Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-C&NS-2002 - Dog Park Information Q�Ga�,,,...,.•ysTo y �o ar m W m New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Y ' Finger Lakes Region-PO Box 1055,2221 Taughannock Park Road,Trumansburg,New York 14886-1055 607-387-7041 LL O NEW YORK STATE i FAX 607-387-3390 Tvegional Commission: George E.Pataki,Governor Linda J.Jackson Bernadette Castro,Commissioner Clement N.Granoff John C.Clancy, Regional Director Rowland Stebbins III Marcia H. Finch Card C. Reeves William D.Leonard May 23, 2002 Honorable Alan J. Cohen, Mayor City of Ithaca 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mayor Cohen: My thanks to you and the City of Ithaca for your help and cooperation with New York State Parks in the effort to find a location for a pilot off-leash dog area at Allan H. ' Treman State Park. Although the process has been long and sometimes challenging, we have come to agreement on a plan that will enable the pilot program to move forward. Our Resource Management Group approved the concept of an off-leash area, and stipulated that such an area would have to be fenced and could not extend to the Cayuga Lake Inlet. Based on those stipulations, our working committee, made up of representatives from the City, State Parks, Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, and Tompkins County Dog Owners Group, examined possible locations. At an on-site meeting held Tuesday, May 14`h, to look at possible impacts on bird nesting areas, a new location was identified that is adjacent to the parking lot, is already being mowed, is of sufficient size and was satisfactory to the representatives of the dog owners group. The area to be enclosed consists of 2.8 acres. Enclosed is a map that shows the new area and exactly what would be fenced. Because portions of the new area are located on city-owned "Festival" land, we request that the city agree to modify and extend its permission for your land to be utilized for this pilot program. Leash rules and ordinances would remain in effect at the park on all lands outside the fenced area. State Parks will be responsible for erecting the fence once your approval has been given. Because this will indeed be a pilot program with a duration of 12 to 18 months, you may wish to again include a"sunset" provision as part of your approval. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency FLSP001(09/01) 0 printed on recycled paper I want to express my appreciation to Council Member Pat Pryor who has put a considerable amount of time and effort into this project. Other city officials who have v assisted include Council Member Dan Cogan, Public Works Commissioner Bill Gray and Planner JoAnn Cornish. Sincerely, c John C. Clancy Regional Director JCCas cc: Dan Kane Tom Lyons Bill Brown Pat Pryor Dan Cogan Bill Gray JoAnn Cornish L City of Ithaca PCICodebook for Windows ARTICLE 111, Dogs § 164-8. Statutory authority and purpose. This article is adopted pursuant to Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets Law of the State of New York and the Charter of the City of Ithaca. Its purpose shall be to promote the public health, safety and welfare of the community, including the protection and preservation of the property of the city and its inhabitants and of peace and good order,by regulating and controlling the activities of dogs within the city and providing for enforcement thereof. § 164-9. Prohibited acts. [Amended 4-5-1978 by Ord. No. 78-3; 5-7-1980 by Ord.No. 80-6; 8-5-1992 by L.L. No.3-1992; 10-6-1993 by Ord. No. 93-23; 11-3-1993 by Ord.No. 93-24; 5-1-1996 by Ord.No. 96-7; 7-1-1998 by Ord. No. 98-14; 12-2-1998 by Ord.No.98-291 Any owner of a dog or any other person who harbors any dog in the City of Ithaca shall be in violation of this article if such dog: A. Is not restrained by an adequate collar and leash when not on the property of the owner or any other person harboring or having custody or control of the dog. Exemption: Subdivision A above does not apply to owners of dogs whose dogs are off-leash in an area to be established and designated as an off-leash dog park pilot project sponsored by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and the nonprofit Tompkins County Dog Owners' Group (TCDOG). The dog park is to be located within the boundaries of Treman Marina and the city-owned land adjacent to it as shown on the map entitled "Proposed Dog Park Area" dated May 1992. The part of the dog park located on city land shall be regulated by the Board of Public Works. This exemption shall extend for the one-year trial period of the pilot, but in no event shall this exemption extend beyond August 31, 2002. [Amended 5-2-2001 by Ord. No. 2001-4] B. Engages in unreasonable howling and/or barking or other noise, audible beyond the property line of the property where the dog is harbored,that disturbs or annoys any person of reasonable sensitivities other than the person owning or harboring such dog. Unreasonable howling or barking or other noise shall include,but not be limited to,the following: (1) Howling, barking or other noise made by a dog and continuing for more than three cumulative minutes in any sixty-minute period; or (2) Howling,barking or other noise made by a dog which is determined to be unreasonable, taking into account the following factors: (a) The proximity of the noise to residential property. (b) The time of the day or night when the noise occurs. 