[Rhodes22-list] the dog story continues
Michael Meltzer
mjm@michaelmeltzer.com
Wed, 18 Sep 2002 19:02:14 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/related attachment
Far be from me to subject :-) i.e. leave my name,I be fore the RTM hearing. maybe westport needs a dose of how the world views this
:-) Any other great writer out thier :-) these two address are the news paper chennessy@bcnnew.com; minuteman@ctcentral.com;
they want your phone number to varify the email, the rest of the address are the RTM members.
District 1
Jorgen F. Jensen - jfphjensen@worldnet.att.net
William L. Scheffler - scheff@optonline.net
Ann E. Sheffer - sheffer@stonypoint.net
Theodore A. Youngling - theodore_youngling@prusec.com
Marla J. Cowden - marlartm@optonline.net
District 2
Gwen T. Campbell - gwentcamp@aol.com
Alice Shelton - shelton@optonline.net
Mary Gordon Webber - mgwebber@snet.net
Lynn Abramson - aabrams@optonline.net
District 3
Deborah R. Rath - Debrrath@aol.com
Charles W.K. Haberstroh - chaberst@aol.com
John W. Kiermaier - jkplunker@aol.com
Richard Lichter - rlichter@aol.com
District 4
Gerald E. Bodell - geblaw2@aol.com
Wally Meyer - rwmtophat@aol.com
Mary Moers Wenig - mary.moers.wenig@quinnipiac.edu
George Franciscovich - gfrancil@optonline.net
Margaret K. McHenry - ladymchny@aol.com
District 5
John W. Booth - jaybee4@compuserve.com
Ralph Hymans - radulphum@juno.com
Richard A. Lowenstein - bankside@juno.com
Margaret J. Slez - mjslez@juno.com
District 6
Saul Haffner - saulhaffner@hotmail.com
Ronald F. Malone - recyclerron@aol.com
Catherine MyGodney
Ann M. Flynn - flynnamflynn@aol.com
Velma E. Heller - garvelh@cs.com
District 7
John G. Klinge - jgklinge@aol.com
Lisa S. Rome - lsromemd@worldnet.att.net
Stephen M. Rubin - rubin@snet.net
John E. Watson, III - sailfiend@aol.com
District 8
Irwin Donenfeld - donniebrk@aol.com
Gordon F. Joseloff - Joseloff@optonline.net
William F. Meyer III - wfmeyer@optonline.net
Michael A. Rea - reartm@aol.com
Lois Schine - wcclois@webquill.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rik Sandberg" <racerrik@rea-alp.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] the dog story continues
> Michael,
>
> I can certainly understand your frustration with these anti-dog people.
> Reminds me of the people who have moved in or built new houses next to/near
> a certain race track that has been there (in continuous operation) for 50
> years, then have the audacity to complain about the noise.
>
> I guess I could understand their arguments if there had always been
> restrictions on dogs in that park, and someone was trying to take the
> restrictions away. But, since it has always been open before, they should
> either continue to go there, learn to like dogs and shut up, or go to the
> park they were going to before and shut up. Either way, shut up is the key
> part.
>
> My 2 cents worth
> Rik
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Meltzer" <mjm@michaelmeltzer.com>
> To: <rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:34 PM
> Subject: [Rhodes22-list] the dog story continues
>
>
> even I get i miss the address complete too :-)
>
>
> http://www.westport-news.com/Stories/0,1413,100%257E4435%257E864638,00.html
> http://www.westport-news.com/Stories/0,1413,100%257E4435%257E864646,00.html
>
> and now a preview of fridays paper
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland and Barbara Paul [mailto:barbara.roland.paul@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:27 AM
> To: chennessy@bcnnew.com; minuteman@ctcentral.com;
> jfphjensen@worldnet.att.net; scheff@optonline.net; sheffer@stonypoint.net;
> theodore_youngling@prusec.com; marlartm@optonline.net; gwentcamp@aol.com;
> shelton@optonline.net; mgwebber@snet.net; aabrams@optonline.net;
> Debrrath@aol.com; chaberst@aol.com; jkplunker@aol.com; rlichter@aol.com;
> geblaw@optonline.net; rwmtophat@aol.com; gfrancil@optonline.net;
> ladymchnry@aol.com; jaybee4@compuserve.com; radulphum@juno.com;
> bankside@juno.com; mjslez@juno.com; saulhaffner@hotmail.com;
> recyclerron@aol.com; flynnamflynn@aol.com; garvelh@cs.com; jgklinge@aol.com;
> LSRomeMD@worldnet.att.net; rubin@snet.net; sailfiend@aol.com;
> donniebrk@aol.com; joseloff@optonline.net; wfmeyer@optonline.net;
> reartm@aol.com; wcclois@webquill.com; Mary.Moers.Wenig@quinnipiac.edu
> Subject: new dog regulation
>
>
>
> The new dog regulation is widely appreciated and should be upheld by the
> RTM. However, there is an opportunity to make it better, that is, to
> require leashing all along the beach. We all would agree that many
> people's favorite recreational activities come at unacceptable costs to the
> general public. Nude swimming, for example, some people's favorite
> recreational activity, may offend many people's sensibilities. There is no
> designated area for that special interest group on any of Connecticut's
> public beaches, including Westport's. People must wear bathing suits on all
> parts of the beach so that the general public will not feel constrained from
> using any part of the beach.
