even more concern about a worst case scenario of being bitten heightens anxiety and could result in serious injury. I think dog usage should be regulated by some rules agreed upon by both sides. The use of special permits concerns me in that those of lesser means could be excluded from participating or that they will feel compelled to cheat the rules to have the same usage. If there were some possible way to do a sliding scale that could be helpful. Fees for out- of- town residents seems reasonable since their tax dollars do not contribute to the overall upkeep of our community. • Beach access. Willard Beach is currently closed to dogs after 9 a.m. from May 1 through September 30. Would you support allowing more time for dogs on Willard during May, September, or in the summer evenings, when experience shows that relatively few people use the beach? If so, with what limitations or what other compensating adjustments? Please see above comment on the use of Willard Beach. • Enforcement and paying for it. How much effort and money should the city be spending on enforcing dog ordinances? How should such enforcement be funded? Do you think South Portland needs a full-time animal control officer (to cover animal welfare as well as ordinance enforcement), or the re-introduction of park rangers? I find something frustrating about this question. It unfortunately assumes rule breakers and that we have to pay extra to enforce our rules. That said, the use of fees suggested in the report seems on first blush reasonable, but I doubt that those fees would cover the expenses of hiring new people to do dog patrol. I would support the re-introduction of park rangers who could provide many services beyond enforcing dog ordinances. • City dog ordinance committee. What do you think of the work so far of the city committee on dog ordinances? Do you generally support its initial recommendations? Do you think its membership, procedures or recommendations should change? If so, how? I think the ordinance committee has done a lot of good work, and I would like to see it continued. I’m concerned about the data on Willard beach usage. Many people know it as a dog beach and so have stopped using it. Before we change the hours I would want to do a city wide survey on how people would like to use the area under various dog restrictions. 
I would like an independent study of the beach and Hinkley park area done by some outside organization, hopefully without bias. Although the dog group has done it’s homework I would prefer a more independent study. Mr. Hoecker also provided a more general statement with his survey answers on October 15, not in response to any specific questions: Overall I generally like dogs. I have enjoyed watching dog people congregate and play with a sense of pride in their comradery. I also have watched, too many times, adults and children being either barked at, jumped on or frightened by dogs at both Hinkley Park and Willard Beach. Many people have moved to South Portland to enjoy the beach and other aspects of the area but now find that they use Willard Beach less and less due to the dogs. What I would like members of the dog community to at least recognize is the fear and safety factor that occurs to almost every one when a dog starts barking and/or running toward them unleashed. Involuntarily fear intrudes upon the moment of a pleasant walk or run at the beach or in the park. I for the most part want a shared use policy without rancor, a policy where both dog owners and non-dog owners empathize with each other. Our community needs to always keep in mind the principle of best use for the common good. We received from Mr. Hoecker by email on October 29th an update on his position on the work of the city dog commitee: After some feedback and more research into what has taken place over the past two years, I want to make my position on dogs and open space clear: I want to move the previous (original) committee’s process forward. I would like see an independent study of our parks and their usage done city wide. I would also like to see a more public display of the continuing dialogue in the greater community such as regular news releases to the Sentry, so that people become aware of the issues before they come to the counsel. I do not expect to make any decisions about dogs in our parks until a study has been completed and most citizens have been made aware of all sides of canine issues in the community sphere. We also received another email from Mr. Hoecker on November 6th: My primary concern is that a policy should be set in place so that the parks can be enjoyed by all. I support an independent study on how best to do this. I think the position stated in your organization's talking points could sum up my position as well, that is, "The question of dogs on Willard Beach involves balancing certain humans' rights vs. other humans' rights, not dogs' rights vs. humans' rights. Ordinances do not have to strike the appropriate balance between dogs and people, but between dog-owning people and non-dog-owning people. Their interests are not mutually exclusive! We all want to use the beach in a way that brings us pleasure; we all have that in common."  As I get continued feedback I find that I am in fact straddling the fence. In my discussions with both dog owners and non dog owners, both with children and without children, the topic of access to Willard Beach and Hinkley Park has proven to be extremely important to both sides. As a progressive who supports long standing positions concerning the rights of all individuals to equal access and opportunity, in this case, to enjoy our parks, I have only sought to increase the dialogue amongst all parties. My position is not necessarily to limit dog time but rather to have the parks used by everyone in a way which meets the needs of all our citizens. If you want to provide feedback to Mr. Hoecker about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about his response to this survey and his updated positions, he can be reached by mail at 183 Marriner Street, South Portland, 04106, or by email at AntonHoecker@aol.com . Currently we don't know of a phone number where he can be reached.   