|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
[Home] [Original Fence Discussion]
Recently, we took a survey on whether or not to put a fence around the play area. The black vinyl coated fence would be provided by the city just outside the timber area and be 4 feet high (3 feet above the timbers). The survey indicated that a strong majority (35-8) of respondents favored such a fence. We provided all comments and the results of the survey to the Parks Commissioner Fran Towle. The original discussion on the fence topic can be found on our website at http://wellingtonpark.org/fence.htm.
Recently, Ann Dorfman has come up with an alternate proposal. In fairness, we wanted to get your feedback on this alternate proposal. In reality, what we can do is to take your input and present it to the Parks and Recreation Department. It is the Commissioner who makes the ultimate decision on any fence proposals in public parks.
So for your comments and opinions, we present the original proposal (#1) and an alternate proposal (#2). We would like some sense of your feelings on these proposals in the near future. Your response could be in the form of detailed comments or could simply be your favored option, (#1, original fence proposal) or (#2, alternate fence proposal). The easiest way to respond would be just to reply to this email with your preference and / or comments.
Place fence outside landscape timbers directly around the play structure
and swing area.
Run a fence from the south edge of the wing area at the Kilburn Road fence
to the tennis court fence, and from the tennis court fence to the fence on
the east side of the park. This will divide the park into two zones. One
large open field on the south side of the park, and a second area that contains
the courts, play structure, swing set, and smaller amount of open grass on
the north side of the park.
Please let us know what you think.
[Top] [Home] [Original Fence Discussion]
"I prefer #1. #2 is interesting but I think it divides up the park too much. Also, I have my doubts as to whether the northern zone would truly be 'dog free'."
"Reply to the fence issue:
I don't think this is a fence issue any more, I believe this is an issue of few people going against everything that is being done. We have already taken this vote, and I believe it was a overwhelming vote to fence in the play structure (39 for, 7 against, if my memory serves me right). My issue is, why isn't it done yet! that being said, it is obvious that our (my husband and I) vote to have the play structure fenced in, for the following reasons:
1. A fence running up the middle of the park will look hideous.
2. I believe that having the fence around the play structure will not only keep the dogs out, but will curb the older kids from playing in that area. The older kids forget that the little ones aren't as steady on their feet, they fall/fall off structures very easily.
3. Having the play structure fenced in will keep the scooters and bikes away from the structure (see comments under the scooter section of news letter) and will help to prevent the older kids from running the little kids over.
4. If their are adults/older kids using the tennis court or basketball court, my 17 month old daughter does not understand that she can't walk onto the middle of the courts. Having the play structure fenced in would eliminated this problem. The little kids can run in the FENCED IN play structure area and the older kids can have the rest of the park.
5. If you put a fence up the middle of the park with a gate to go between the two sides, who is going to be the keeper of the gate? I live across the street from a gate and it is constantly left open, if the gate is left open who is going to stop the dogs from coming into the side of the park that is meant for the kids. You might say that the gate to the play structure area could be left open and a dog could get in and you are right, but you have to admit a gate that divides the park versus a gate that sections off the play structure is going to have more people using it. Hence, the probability that the gate dividing the park will be left open more than a gate to a section containing the play structure.
6. If you put a gate down the middle of the park and divide the park into a dog section and a kid section, how are you going to prevent someone from bringing their dog into the kid section of the park. If a person with a dog sees that the play structure is fenced off, that person wouldn't have a reason (unless they have a child with them) to open the gate to the play structure area to let their dog into that area.
7. If the play structure is meant for 3-5 year olds, why would anybody feel the need to let kids that age have the freedom to run around half the park? When you have kids this age I think most parents try to keep theirs kids in contained areas so they won't run off. and the parent doesn't have to chase them.
8. If you put the gate down the middle of the park, what will stop a kid from running out one park exit onto Princess Rd. (no gate at that exit) or exiting though the gate onto Kilburn Rd. If the play structure is fenced in, the child would have to get through the gate around the structure and then get through another one of the other gates (2 gates are better than 1), adding a little more security.
Once again I have to repeat myself when I say, we have already taken this vote, and I believe it was a overwhelming vote to fence in the play structure (39 for, 7 against, if my memory serves me right). My issue is, why isn't it done yet!
