34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Foxboro hopes to sniff out new dog park site
Top Headlines As part of the agreement separately endorsed by both boards, if a new site for the dog park can be found during that short window, the Aug. 6 trial filed by plaintiffs in Boston Land Court seeking to close the park will be postponed. Town Manager Andrew Gala and Town Planner Marc Resnick have already begun to look for a site on town-owned property. "I think the commission took a difficult, principled position last night," Town Counsel Richard Gelerman told selectmen during Tuesday's meeting in the auditorium at Foxboro High School. About 100 people attended the meeting. Gelerman said it's unfortunate for citizens to be suing their town, or town boards to be suing each other. "There is no harm in giving the town the opportunity in two-weeks time to put an end to what's been a very sad chapter in Foxboro," Gelerman said. Founded and run by private citizens with conservation commission approval, Foxboro Dog Park opened in 2006 at Cocasset River Park. Gelerman said the commission's unanimous vote Monday night to allow the search for a new location does not undermine the commission's view that it has authority over how the land is used. Selectman Paul Mortenson expressed the contrary view that selectmen and the town manager have the authority to close down the park. Mortenson said if a new location can't be found in two weeks, selectmen should vote to close the park. Selectman Chairman Mark Sullivan urged Mortenson and other speakers to try to keep to the night's positive note. Apparently frustrated in that effort - with park supporters and opponents insisting on airing the pros and cons of the existing dog park - Sullivan made a motion to have Selectman Paul Feeney replace him as chairman. The motion received no second, and Sullivan remains chairman. Edward Valanzola, attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawuit, said the sign-in sheets at the dog park indicate that 70 percent to 80 percent of the users are from out of town.
Post Your Comments DogParkLover wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:29 AM: " Ivy - I was at the park one of the days when one of the abutters was shooting, what we think was a BB gun, towards the park. Unfortuatly, I did not call the police, as the people who visit the park try to be good neighbors and not cause trouble. I only wish I could say the same for the abutters. Looking back now, I know I should have called the police, not only because what he was doing was illegal, but aslo so there would be a record of the incidenet - but who would have ever had guessed it would have come to this. I encourage you and anyone else who has not visited the dog park - to do so. I think you'll be quite impressed at how wonderful it is and get a better understanding as to why we are fighting so hard to keep it open. " kingston73 wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:58 PM: " OK, yes I know I said I was done posting, but just to keep the record straight: I know I witnessed personally 2 different incidents at the park in which police where called and had to tell the abutters to settle down. 1 time an abutter was yelling curses over the fence, the other time he tried to claim public land as his own personal property and threatened people who used it. It has since been proven that the land he claimed was his is in fact owned by foxboro and is public land. I haven't gone back to look at the police records to see how many other times they have been called for similar incidents. Again, this isn't hearsay, these are both things I have personally witnessed. I wish more people would look into the facts before forming opinions, and for both of the last 2 posters, thank you for being objective in this heated topic. " Ivy wrote on Aug 6, 2008 7:44 PM: " Another quiet observer here. I am on the fence about this issue. I have had dogs all of my life except for the past year. Please bear with me, as I don't know if this question was answered. Was the harrasments and threats reported to the police? " UnbiasedObserver wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:45 PM: " I've got to say one more thing. I just went back and read all these posts, along with the posts for the other article. If you write down facts vs opinions, and go back and read all the articles discussing the matter, I'd have to say the dog park supporters seem to have more actual facts than the non-supports. A few of the opponents seem very hostile, while it seems like most of the supporters are very polite. I'm sure I will now be attacked for saying this, that's ok. I'm old and don't really care much about people's opinions about myself anymore. " UnbiasedObserver wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:42 PM: " I've been quietly observing all the participants of this heated issue, and I feel like I need to inject some unbiased opinions into this. I don't own a dog and haven't been to the park, but from the information I've read and the documents I've looked up in the public record, it seems to me that the founders of