Other relevant information for this candidate: Mr. Hoecker does not own any dogs licensed in South Portland. ******************************************************************************************** Kay Loring's response Katherine "Kay" Loring of 1144 Riverplace Drive is a candidate for City Council District Two in the November 8th, 2005 election. Ms. Loring responded by mail to our survey on October 8th. Here are our questions and her answers. • Balancing rights. How do you think citizens’ rights to use the public parks should be preserved in the city? While dogs have no rights in themselves, do dog owners have a right to use the parks with their dogs, and do citizens without dogs have a right to use parks without any dogs present? How should we balance the rights (or even just the inconvenience) of competing citizens? Should park spaces and/or park hours be divided between dog owners and others according to some percentage – or do you think the current system of everyone sharing park spaces and times works pretty well? I think your idea of dividing park hours for dog and hours for citizens. (Probably Ms. Loring meant "I like your idea...". ) • Range of reasonable ordinances.  Do you think the current state of dog ordinances in the city falls within a reasonable range of compromise, or must they be changed? What measures restricting dogs would be too extreme to earn your support? What measures relaxing dog rules would be too extreme to earn your support? Please be specific as to voice control, leash restrictions, dog parks, seasonal or hourly restrictions, or the closing of specific parks or certain areas within parks to dogs. I think dogs and their owners have the right to use public spaces- having only dog hours would greatly help with this problem. It would give the dog the freedom they deserve without the citizens their own time without being concerned with rambunctious puppies. • Dog owners a breed apart. Is there a philosophical or practical reason why dog walking in the parks should be considered to be in a different category from other uses of the public parks, such as mountain bike riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, kite flying or tobacco smoking? Should dog walkers be singled out for special ordinances or special permits for their use of the parks? I do not think dog owner should pay for special permits- after all they pay taxes as well as non dog owners- I don't think we need special ordinances- only better signage at the entrances with the rules that should be followed. • Beach access. Willard Beach is currently closed to dogs after 9 a.m. from May 1 through September 30. Would you support allowing more time for dogs on Willard during May, September, or in the summer evenings, when experience shows that relatively few people use the beach? If so, with what limitations or what other compensating adjustments? Dogs allowed dawn to 9:00- after sunset 8 PM. • Enforcement and paying for it. How much effort and money should the city be spending on enforcing dog ordinances? How should such enforcement be funded? Do you think South Portland needs a full-time animal control officer (to cover animal welfare as well as ordinance enforcement), or the re-introduction of park rangers? No I don't think we need park rangers- we need to educate the dog owners that have no respect for the rules. They should be fined hefty money when a rule is broken. • City dog ordinance committee. What do you think of the work so far of the city committee on dog ordinances? Do you generally support its initial recommendations? Do you think its membership, procedures or recommendations should change? If so, how? I think the SPDOG has done a magnificent job with their members dogs- they are not the ones who need any rules or new ordinances- its the 90/10 equation- 10% needs to be educated and fined. If you want to provide feedback to Ms. Loring about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about her response to this survey, she can be reached by mail at 1144 Riverplace Drive, South Portland, 04106, or by phone at 799-4554. We aren't aware of any email address for her.   Other relevant information for this candidate: Ms. Loring does not own any dogs licensed in South Portland. ******************************************************************************************** Brian Dearborn's response Brian Dearborn of 215 Settler Road is a candidate for City Council District Five in the November 8th, 2005 election. We sent Mr. Dearborn our questions by registered mail early in October. The post office says the package was received on October 4th. Even after our deadline of October 15th, we still have not yet received a response from him. He did, however, phone us before the deadline to ask about dog hours on Willard Beach and our study of usage patterns there. We wll post any responses from Mr. Dearborn here, if we do receive them. If you want to provide feedback to Mr. Dearborn about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about his lack of response to this survey, he can be reached by mail at 215 Settler Road, South Portland, 04106, or by phone at 772-0991. We aren't aware of any email address for him.   Other relevant information for this candidate: Mr. Dearborn does not own any dogs licensed in South Portland. ******************************************************************************************** James Hughes' response James Hughes of 1776 Broadway is a candidate for City Council District Five in the November 8th, 2005 election. Mr. Hughes responded by email to our survey on October 28th. Here are our questions and his answers. • Balancing rights. How do you think citizens’ rights to use the public parks should be preserved in the city? While dogs have no rights in themselves, do dog owners have a right to use the parks with their dogs, and do citizens without dogs have a right to use parks without any dogs present? How should we balance the rights (or even just the inconvenience) of competing citizens? Should park spaces and/or park hours be divided between dog owners and others according to some percentage – or do you think the current system of everyone sharing park spaces and times works pretty well? All of us support our public resource thru our taxes. It's part of the city council's responsibility to make sure that we can all share these resources equally. Since this is an issue that touches most of us, I'm in favor of the citizen's committee which has reviewed and recommended changes to our ordinances. • Range of reasonable ordinances.  