If you look at the parks on Elm Street and Durby Street (Franklin School) you will notice that the play structures are fenced in, I think most play grounds (unless they are very small play grounds, e.g. River Street) have their structures fenced in."
"You may recall I was a "no" vote on the fence #1. Now, I prefer #1 over #2, for some of the same reasons. Fence #2 would break up the park in an unnecessary way. I think it would not be very attractive and subject to more abuse than the play area fence. I am also afraid it might give dog owners the wrong message about what is expected of them."
"Proposal #1, in my opinion, would be preferred."
"We are very much against the new proposal of having a fence that divides the park. In no way would this prevent owners and dogs accessing the play area. In addition it would detract from the appearance of the park. The majority had already voted to have a fence only around the play structure and no where else. Therefore this new proposal is moot and will only serve to once more delay completion of the work. "
[Top] [Home] [Original Fence Discussion]
"The more I think about it the more certain I am that rather then fencing in the play area we should run a fence from the south side of the swings starting at Kilburn road to the existing fence at the tennis court, dividing the park in two and creating a large "dog free zone" that contains the basketball court, tennis court and play structure, and a large separate area where neighbors can hang out and schmooze with eachother while their dogs run and play, or play soccer, wiffle ball, etc. This would mean that dogs would not interfere with people playing basketball, street hockey, tennis, etc. It would allow children to run freely from the play structure to their scooter on the basketball court, and would mean we would not need to place a fence directly in front of the swings. All and all it would increase the overall usability of the park. The only problem would be basketballs that missed the backboard inconveniently landing on the other side of the fence, but we could always put a gate right behind the court to make it easy to retrieve the balls."
"The best way to keep dog poop away from where it is unwanted is to keep dogs out of those areas. Dogs currently go all over the park not because dog owners want them to, but because it is impossible to limit where they go without some form of barrier. There is no question in my mind that if the courts and play structure were to be fenced off from the open field, dog owners would keep their dogs in the open field. Why wouldn't they? While there may be some errant dog owners who insist on breaking the rules for the sake of breaking the rules, I can't image why dog owners would not keep their dogs on the south side of the fence if there was one. (The only exception I can imagine is that there may be times when a dog owner who has a child comes down to the park and let the dog loose while his/her child plays in the play area, or when an adult comes to play basketball or tennis and brings their dog. These dogs would likely be loose in the dog-free zone, and might poop while the owner is tending to his child.)
If we fence in the play structure we have only one small area that is dog free, and everyone else still has to deal with them. If we put a fence between the open field and the courts and play structure we create a much larger area that is easy to keep dog free. I think the bottom line is that dog owners do not want their dogs to mess up the play structure or the basketball court. They would be relieved if it was easier for them to prevent their dogs from making trouble.
I do think, however, that we would need a gate at all entrances, including the one on Kilburn Road."
"About the fence. I'll say it over and over and this is not just semantics. By running a fence from the tennis court to the Kilburn Rd fence we are not creating a dog park. We are not creating a park for use primarily by dogs. We are not altering the potential use or amount of space available for use by people. And it is important that the Parks Department recognize this. We are requesting that the space be configured in such a way that people who own dogs and who currently use the park can use the park without being a nuisance to those without dogs. We are creating a park that acknowledges the multiple uses of the park and enhances it. Residents with dogs are currently using the park and are not about to stop using the park, and the dogs free reign is creating a substantial amount of tension. Putting up the fence is a way to keep the people who DONT have dogs happy, it is not really intended to benefit people who do own dogs (they have no problem with using the space as it is currently configured). This is not about creating a space for dogs, they are already using it, this is about making better use of the park for all of us."
I vote yes on fence 2 if there is a gate put on the south side to prevent dogs from running into street & disturbing cvetchy neighbors.
As you know I believe a fence is not needed. We live in Newton and have a leash law, to ruin the openness of our park is crazy. The children that will be playing on the new structure will grow up and want to enjoy the openness of the park in a few years. Well, anyway if it has to be, my vote is for option #2. Hopefully what ever decision is made it will not be made because of dogs! We do have a leash law.
[Top] [Home] [Original Fence Discussion]
Last modified on October 29, 2000