Committee Report CR-3

The Public Facilities, Art and Celebrations Committee held a public meeting on Wednesday, May 5, 2004, at four o’clock and forty-two minutes P.M. in the Ackermann Room.

Present at the meeting were Councillor Brian Murphy, Chair of the Committee, Councillor Henrietta Davis, Councillor David P. Maher, Councillor Timothy Toomey, Jr., Mayor Michael Sullivan, Lisa Peterson, Commissioner of Public Works, Greg Garber, Public Works, Mark McCabe, Animal Commissioner, Paul Ryder, Recreation Director, Human Services and Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk.

Councillor Murphy opened the meeting and stated the purpose.  He informed the attendees that Councillor Simmons was unable to attend the meeting because she was ill.  He stated he wanted to hear from City staff on this issue and then he would open the meeting to public comment.  He asked the Public Works Commissioner to outline how parks are now structured.

Commissioner Petersen responded that currently there are three to four dog run areas in the City.  Fresh Pond, Danehy Park, Fort Washington and a small park at the intersection of Hawthorne and Mount Auburn Streets.  Dogs are not allowed in fenced in tot lots.  In other areas of the City dogs are required to be on a leash.  There is conflict between active users of the parks and dog owners.

Mr. Ryder stated that he is a member of the Fresh Pond Advisory Committee, which includes dog owners.  The group is looking at Fresh Pond use by dog owners.  A potential recommendation would be forth coming.  Non-Cambridge residents overrun Fresh Pond.  A medallion program is being planned to serve Cambridge residents and dog owners.  Danehy Park is filling up rapidly, he said.  Councillor Murphy asked what should a dog park look like and how many areas under City control would have the proposed area needed and be fenced in.  Very few replied Mr. Ryder.  Mr. Garber stated that Columbia Park, Hasting Square and a small area in Cambridge Common could be areas used for dog parks.  Commissioner Peterson stated that non-program space is being looked at.

Councillor Davis stated that this is about people and dogs.  Dog owners walking their dogs meet other people in the community.  This is one of the City Council goals.  It is worth trying to find a way to resolve this issue.  There is no fenced in area at Fort Washington.  MDC land should also be considered for dog parks.  Cambridge is below national standards for open space.  She spoke about parks where two hours were dedicated for dog use.

Mr. McCabe stated that the Animal Commission supports dog parks.  He was concerned about the regulations that would set up a dog park, times of park use, dogs not getting along with other dogs and how many dogs could be in the park at one time.

.  He believes that there is enough space that could be shared with dogs.  He supported dog parks.  The City needed to look at the number of dogs in the City.  He suggested establishing dog parks.

Bill Foster, 244 Lexington Avenue, stated that there are twenty-two hundred registered dogs in Cambridge.  Conflict exists at Tobin Field between field users and dog owners.  An excised dog is a good dog and is properly socialized.  He suggested sharing space and creating a fenced area.  Size should not be the only consideration.  Trash cans should be installed.  He would like to see many small areas fenced in for dogs.  He was willing to work on this issue.

Leslie Lawrence, 24 Middlesex Street. Felt strongly about areas for dogs rather than baseball.  Dog socialization is important, she said.

Joe Avin, 106 Spring Street, stated a tired dog means a good dog and a happy owner.  There are a large number of unregistered dogs in the City.  He spoke about potential dog park areas in Lopez Park and Little Binney is an area that is undeveloped.

Marilyn Bromage, 101 Henry Street, spoke of two areas Hastings Square and Morse School ballpark.  Fort Washington is not a safe area for dogs because it is not a fenced in area.  Magazine Beach is another spot, which could be a potential dog park.   Urged working with the MDC.

Leah Nickel, 109 Pearl Street, is dog owner.  She spoke about Fort Washington being near the railroad tracks.  She does not feel safe in Fort Washington at night.

Brendan Fay, 109 Pearl Street, stated that the fence at Fort Washington is supposed to be historical, but the fence has been altered.  The issue of the fence signifies that the City is not willing to listen to dog owners.  Councillor Murphy submitted the following motion:

Michele Biscoe, 16 Preston Road, Somerville, stated that fenced in dog parks would be a good place to train a dog.  This is a quality of life issue.  Residents use City parks because of their dogs.

Catherine Cavanaugh, 84 Spring Street, stated she takes her dog to Fort Washington and she feels safe.  There are five parks in her neighborhood where children could go but no park where her dog could go.  Children, she said, learn dog etiquette when they interact with dogs.  She has two therapy dogs.  She wants her dogs to be able to run.

Mr. Nouf suggested compromise in existing areas.  The laws need to be lenient about dogs running in parks.  Children come first, but when they are not using the parks dogs should be allowed to use the parks.

Elizabeth Olson, 11 Buena Vista Park, informed the Committee that in New York dogs are allowed in Central Park off their leash from six to nine a.m. At nine a warning is given to put dogs on a leash; after nine a.m. tickets are issued.  The area is not fenced in.  Fenced in dog runs are open twenty-four hours.

Councillor Toomey stated that there are ten dogs every evening at Kennedy Park.  This is a good experience for dogs and their owners to get to know each other.  He proposed Second and Charles Streets should be used as a dog park.  Users of Kennedy Park clean up after their dogs.  Children come to Kennedy Park to visit the dogs that they know by name.  He stated all must reach an acceptable agreement.