Do you think the current state of dog ordinances in the city falls within a reasonable range of compromise, or must they be changed? What measures restricting dogs would be too extreme to earn your support? What measures relaxing dog rules would be too extreme to earn your support? Please be specific as to voice control, leash restrictions, dog parks, seasonal or hourly restrictions, or the closing of specific parks or certain areas within parks to dogs. I think the changes recommended by the citizen's committee on "Voice Control", Leashing in public ways and length of leashes were reasonable and I voted for their acceptance. • Dog owners a breed apart. Is there a philosophical or practical reason why dog walking in the parks should be considered to be in a different category from other uses of the public parks, such as mountain bike riding, skateboarding, rollerblading, kite flying or tobacco smoking? Should dog walkers be singled out for special ordinances or special permits for their use of the parks? I believe that the practical reason is the amount of people with dogs, far more than mountain bike riders, skateboarders, rollerbladers or kite flyers, perhaps even more than smokers. Dog owners are not singled out, we have ordinances against rollerbladers and are considering an ordinance that would make the parks "smoke-free" zones. Any group that has a large impact on the park and/or the other users of the park can expect regulation. • Beach access. Willard Beach is currently closed to dogs after 9 a.m. from May 1 through September 30. Would you support allowing more time for dogs on Willard during May, September, or in the summer evenings, when experience shows that relatively few people use the beach? If so, with what limitations or what other compensating adjustments? I don’t have an opinion on this. I would support limitations that were put forward by a balanced citizen's group, • Enforcement and paying for it. How much effort and money should the city be spending on enforcing dog ordinances? How should such enforcement be funded? Do you think South Portland needs a full-time animal control officer (to cover animal welfare as well as ordinance enforcement), or the re-introduction of park rangers? We have a lot of folks who come before the city council and want stricter enforcement of our dog ordinances. I’ll support that if we include stricter enforcement of the rules about littering and public intoxication in our parks. These are our parks and it is important that we maintain them in a clean and orderly state. As to how to pay for it I think we should increase the fines in all of the above ordinances and use that to pay for enforcement. • City dog ordinance committee. What do you think of the work so far of the city committee on dog ordinances? Do you generally support its initial recommendations? Do you think its membership, procedures or recommendations should change? If so, how? I support the initial recommendations of the dog ordinance committee. I especially like the permit system which could get revenue from dog owners in neighboring communities who use our facilities Also I like the fact that the recommendation came from a citizen’s group. I think that’s the way our rules should be made, from the bottom up not the top down.   If you want to provide feedback to Mr. Hughes about your position as a voter on dog issues, or about his response to this survey, he can be reached by mail at 1776 Broadway, South Portland, 04106, by phone at 773-9118, or by email at JHughes@hbisoftware.com .   Other relevant information for this candidate: Mr. Hughes is the current Mayor of South Portland. He does not own any dogs licensed in South Portland. Mr. Hughes has spoken at City Council workshops about his experience having been pestered by dogs who were not adequately under their owners' control while fishing with children at Hinckley Park. He has generally advocated a moderate position on ordinance changes relating to dogs in City Council workshops and meetings. He voted on October 17th, 2005, with the rest of the council, 7-0, to approve a first reading of a subset of three ordinances that had been recommended, as part of a larger package of dog-related ordinance revisions, by the original city dog ordinance committee's report of August 8th, 2005. The three ordinances (1) redefined acceptable standards for dog leashes, (2) relaxed city ordinance wording regarding offleash dog walking to be in line with actual current "voice command" standards of enforcement, and (3) introduced a requirement for the use of leashes on the Greenbelt and on other public ways.  ******************************************************************************************** end of history  mailto:mbeecher@maine.rr.commailto:rdeangelis@southportland.orgmailto:rwschair@aol.commailto:maietta@aol.commailto:davembourke@yahoo.comhttp://www.southportland.org/http://home.maine.rr.com/spdog/dogpark.htmlmailto:cvzm@maine.rr.commailto:AntonHoecker@aol.commailto:JHughes@hbisoftware.comshapeimage_2_link_0shapeimage_2_link_1shapeimage_2_link_2shapeimage_2_link_3shapeimage_2_link_4shapeimage_2_link_5shapeimage_2_link_6shapeimage_2_link_7shapeimage_2_link_8shapeimage_2_link_9

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

 
 
next >../../2007/7/12_South_Portland_Dog_Owners_Group_introduces_new_president,_Crystal_Goodrich.html../../2007/7/12_South_Portland_Dog_Owners_Group_introduces_new_president,_Crystal_Goodrich.htmlshapeimage_3_link_0
< previous../../2005/7/20_Proposal_on_improving_responsibility_and_accountability_of_dog_owners_for_the_behavior_of_their_dogs.html../../2005/7/20_Proposal_on_improving_responsibility_and_accountability_of_dog_owners_for_the_behavior_of_their_dogs.htmlshapeimage_4_link_0