> Overnight camping, some people's favorite recreational activity, is not
> given a designated area on small town beaches, including Westport's. That
> activity could produce unacceptable noise and litter and constrain the
> general public from using that area. People can sleep there during the day
> without setting up camp there.
>
> Boisterous beer parties, which some people consider a favorite recreation,
> may seem offensive to others and could result in the danger of broken glass
> and rowdy behavior. No special areas are set aside for that activity on any
> town's beach, including Westport's, because the public would feel
> constrained from enjoying themselves on that area of the beach.
>
> Dog owners whose favorite recreational activity is letting their dogs run
> freely on the beach can't possibly control their dogs from physically
> interfering with people and impacting on their safety, health and enjoyment
> of the beach. They are not given a designated area on any other beach in CT
> for their special interest. Dogs are banned entirely on almost all of them,
> and they must be leashed and under control on the entire beach in the two
> towns that allow them there. This assures that the general public will not
> feel constrained from enjoying the whole beach. With our new and long
> overdue regulation, which is much appreciated, the general public here will
> continue to feel constrained from enjoying themselves on a major area of
> Compo Beach.
>
> Why are we the only town to cater to a special interest group's favorite
> activity when it impacts the general public's access to the entire beach?
> Supposing one hundred or one thousand people pressed for an area of Compo to
> be designated for nude swimming? (Even some vocal dog owners might object to
> this.) What precedent would there be in Westport to rule it out? Once we
> have catered to one group's favorite recreational activity, even though it
> has intolerable consequences for the general public, would it become legally
> or in any way appropriate to refuse to designate other areas there for
> unrestricted special interest activity when there are other places where
> they can be carried on? Numerous public area are especially available in
> Westport to any dogs owners from any town who wish to have their dogs run
> free. Westport bought very expensive land for the public, and most people
> wouldn't think of going there because of free running dogs.
>
> Compo Beach is small and precious to ALL of the general public. Every
> special interest group will reason that their favorite activity is valid,
> God given, or popular enough to warrant a specially designated area at the
> beach. If we designated, let's say, four special interest areas, there
> wouldn't be much public beach for the public to enjoy. For example, if we
> designated part A of the beach to one special interest group, part B to
> another, part C to another, and part D to another, what a conundrum it would
> be for the general public to figure out which part of the beach they can
> really enjoy themselves on! Those who don't mind what goes on in parts B and
> C will ask how they can get from part A to D without compromising their
> safety, their family's sensibilities, their enjoyment. What is Westport
> getting itself into by designating a large area of the beach to a special
> interest group?
>
> So that we don't have to constrain people from using parts of Compo that
> have unacceptable risks to them, the RTM should consider modifying the new
> regulation to require leashing of dogs all along the beach off season. With
> appropriate restrictions on this special interest group, as on any other
> special interest group, we can insure that everyone will have access to the
> whole beach, the way a public beach is meant to be.
>
> Barbara Paul, 8 Ellery Lane, Westport CT 06880, 226-4684
>
> _______________________________________
> Subscribers, send mail to this address Rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org
> To change your options or unsubscribe from the list click on this link
> http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list Check out our
> FAQ pages at http://www.geocities.com/blew_skies/topics.html
> http://www.sailnet.com/ -Where Sailors Get It! http://www.rhodes22.org
---------------------- multipart/related attachment
Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 114 bytes Desc: not available
Url: http://www.rhodes22.org/pipermail/rhodes22-list/attch/200209/18/attachment.gif
---------------------- multipart/related attachment--