|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
We had a very important decision to make shortly and our membership played a role. Over the last year, in planning the play structure, we had been discussing the possibility of a fence around the play area. If desired by our organization, the city would provide a fence around the play area (at no cost to our fund). It would be 4 foot high black vinyl (which would provide 3 feet of fence above our timber border). It would be installed just outside the timber area. If done, the city would prefer to do the whole play area rather than just the "play structure" half, as was originally envisioned.
There were arguments for and against such a fence. Some believe that a fence destroys the open look of the park. Others believe that a fence would serve to keep young children in the play area and animals out of the play area. We solicited comments on the idea of a fence, some argument for or against the fence. Thanks to the many people who took the time to respond to the request for comments. Such thoughtful effort on your part shows a real concern for the community. Since each of you put in the time to formulate your comments, we thought it appropriate to publish the individual comments. Comments are given in the order received. Please read the comments that are provided below. The results of our survey poll are given below. A copy of the comments and the results of our survey vote were sent to the Parks and Recreation Department.
There has recently been an alternate fence proposal by Ann Dorfman.
[Contents] [Home] [ For the Fence ] [ Against the Fence ]
We solicited (9/26/00) your vote on whether to have a fence or not around
the play area. Please read the comments that follow from our
citizens. Your opinions and votes are ultimately considered by the Parks
and Recreation Department. Thanks for your participation!
Responses were solicited by email and by use of the bulletin board at the park.
The results were the following (as of 10/2/00)
[Contents] [Home] [ For the Fence ] [ Against the Fence ]
"We think a fence is a good idea - both to keep children in a safe area, and to keep pets out. A fence might also provide the opportunity for more planting, with the fence providing a nice backdrop for plants or flowers (those non dangerous to children). Also, the city will pay for it!"
"I would like to see the fence around the play structure and the swings. I have a small child (16 months) and she does not understand to not step in dog droppings. Like every other kid her age (and there are many in the neighborhood) she is putting everything in her mouth. I have been at the park and walked through the park many times over the last few years and I have to constantly watch my step because there are dog droppings everywhere.
Also if the kids are playing I don't think that the dogs should be able to get into the play structure and swing area. When the kids are running, jumping and yelling, a dog could get excited and possibly jump on one of the kids. If the kid is small and can't withstand the weight of the dog and falls backwards and hits their head, you could end up having more problems than you thought.
Finally, it was my understanding that the play structure and swings were for the kids. No one ever mentioned (in any of the meetings or in the newsletter) that the structure and swings were for the dogs too. If the structure and swings are for the kids (as was told to us), then the dogs shouldn't be able to get to it and the kids should be able to play without being bothered by the dogs."
"You know how I feel about the fence. WE NEED IT. Aside from the dog issue, I think there are safety issues. The structure is close to the basketball court and I believe that a fence would help prevent any ball-related accidents.
Also, the structure is right up against the street and although we have a gate now, it is still easy for a stray, or very busy child, to break away and head for the gate and then the street. Random chance, I know, but hey, why take any chances? Also, I think as the structure is close to the big drive in gate where the city trucks come it, I would feel better about having as much safe distance and protection from them."
"No question it would like nicer and look more unified and open if there was no fence. But now, the park is will be accommodating kids and dogs, not dogs mostly, as in the past. Therefore, a fence would serve several important purposes.
---Keeping dogs out would be a boon for kids afraid of dogs and make them feel safe while observing the dogs from the play area. Excited dogs that jump around and want to "play" can be scary at times, and distract the kids, a potential for accidents.
---Keeping dogs, and, hopefully other animals out, will keep the area cleaner-no feces or other unwanted items. Even with the best of intentions, it's difficult to keep track of what the dogs are doing when it's dark.
---Keeps kids that might be inclined to wander inside the play area which makes the experience more relaxing and enjoyable for the caretaker."
"We are voting to have it installed."
"We think a fence would be good to keep the dogs out."