Johnice Reed, 21 Walden Square Road, is an owner of two beagles.  Spoke of Cambridge off leash area and urged that mowed meadow in Danehy Park be used as a dog park.  Money would be raised by residents and gifted to the City.  People get an inner satisfaction when they look at dogs.  Dogs are unpredictable; owners need to take care of their dog’s safety.  Dogs should have an area where they can exercise off the leash.  Thirty dogs have been at Russell Field and there was no problem and this area is not fenced in.  She proposed a dog park at mowed meadow at Danehy Park.

Mary Steedly, 14 Van Norden Street, spoke of agreement between dog owners and non-dog owners, building relationships and community across the City.  When she walks her dog she checks on her elderly neighbors.  There is an issue of safety with children and dogs being in the same space.  Children and dogs should be separated; both needed to be protected.

Gina Bilander, 123 Dudley Street, stated that she is disabled.  She receives therapy when she walks her dog.  She is training her dog to be a therapy dog.  One or two locations for dogs for the entire City is not good for people who do not have a car.

Paula Cortes, 25 Newell Street, stated sharing space and designating space for dogs is the issue.  She spoke of times when dogs could be in parks.  She spoke about good design for parks and where people would like to go.

Katherine Fabeo, 24 Middlesex Street, spoke of sense of community.  Where there is less sense of community there is more crime.  It is a people and a dog issue.  Walking her dog is her therapy.

Mary Streeter, 104 Kinnard Street, stated that she goes to Dana Park.  The children at the park know the dogs by name.  It is unrealistic to keep dogs on a leash.  It is unfair to taxpayers who are dog owners.

Andi Whitaker, 19 Rockingham Street, stated she uses Fort Washington Park; it needs a fence.  She suggested a water fountain for dogs because the area gets very hot.

Margaret Wells, 9E Russell Street, stated that dogs need to run.  Raymond Park, Russell and Rindge Fields are empty all day.  It would be nice to be legal when using the park for dogs.

Jane Myers, 165 Charles Street, stated that fences are needed for dogs.  She paid her taxes, has no children and is no cost to the City for school or athletic fields.  She wanted reasonable times for her dogs to be allowed in the parks.  Benches are also needed in parks.

Wyndham Langston, 14 Fairmont Street, stated her support for the letter sent by Mr. McGuire.  Fort Washington is not an option for her because of safety.  She wanted a dog park on a two-way street.  She submitted a petition requesting a fenced-in dog park in the Cambridgeport area

Mrs. Brachman, 16 Centre Street, stated she supported fenced areas for dogs.  She wanted her dog to have a happy life.  She met her neighbors because of her dog.  She appreciated the Animal Commission effort to keep animals safe.

Kathy Podgers, 148 Pearl Street, stated her support for dog parks.  She has a service animal.  There is no place for a handicapped or disabled person to walk their dog.  She stated that certain breeds of dogs should not be eliminated from using dog parks.  She suggested adding a fourth reason why dog parks are needed:

To provide handicapped and disabled persons a place to walk their dogs.Dog Parks should not be used by dogs to defecate.Dogs should be curbed and then go to dog parks.She suggested certain hours for certain breeds.Service dogs can go anywhere that Seeing Eye dogs can go by federal law.Living with diversity includes dogs.

Debbie Karlan, 99 Magazine Street, stated that a dog owner has opened a whole positive world for her.  She meets and makes connection with people in Dana Park.  Dog parks are ideal.  Dog parks need gates and fences.  Existing parks should have specific hours for dogs.

David Brackman, 16 Centre, stated that there are people who are afraid of dogs.  Opposition exists because people do not like irresponsible dog owners.  He asked what are the complaints that the Animal Commission receives.  Mr. McCabe responded that the complaints are noise, loose dogs, unsafe area, dog waste comes up in the spring because maintenance has not begun.  Commissioner Peterson stated that her department gets calls about dog waste in parks.

Faron D. Calon, 51 Lopez Street, urged a block of time in the morning and in the evening when dogs could use the parks without interaction with children.  This is a quality of life issue. Dogs are part of our life.

Eric Pfeufer, 9 Sycamore Street, stated that Animal Control officers have an interest in taking care of dogs.  Owning a dog is an incredible experience.  Dogs are open and friendly creatures.  He knows his neighbors because of his dog.  Dog owners clean up their dog’s waste and also clean the parks.  There is a constituency of dog owners in the City.  The City should be creative rather than issue tickets.

Craig Kelly, 6 St. Gerard Terrace, stated that he hoped implementation would occur; this does not require a lot of work.  He urged the City to use two parks as dog parks and resolve this issue.  He urged the City to revisit the Russell Field Project and change the bid.  Spoke about the gates removed from Rindge Field.

Resident of, 28 Kelly Road, stated he uses Dana Park.  He moved to Cambridge because there are parks all around the City.  He was opposed to the fence being taken down at Dana Park.

Councillor Davis suggested that a working group be formed and submit options and recommendations.  Commissioner Peterson stated that it would be helpful to convene a task force.  Councillor Davis submitted the following motion:

Mr. Nouf stated that one person needed to scout out areas; something needed to be started now.  He suggested posting suggestions on the City’s Website with an appropriate budget to fence in parks.  Committees or a task force are not necessary.  Councillor Maher cautioned that the City could not have access to MDC property without the involvement of the MDC.  Commissioner Peterson stated that the task force is needed to flush out the issues and to identify the issues that the city should work on.  She suggested twelve to fifteen people be on the task force including City staff.

Councillor Murphy praised the turnout for this meeting.  The city is responsible to groups of people who are interested in an issue.  Mr. Ryder stated that city staff would work with residents on this matter.

Councillor Murphy stated that the timetable from the next meeting would be the middle of June.  The report from the task should be received prior to the middle of June.