the park did follow proper channels. I fail to see what "mistakes" tj is talking about, and it does seem like he/she is the one who is doing most of the attacking. As for the selectmen and their personal ties to the issue, I'm sure all of them have friends on 1 side or the other, but if it is true that Thrasher has ties with the plaintiffs, it seems to me that would be a blatant conflict of interest, vs. having 1 of the founders as a friend. It seems like the founders are the ones suffering from personal insults and attacks. I was never witness to any of the allegations of verbal abuse by the abutters, but if that is true it would seem like they are the "special interest group" in this case. I wonder, how much money would it cost the town to A) find another site for the dog park & B) make the existing park into a playground/swimming pool. It seems like that would be a very large expense... " tj wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:18 PM: " Again you fail to address the relationship of Sullivan and the founders. You repeat unrelated rants and conclude with insults. Thank you for reaffirming my observation. " kingston73 wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:32 AM: " What point did I not address? You don't think Thrasher's relationship with the abutters has an impact on HIS decision making? As for insults, I said you're ignorant, which means you are uninformed or uneducated. IMO you do not have all the facts, or at least don't understand the facts. If anything, you're attacking me by questioning my character. As for "reciting the campaign's media points" I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm not stating hearsay or rumors, I'm simply stating facts I have witnessed. Can you say the same? Have you seen any of the documents approving the park? Have you heard or been the victim of any of the verbal abuse by the abutters? Have you been threatened simply for walking on public land? I'm done now, you bore me and I have better things to do than argue with you. Good luck in life, you seem like you need it. " tj wrote on Aug 6, 2008 8:53 AM: " Again you don't address the point, rather you ignore and attack. Your failure to recognize Sullivan's close relationship with the founders and the potential may impact that may have on his decision making ability and instead recall points which were not raised and not really relevant to the post is just further proof that you can not be objective. You are only caplable of reciting the campaign's media points. And the need to add insults speaks volumes about your character. " foxres wrote on Aug 6, 2008 3:19 AM: " kingston73 - (typed the "g" this time - my apologies for missing it the last time). property use is one. 26 years is not very long imo. Residents have been waiting patiently for the park to reopen. An area closed for that long does tend to look like a "ghost town". The park was closed primarily due to the water quality and should have reopened once the water quality improved. Kids being there was a prior condition, dogs being there was not. If people were at the park when it was closed, they should have been arrested. "confrontational and rude, filming and taking pictures of people, writing down plate #'s", however unpleasant isn't usually against the law, the Chief told residents to note unfamiliar cars and people in our neighborhoods. Were police reports filed and acted upon? " kingston73 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:33 PM: " Also, I'd be the first person to admit a mistake, but what "mistake" are you referring to? Please, tell me what I'm mistaken about? Am I mistaken about the verbal abuse from the abutters? No, guess not since I was a witness to several of those incidents. Am I mistaken about the formation of the park? No, guess not since I've seen all the PUBLICLY available documents and minutes regarding its formation. Am I mistaken about the quality and use of the park before it was cleaned up? No, guess not, since students in my school have told me how they used to drink out there at night. So PLEASE, tell me what mistakes I refuse to admit. I can't wait to hear more of your infinite wisdom. " kingston73 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 6:28 PM: " tj, its a little sad how ignorant you are. Don't you see a BIG difference between having friends and talking to a lawyer who has a suit against your own town? You don't think there's a conflict of interest there? I can't believe how the harassment, threats, and yelling are all overlooked. I mean, seriously, how do you not see anything wrong with that? A handful of people get annoyed with something and the selectman decides to participate by writing down peoples plate numbers? Is that working for the town's best interest? And when did I ever say I was "worried about being identified"? Statements like that just show people you don't understand what you read. " tj wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:32 PM: " so friends aren't friendly? Listen to your own words and perhaps you'll see that you just can't be objective and that's why all there is all this trouble. You're never willing to admit that you or your cult can be mistaken. and if your worried about being identified don't participate " kingston73 wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:00 PM: " TJ, are you trying to say that thrasher and the new guy are completely unbiased? Seriously? I think there's a MAJOR difference between being friends with somebody and being friendly with a lawyer who is in a lawsuit with the town. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but Sullivan and Walsh never harassed people and wrote down plate numbers of people using public land. I can't say the say for thrasher. " tj wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:45 AM: " Hey Barb, i suppose the fact that sullivan is best friends with a founder's husband and his wife was the second person to sign the petition for the warrant article, not to mention her relationship with the founders really has no impact on his objectivity. he is two faced in his comments but ultimately votes the way his wife tells to. As fr walsh has she ever given input at a meeting i watch and the chair will ask if she has questions or thoughts the answer is usually no and then she abstains on difficult votes because she doesn't understand what she is voting on. She appears lost now that hickey has been deposed and can't tell her how to vote. " KyraSkye wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:28 PM: " Why are you calling Kingston Drew? It's not Drew!!!! Why are you trying to oust people? What is your first and last name? I'll give you mine if you give me yours.... Grow up- I'm Barbara- whats your first name? To scared to tell anyone? then why are you posting here? If you won't tell us who you are then why should we even read what you write??? Kids acting like kids- yelling and screaming from sun up to sun down- as opposed to an occasional dog barking a few times a day- Dogs barking at 11 pm at night? go outside and check with your neighbors and their dogs before you attempt to blame 11pm barking on the park. As for the lawyers getting friendly with the Selectmen- I saw that too. Major conflict of interest- The only Selectmen/women that are staying ethical and working for the PEOPLE THEY SERVE are Sullivan and Walsh- not because they are on the dog park side- but because they don't want the hassle that this has brought them- they want to move on with town business- that should be before them- not a small few people trying to gain better political standing. " kingston73 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:24 PM: " Apparently you've given up trying to communicate in the King's English. Maybe try to get somebody to translate your thoughts for us? I really didn't understand any of your last few posts. " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:59 PM: " u said a couple of dogs?can t u count.drew? " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:54 PM: " oh no some kids acting like kids,who cares its none our business what their doin " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:49 PM: " u mean sullivan and harding? thanksgiving ok.that better ,and dogs were barking past 11 regulary.but who cares about facts? " kingston73 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:34 PM: " An mdog, what exactly is xgiving? Did you invent a new holiday? The park from the begining was closed at dusk, so I don't know where you're getting this 11PM barking from. Before the founders developed it and cleaned it up, there where kids there at midnight drinking and lighting a fire on the beach. The abutters should be thankful none of those beach fires ever got out of hand and burnt their houses down. I just fail to understand how people can't see that certain selectmen seem extremely friendly with the abutters and their lawyer. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Are they really doing things for the good of the town? " kingston73 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:28 PM: " md3000, nobody said kids aren't as important as dogs, maybe practice a little reading comprehension before posting again. And, you prove my point for me, 24 dogs even is still going to be quieter and less traffic and activity on the road than at least twice that many families with kids. My wife went there as a little kid, and the parking lot would be FULL of cars back then, versus maybe a dozen cars right now. As for compromise, the abutters yelling, cursing, and threatening people vs. park users who have done everything they can, including paying their own money to clean the place and volunteering their time....hmmmmm, who would I be more likely to side with? My wife was out walking one day, w/o a dog or animal of any kind, just herself, and an abutter started filming her and another came out to interogate her and ask her why she was there, because apparently the fenced area was closed at the time. Basically the abutters are acting like its their property and they have the right to decide what goes on there. If they had been this concerned, they would have gone to the meetings and taken an active role in the areas use. As for the year round