"Speaking as a dog owner, I have had a very difficult time restraining my pet from going into the play area. When the old swings were in place, I sometimes witnessed dogs urinating on the swing posts. I would prefer that the dogs not be able to mark the play area as their territory. A fence with working gates would prevent this. The city has a special ordinance concerning tot lots (the play area is considered a tot lot) providing for fines for pet owners whose pets are present on a tot lot. With the new play area, the park population of children has already increased significantly. There will be many more instances of children and dogs in the park together. There was an unpleasant incident recently involving a dog in the play area resulting in a call to Newton Animal Control. Such negative incidents could be avoided so easily with a fence. The majority of Wellington's dog owners are exceedingly responsible park citizens, even to the point of cleaning up after other dogs. A fence would tend to give all park users a little more peace of mind at Wellington Park. I think it is needed sooner rather than later.
The fence, as proposed, would be the least obtrusive. Black fences, as described in the city's own brochure, 'become almost invisible'. It would match the Kilburn Road fence which is supposed to be painted black in the near future. Take a look at the Princess Road gate, the fence at the Webster tot lot, the River and Cherry burying ground, or even Route 16 over the Mass Pike, to see how unobtrusive a black fence is (you probably never noticed their color before). In addition, the fence would be only 3 feet above the play surface, low enough for a parent sitting on a bench within the play area to keep an eye on siblings who might be playing on the basketball court. The play area exceeds the recommended safety requirements for distance around swings and play equipment. Children running into the fence from the swings should not be a safety issue."
"We believe that a fence is the appropriate way to go for Wellington Park. Since the new play structure went up, we have both seen dogs running loose in the park. One black lab managed to urinate on one of the support poles for the play structure, the owner of the dog did make an effort to prevent it but was too far away to be successful. Reason #2, peace of mind for the toddlers that use the park."
"We just wanted to respond to the "Fence or Not to Fence" issue. We are in favor of having the city put a fence around the playstructure and swings. In the spirit of the park,it's important for everyone to feel that they can bring their children and their pets, particularly dogs, to the park. Also, the fence would provide a more secure safety barrier for children. Smaller children could possibly fall over the cedar blocks that exist now. For the long term preservation of the park, we think the fence is a good idea."
"I am for a fence around the play structure. I know the dogs are already marking their territory. A four foot fence does not break up the park it keeps the play area safe and clean. I feel that the fence will allow everyone to enjoy the park as a group. I know that the dog owners will not keep their dogs on a leash. And I have talked to other parents who will not allow their children to play on the structure that dogs have peed on. The fence will prevent possible injury to children by keeping them inside the fence and not running into the street or basketball court if people are playing."
"Congrats to all who worked so hard on getting the park to look so beautiful and worked together to purchase and build the great play structure. I would recommend that we accept the City's offer of a fence around the entire play area, including swings. I don't think this would detract from the openness of the park in general."
In favor of the fence:
1. Safety - Little kids and dogs need to be separated. I have a two year-old child who is afraid of dogs and, with good reason; they are bigger and more powerful than he is. I would have a lot more peace of mind being at the park, if I could let him play without having to worry about dogs coming into the play area.
2. Cleanliness - Keep the play area clean and free of all kinds of animal waste
3. Past Experience - Every other play structure has a fence. Let's assume the experience of those before us has some value.
4. Security - I don't want my two year-old running freely all over the park. As a mother, I need to watch out for my kid 24 hours a day in many situations. A fence provides me the security of a small, well-defined area.
5. The Kids - The play structure was built for the children. We cannot stop now in providing a safe, fun experience for them. We have all worked very hard to accommodate the aesthetic concerns and requests of our neighbors. Unfortunately, we cannot let them take precedence over the safety and hygiene issues.
[Contents] [Home] [ For the Fence ] [ Against the Fence ]
"Just to make it simple, NOT to fence. It will preserve the more open feeling of the park and allow access from all directions."
"When I drove past the park this afternoon there were a dozen children there, nine or so riding their scooters on the basketball court and a few more on the structure. There was a mother sitting at the picnic table (on the basketball court) and three other adults standing on the lawn between the basketball court and the structure. One child ran off the structure, over to the basketball court and picked up a scooter. It was wonderful to see the park enjoying such good use.