vs summer use, well, who will be using it during the off season? The abutters. " meldog3000 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 5:52 PM: " kingston a couple people???24 dogs there at 1 time sat.thats a couple??and by the way kids are a million times more important than dogs!and the abutters peace and quiet! " kingston73 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:53 PM: " Foxres, that's utter baloney about people waiting eagerly for the park to re-open. Granted, I've only been in fboro for about 4 years, but my wife and her parents have been there for over 26 years, and until the dogpark opened that part of the park was a ghost town, only used by underage drinkers and a few neighbors. You seriously think that having a town beach, with hundreds of people and kids screaming, would be quieter than a couple of people with their dogs? The abutters liked having their own private back yard. As for your questions to me, the answer is YES, the abutters have all acted very confrontational and rude, filming and taking pictures of people, writing down plate #'s, and generally harrassing anybody and everybody. My wife was walking on the trail that runs by the park one day when one of the abutters came out of the woods and asked her why she was there! And please tell us, what are the issues, if not the barking? " foxres wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:03 AM: " Residents miss using Cocasset and were and have been waiting patiently for the park to reopen. Changing the dog park's location to somewhere else in town is a compromise, in my opinion. There was an article here stating that at least one of the plaintiffs said if Cocasset had been returned to its original post1966 use they wouldn't have brought forth a lawsuit. kinston73 - I don't believe either are trying to abuse their power. If threats were made, I hope the police were notified and dealt with the perpetrators. Have all the Milton Lane abutters acted in the same manner you describe? Shouldn't the park have reopened as what it was once the water quality improved, as we were told it would. Foxboro Guy - plaintiffs vs. petition signers is not a good indication, imo, of how many residents either support or oppose a dog park there, elsewhere, or one at all. KyraSkye - barking is not the sole issue. " Foxboro Guy wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:14 PM: " I'm fairly objective on this whole dog park thing. What I do believe in is democracy...near as I can tell people in favor of the park as opposed to people against appears to be about a 27 to 1 ratio for (17 suing abutters vs. in excess of 400 petitions for, if I remember accurately from a BOS session I attended a while back). The dog park should stay. Read between the lines folks. It appears the only reason the dog park is still an issue is that a group of Selectmen are using the dog park case as a opportunity to pull off a power grab that would, in my opinion,be terribly damaging to the integrity of our town government. Is it coincidence that the major principal in the funding of the opposition to the dog park is a local developer? One has to wonder if that developer might benefit if his friends on the BOS gained the power to trump the Con Comm on issues of development. One has to wonder how the BOS would wield such power without the true checks and balance of democracy and to whose benefit. We as a community can not allow the gang of 4 (3 Selectmen + Town Manager) to ride rough shod over our Conservation Comm. or any of the other committees who so faithfully serve our community just so they, the anointed few, can enhance their personal power " KyraSkye wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:57 AM: " Have any of you ever been to the Dog Park during operating hours? We do our best to keep dogs from barking- it happens- as that what dogs do- they bark- but I have heard more barking coming from the abutters homes than in the park- no one tells them they have to keep their dogs quiet!!!! Not to mention the music (granted its good music) but we don't bring our radios and blast them so that people a few hundred yards away, through trees and over supposedly barking dogs can hear it and not only that know who the band is that is playing!!!! How do the abutters feel about that? I guess it is true- MONEY TALKS " meldog3000 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 7:07 PM: " the park was never open year round-it was a summer park-as for the proponents bending over backwards??????1st there were no hours-dogs barking 6am-11pm-then they made it 8am-8pm 7 days a week 365 days a year? like thats real bendover-thanx-all day x-giving-all day x-mas-all day ruff ruff ruff-how bout the sign that states-do not disturb the nieghbors PEACE-PRIVACY-PROPERTY-AT DOG PEN-- please what are the dogs there for-to burn off some energy right?what do you expect-peace?? " kingston73 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 3:33 PM: " foxres- maybe you are a different "foxres" than the one who posted here before, but that's meaningless. I can't believe there are people who think its ComCon