I couldn't help but think about how it might have been different with a fence. In this scenario there was just one park and it all flowed together. A fence would have created a very different dynamic. Would the mother still have been sitting at the picnic table if one of her children had been on the structure? What if one was on the structure and one was on the court? And what about the three adults standing together and talking? Would they have crowded into the structure area? It all worked so well as one common play area, it would seem sad to break it up.
1. Fences are ugly.
2. A fence around the structure will further chop-up an already small park.
3. The play structure is located in the middle of the park (not off in a corner as at the Webster Street playground). Putting a fence around the structure will separate a big piece of the park in a very awkward way from the rest of a relatively small, already fenced in and secure park.
4. Leaves and litter will get stuck between landscape timbers and the fence and remain there forever and look lousy (check this out at the Webster Street playground, last years autumn leaves are still there).
5. Its nice that children can run freely from the structure to the basketball court, and around the rest of the small and already fenced in and secure playground. Putting a fence around the structure will unnecessarily limit their freedom.
6. I strongly do not think there should be a fence in front of the swing. Kids really like to jump off swings and run. A fence there would not only prevent kids from doing this, but would create a feeling of an obstacle in front of the person swinging, a very unpleasant sensation.
7. The landscape timbers around the structure were specked out at close to the minimum distance from the structure for safety purposes, not to delineate the ideal size of for a play area. To fence it in at the timbers is to create a more constricted play area than is probably desirable.
8. People keep talking about dogs being a problem but I don't see it. Let's get evidence that they need to be separated from the play area BEFORE we erect the fence. If it becomes clear that dogs are creating an insurmountable problem then I have no problem with putting up a fence, but to put up a fence just because some people think dogs MIGHT be a problem is silly. If the primary reason people want to erect a fence is to keep the dogs out, lets first find out if the dogs need to be kept out."
"Most play areas that have fences have them because the Office of Child Care Services, the state agency that regulates child care centers, requires them. My sense is this has more to do with keeping the children in than keeping pets and others out.
The chances of adults or big kids crashing into the children's play area seems remote, particularly after the new trees get planted between the play area and the basketball court. The only good reason I have heard so far is about keeping dog and cat poop out. Open gates are likely to let many pets in, even with a fence, but a fence is likely to reduce access. Perhaps we could go fenceless for the next year or at least until, say, mid-summer 2001 and determine if a fence is really needed for this or any other purpose.
The downside of a fence is aesthetic and practical. We have plenty of fence where it is needed and it is not too pretty. Closing off more parts of the open area in the park should be done only if absolutely necessary. I am also concerned about the maintenance of the fence. The current fences are hurting and, with a gate on the new one to break or watch sag, it is just a matter of time before the new one looks like the old one. I would rather not see the limited maintenance budget spent on this item."
"We have talked about the fence question, and we both feel it would be a bad idea. It would make the play structure more confining and less appealing to the kids. It would diminish the sense of space in the park, which is already relatively small. And we are not convinced by the argument that it would protect children from roaming dogs. The best solution there is to foster responsibility in the owners.
We vote strongly against the fence.
I think it is completely specious to say that the kids need a fence to protect them from dogs. I don't think that is going to be a problem. I mentioned that dog owners need to be responsible, and that is certainly true, but I am afraid I gave some validity to the argument that the dogs are a danger to the kids, and I do not think that is the case at all."
"I think that the fence is just the thought of keeping dogs out and little children in. It's not that there's a big, busy street right next to it, or that there's a skate ramp right next to it; it's just because people don't want dogs on the structure. For your info, most dog-owners don't even bring dogs over when little kids are over.
Plus, it would be a hassle to get in and out. You're either in, or you're out. I saw kids the other day running from the structure to the "big" kids on the court, etc. Little kids don't want to be JUST on the structure, they will like to roam, run around. The structure is already taking up enough room, so why do you want to add to it?
There is also a majority of dogs at the park, too. Not just kids.
I am strongly against the fence. I hope all of the people like me will read this and say 'that's a good point!' And if the fence is put up, I'll learn to live with it, but will hate it anyways."
[Contents] [Home] [ For the Fence ] [ Against the Fence ]
[Contents] [Home] [ For the Fence ] [ Against the Fence ] [ Alternate Fence Discussion]
Last modified on September 25, 2000