trying to abuse their power, and not BOS. The current park is on ComCon land, so why shouldn't they be the one's who decide what to do with it? ConCom and the park founders have bent over backwards to please the abutters, and so far the abutters have gotten everything they want, short of actually closing the park. It amazes me still that people can support the abutters. The yelling, swearing, and threats against park users make the abutters behavior inexcusable, and yet people still support them. I'm not making things up, its not false allegations, its fact. As for the abutters "not being notified", since when are invitations sent out for town meetings? Its a matter of public record, and if you are a citizen concerned enough you will find the info and go to the meeting. And, have you forgotten that at least 1 of the abutters moved in AFTER the park was approved? Finally, if anybody is making a "power play" I'd say its a couple selectmen, definitely not ConCom. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:47 AM: " "" But you see, the founders and ConCom have consistantly maintained that there are no problems and hence did nothing except dig their heels (and heads) into the sand"- that is simply not true. There many things that the Fonders and ConCom have proposed to do to allieviate any noise issues, at the park, the problem is, the abutters have refused any remedy short of closing the park. The work to appease the abutters can not be done until the lawsuit is settled and the future of the park is secure. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:43 AM: " once again, stick to the facts. The BOS back in 2006 (when the issue was brought up in front of them) told Debbie and Heather that they were on the right track, do more work, including getting feed back from the abutters, and revisit the issue in the future. Never did they say that they must "gain the acceptance of the neighborhood". The town owns the land not the abutters. They got the feedback from the abutters. It was the same feedback that the same neighbors gave to anything and everything happening at Cocassett River Park. The neighbors said no. Too bad the neighbors don't control the land. As far as the new members of the ConCom, you are way off base. Valerie is a former EPA lawyer and a strong willed woman. She would never "toe the line" as you suggest. She is doing what she feels is best for the town and the land. So lets recapp: 9 ConCom members and 3 selectman have endorsed the park. 3 Selectman have apposed it. That is 12-3 in favor of the park. When did the three corner the market on wisdom?? Maybe, just maybe, they have an agenda outside of what is best for the town regarding Cocassett River Park. Also let's not forget the that following have also endorsed the dog park: Recreation dept., Health dept., Police dept. and the dog officer. And the Advisory committee voted not to shut the park. " mba wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:59 AM: " But you see, the founders and ConCom have consistantly maintained that there are no problems and hence did nothing except dig their heels (and heads) into the sand. Read the ConCom minutes and you will see repeatedly the comment we see no problems down there. " mba wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:43 AM: " I guess your not as close as I thought. You clearly and blndly believe everything your founders tell you. I am refencing the beginings of this ordeal, back when it was first brought before the BoS (Stanton was Chairman)and Delaney said and the board agreed that the founders must contact the neighbors and gain their acceptance. Something the founders never did because they did not want to hear anyone object. It was then that they found a willing patsy, through which to get their way. As far as the new members go, unfortunately they are continuing the ConCom tradition of "toe the line" and don't think for yourself. Neither has taken it upon themselves to investigate the matter beyond receiving a briefing from the existing board - now if that isn't being a sheep then I don't know what is. The vast majority of Foxborough understands that this wrong in its current environment, it's time for the other key players to stop drinking the coolaid and think and act objectively. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:37 AM: " I am objective. I have said since this whole controversy started, that if one house (or maybe two) are having noise problems then fix it. It should be easy enough to solve the noise problem for a house or two. The problem is, the abutters wanted nothing to do with that idea. It was close the park or we sue, no in between. Thus you have the problem. There has to be give on both sides to have a compromise. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:07 AM: " Who is not being objective?? I state facts and you state opinions. "ConCom took this as an opportunity to try and flex their mussle over the BoS" how is that? The park was up and running for several months before Thrasher started interfearing with the operations. The ConCom ( all 7 previous members and the two new ones, just appointed to the the ConCom) have never disagreed with the operation of the park. The Selectman are split 3-3 (including the previous selectman). The Selectman are split for political reasons and conservation land should not be bargained with for political reasons, that is why ConCom does not have to adhere to town law. they are State mandated to perseve and PROMOTE THE USE OF conservation land. Where is your objectivity? But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. " mba wrote on Jul 21, 2008 9:42 AM: " brwmstr, you are obviously very close and very sensative. Your inablity to maintain any sense of objectivity mirrors the same lack of objectivity shown by ConCom. How could something which has created so much grief have never receive one negative response or even be subject to some level of criticism or concern from a "impartial" board? ConCom took this as an opportunity to try and flex their mussle over the BoS. In so doing they allowed themselves to be led by the nose by the founders of the park, in your own words never questioning anything they did. Like a child pitting one parent against the other, the founders simply played ConCom against the BoS to their advantage and got any and everything they wanted. As for Mr. Hickey, there are many reasons why he no longer had the support of the towns people, not just this issue. His third failed handling of the stadium negotiations also played a major role in his overwhelming defeat. Try to be objective and put these things in perspective and you may see things differently and then there may be the opportunity to resolve things amicably for everyone. Until you can do that there will continue to be too much unnecessary ill will " brwmstr wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:55 AM: " I guess some of the selectman are too busy trying to manage the dog park and won't focus on anything else until it is shut down. Now there is some leadership for you!! " brwmstr wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:53 AM: " This culvert under North St is a brand new topic. It has nothing to do with the dam on Neponsett Reservior. Mr. Hickey negotiated (when he was selectman) to solve the problems with Neponsett. Now to ask him to start this new chapter, in my opinion, is embassing to the current selectmen. Why doesn't one of them pick up the reigns and hammer out a deal, maybe Mr. Mortenson, he claims to be a shrewed negotiator!! I watched the last selectmans meeting, i don't think Mr.Hickey wanted anything to do with culvert under North St, he accepted the responsibility just to help out the town. " foxres wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:12 PM: " I see some positives why he was asked to stay on as negotiator until the process is finished but don't take that as indicitive of the capabilities of any of the selectmen or other committee members. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:39 PM: " Sometimes new blood is a good thing, but not with the current swap of selectman in Foxboro. Clearly Mr. Hickey is much more valuable than his replacement. Even after he is gone, he is still working on behalf of the BOS and the town. Why is he asked to negotiate with the owner of the culvert on North St. and not one of the current Selectmen. The town does not even no what it lost when they elected Mortinson, I fear they might regret the decision sooner rather than later. " foxres wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:47 AM: " mba - do you have proof of deceit or orchestrations you are alleging or are you libeling these people? I agree that it is good to have some new voices in our town government. kingston73 - dogparkpatron brought up "out-of-towners", not me. I found enough places in town to go with my dogs, not just my backyard. They are out there, just have to look. " foxres wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:52 PM: " kingston73 - Think you have me confused with someone else as I just started posting here about a week ago. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:20 PM: " FYI, the meetings were posted in the paper, just like every other issue before the Con Com. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:19 PM: " also, Mr. Hocking left the Con Com because two selectman were abusing their powers and he was just sick of it. He remained a full supporter of the dog park right up to his last day. Not one selectman attended his retirement party held a the Lafayette house, even though every one of them were invited. He served for 27 years and not one selectman could put their petty politics aside and go down and shake his hand and say thank you. That is a disgrace!! By the way, the two new members of the Con Com, just appointed by the selectman a few weeks ago, also 100% approve of the dog park. There has NEVER been one vote against the dog park by any member of the Con Com. So how exactly were they mislead??? " mba wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:14 PM: " FYI, the abbuttors were not at either of the two meetings where things were approved, because they were not notified that Con Con had taken jursidiction from the Selectman. " brwmstr wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:07 PM: " mba, you couldn't be more wrong. The dog park also went through a complete series of public hearings before being approved. It was the Con Com that aproached the founders and told them they had to go through their public meetings if they wanted to use the Conservation land. The Selectman were well aware that the dog park issue was going to the Con Com, no matter what Thrasher may have claimed later. There were several open and public meetings before approval and these meetings were ALL attended by the founders AND the abbutters. There was no secrets or deception. This is the difference between town land and Consevation land. The Con Com control conservation land and a town meeting nor the selectman can tell them what can or can't occurr on the land. Their rules and guidlines are set at the state level and supersede local by-laws. Everything was done open and public and legit. The lawsuit will be heard Aug. 6th and all will see if the dog park is legal. " mba wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:43 PM: " The difference is that the skatepark went through an open process creating guidelines and regulations (including defining acceptable locations) and then the whole package was voted on at town meeting (something these founders don't want have occur). There wasn't the any of the deceit, pitting one board against another as was orchestrated by the founders. They played to the vanity of the con com, got their way and have lead con com around by the nose ever since. Con com never questoned anything they wanted. The chairman finally realized how he had been duped and quit out of frustration in disappointment. It is unfortunate that a small incestuous group of founders and supporters have put the town through this nightmare for two years because they believe they can have whatever they want because of who they and their families are in town. Thank goodness we have new blood in town govenment, not willing to bow down and rubber stamp the wishes of the establish crowd. By the way this a Foxborough issue, so while non residents are welcome to their opinion, it is opinions of the majority of Foxborough residents that really matters. " kingston73 wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:56 PM: " foxres, good buddy. Haven't heard your ramblings for a while. What exactly are you trying to say? There is a HUGE difference between "out of town" people using a pool and using a public park. Like the editorial letter in the paper stated, why would Valanzola be willing to settle the case unless he knows they have no standing? As for the "other" places people can walk their dogs, would you mind telling us about them, because I don't know of any other public, fenced, off leash areas in foxboro. I really feel like the most pressing issue here isn't the park at all, but the fact that newly elected selectmen who seem to be pretty friendly with the dog park foes seem to think they are able to control the town and overrule other town boards. Even if you don't care about dogs or the park, if the selectmen are able to over-ride this issue, they'll continue to do so, and one day they will control an issue you ARE interested in. Good luck..... " foxres wrote on Jul 9, 2008 5:46 PM: " There are other public parks in town that people can and, for years, have used to walk their dogs. Other locations for a privately run dog park on town land have already been noted. Other and more suitable locations where use of the land as a dog park is permitted will be identified during the fortnight until the next meeting. The Selectmen said input from residents in this search would be welcomed. Who do you clearly view as being in whom's pocket? The skate park requires registration and the Rec. Dept. can limit out of town passes for the pool. " dogparkpatron wrote on Jul 9, 2008 9:34 AM: " And as to the 'fact' and I use that word loosly as it came directly from Valenzola, that 70-80%, which he changed from originally stating 60% of users are not from Foxboro, so what! We have a skateboard park in town, not all of the people in town skateboard, and I'm sure that the skateboard park allows out-of-towners to use it. Hmm, wonder why the difference between that and the dog park? Oh yeah, it's in Baker's back yard, that's the difference. " dogparkpatron wrote on Jul 9, 2008 9:31 AM: " What an eye-opener that meeting was! The BOS act like adversaries to this town instead of 'for' this town. It was clear who is in who's pocket, that's for sure. I was disgusted. And then Valenzola saying the town 'forced' his clients to sue, how about calling them what they are: NIMBY. Valenzola even "not threatened" (his words) that if/when his clients lose, they will appeal forever. " The Good Doctor wrote on Jul 9, 2008 9:03 AM: " Well, well, well...who'd a thunk it would come to this? The Foxboro snobs just might get their wish. Imagine the nerve of people who wish to walk their dogs in a public park! Oh, I forgot - it's only a public park if you "qualify". Shame on the Foxboro snobs! " or
|