1 ;L 41- N.Y.S.ROUTE 89 PRIVATE DRIVE PARK ENTRANCE T1 4�= TRUE GPS !HANGER PARK THEATRE 1L- MAINTENANCE AREA - - - - - - - NORTH ol 100, 200' 300' EXISTING EXISTING FLOODPLAIN FOREST -FOREST /BIRO HS(typ) BOUNDARY PROPOSED MANAGED TALL GRASSLAND FENCED DOG AREA E X I ST 11 N AG ,,� Z8 ACRES WET AREA BOUNDARY ------- DEFINED'HOG HOLE- CAYUGA LAKE N WETLAND BOUNDARY I? -4 MARINA RT -————-- OM BOAT4ALlNCH XFt CONTACT STATION ST­hON. 77-77t� SEASONAL AND Z S IJAY-USE PARKINGAREA MAN-AGED TALL GRASSLAND `PROPOSED BOUNDARY OF MANAGED succEiSsio&AL x \1\� i \ �\ FLOODPLAIN I FOREST BOAT-LAUNCH h` \\ \ / PARKING AREA BOUNDARY OF EXISTING MOWED TRAIL MANAGED TALL GRASSLAND FESTIVAL"LANDS BOUNDARY % 'n` PICNIC AREA MARINA "SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN JUNE 1995 BOAT-LAUNCH RAMPS ALLAN H. TREMAN STATE MARINE PARK ITHACA,NEW YORK f PARK OFFICE AND FINGER LAKES REGION COMFORTSTATIONNEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS - - - - - - - - RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION JOHN C.CLANCY,REGIONAL DIRECTOR CAYUGA INLET MARINE-SEWAGE PUMOUTS MODIFIED-MAY 2002 1y , ORT'OI RHAG L.R1T5 �,l ��L� ��(l, CRY a mucR wrtr I w� � L �ARrvRT{DRIVE �V -FLODDAIH iaR[fT TNa N\� .. _ 'NOG HOLE'DESIGNAT 0 PLAYFISLOS MANAGED TALL GRASSLAND \ I O CASS PAH1L R1AlETENANCE AREA ••� �I F CTTY OF ITHACA 'FESTIVAL LAND' MARINA PAR 'MTlA11D 60UNOART _—— __ ' --10116 RRi1 •'i► 14.47 ACRES PAG L.i 3113INA PARDON mom /L F fTHA L CRFs MANAGED TALL GRASSLAND . AUYRCDf . �'' ......... ....:...ter................... O R TtOn � V� \ ,�� .,4 : )>'• �W�/ % ,iRYCtE TRAt/RITIFii TIIA.R. ALIlll..AAP4..��AAjj REMAN fJ MRRpO G 4 KEM R GROVE / K1N� �\ WMJ�TRURBASp Tf v -,\ susalut URY FORES AT sroRAa•ao aDo C OVE WGNT TRANISENT !1O �CNIC AREA BOAT AREA ,tel EIGHT4ANE SORT LAUNCH RAMP d PROPOSED D MAkW SEWAGE FLG,QOtrr STATION - PARK AREA CN A PARK OFFICE AND COMFORT STATION DAY-USE TRAMENT fOAT AREA CAYUGA INLET CAYUGA LAKE FIGURE A-19 ' rewa uRra sTRn ARRRr.Rrnuna ARi Rr.nc raifurRTaR RiogR Snit TRYONRRROCR HARK ROAD' T1[UPIRNYORq NSM TORE 1W4 o So'100 200 400 Goo ALLAN H.TREMAN STATE MARINE PARK EXISTING SITE DEVELOPMENT em: wY'"ll �� an a m,APA r i eeurrr a TD.rRRo rrRna►RM TWR �.. .�� o� CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street— 3`d Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 Vi 2AA E^e � men rE rm f• DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DOUGLAS B. McDONALD. DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JOANN CORNISH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Telephone: Planning & Development - 607-274-6550 Community Developmenu,] R.-1 607-2-4-6559 Email: planningC citn•ofithaca.org Email: iura@cin•ofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607.2'-1-6558 TO: Susan Blumenthal Alan Cohen Dan Cogan Ed Hershey Peter Mack Paulette Manos Carolyn Peterson Patricia Pryor Diann Sams Patricia Vaughan David Whitmore FROM: �athryn Mance, Environmental/Landscape Planner RE: Notes from Special Public Meeting–07/29/2002 U DATE: August 6, 2002 Pat Pryor has asked me to compile the notes from the recent public meeting concerning the proposal for a dog park in the City. Approximately 70 people attended the meeting, which was moderated by Pat Pryor and David Whitmore. Also attending were JoAnn Cornish, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, Jack Clancy, NYS Parks Department, and Kathryn Mance, Environmental/Landscape Planner. Summary: The meeting was heavily attended and dialogue was brisk. Although there were five items on the agenda, a vote put forth by Pat Pryor determined that the attendants wished to focus on the current proposal for a fenced dog park in Allan H. Treman State Park. Several recurring concerns/questions were: Motivation behind the current proposal: • Several people expressed confusion as to why any change in the current situation was necessary. Some people mentioned that the reasons the State has put forth to change the current situation are unclear or invalid, and do not reflect local sentiment. Inadequacy of proposal: • Several people stated that the State proposal, as it currently stands, would not meet their needs. They expressed concern that they would be in greater jeopardy of being U "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �� r , issued a ticket were they to continue to use the area outside of the fence, yet they could see no other option. • Several stated that the current proposal would lead to over-use, both on the part of the proposed park (since its small size would increase the concentration of use) and in other areas unsuited for this purpose (because dog-owners needing an unfenced area would be forced to go elsewhere). Safety: • Several people expressed concern that the current proposal will be dangerous to dogs and their owners. There is no shade and no access to water. The small size of the fenced area increases the risk of disease and aggression among the dogs. Inequity among user groups: • Several people spoke of the apparent contradiction of the State objecting to the current situation on the basis of environmental concern, yet there is a strong hunting and fishing presence on the site. Lack of local control: • Several people expressed concern that the State is unfairly regulating use of the park. Another recurring comment was that if the City approves the proposal, there would no longer be opportunity for negotiation towards improving the dog park. At the close of the meeting, Pat Pryor proposed another meeting to discuss the agenda issues not yet covered. The idea received general assent. She and David also invited the audience to contact them with ideas and proposals regarding this issue. JoAnn also invited the audience to contact the office of Planning and Development with any further concerns. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Specific Comments Pat Pryor began the meeting by introducing the current proposal. She clarified the boundaries and also spoke about the history of the issue. Comments followed: • Can the state prevent the City from building on City property? What are the reasons the State wants to use the City festival grounds? Jack Clancy, representative of the State Parks, responded: • The State Parks dept. has taken the position that dog owners are legitimate park users. There are currently no dog parks on State Park property; this is a new idea. The Tompkins County Dog Owners Group (TCDOG) proposals were submitted to Albany Resource Management division, which represents every discipline within the State Parks system. They were willing to consider an experimental dog park, but there were concerns over safety, environmental quality, and the existing master plan for the park. The current proposal negates environmental concerns because the area is already mowed. Although there is no water on site, it is close enough to facilities to feasibly bring the water to the site. State understands that the current proposal does not meet desires. State is hopeful that the experiment will pave the way for more dog parks throughout the State Parks system. Comments followed: • Have used the area for 22 years and never seen evidence that dogs adversely affect the wildlife. Why does anything need to be changed, since it works fine the way it is? The current proposal would be dangerous because there would be too many dogs for such a small area. Lack of shade could cause health problems for dogs. If there were anyplace else to go, dog owners would have found it by now. Jack Clancy responded: • He has asked State Park police to only enforce leash laws in egregious cases because it is ambiguous situation right now. This "loose enforcement" would end if there was no agreement and the ticketing would continue. Comments Followed: • In response to first question, City should/can build whatever we want on festival lands. Cannot get ticket on City land for State Parks violations. We should feel that the park is What WE want, not be coerced by the State. City land should not be subject to State rules. We could bypass State altogether in this matter • Environmental concerns seem contradictory since State signed off on Southwest Area's negative environmental impact. How much are we not hearing about between City and State? Pat Pryor responded: • There is nothing going on between City and State in this issue. Comments Followed: • What data was collected by the State during this experiment? Concern expressed that the State wants to take over the land owned by the City Pat Pryor responded: • There are not currently any established criteria for measuring success. Usage is important; if the proposed fenced dog park has lower participation than the current situation, then we could measure success from that. Even if the fenced area serves a small group of people, it at least serves some. Concern over saying no to a proposal which will benefit some residents at no cost to the City, when City cannot currently pay for a better facility. Comments followed: • Some dogs would use fenced yard, especially younger dogs that need boundaries. • Confusion expressed over the Southwest Feasibility Study; are we considering this area? Concern that it is easier to impose restrictions than it will be to take them away —although it is easy to make the area minimal, will probably be difficult to make it larger once its established. David Whitmore responded: • We would like to hear citizen proposals for different places, whether in City or county, to put a dog park. Comments followed: • Want to know why park suddenly isn't working, what has changed? Jack Clancy responded: • He agreed that the City has control over City land and on City land City law predominates. They have not yet begun the experiment, would begin when dog park receives approval. The reason the current situation is not working is because it is illegal. Comments followed: • If the only problem with the current situation is its illegality, then the law is no longer valid because it no longer serves the needs of the people. Jack Clancy responded: • Most municipalities have established leash laws for safety of non-dog owners. David Whitmore responded: • Perhaps Jack Clancy could explain ways to petition the State to change its rules concerning dogs in parks. Jack Clancy responded: • One way would be to agree to the experiment. Could also write letters to him and the Commissioner of pParks, Bernadette Castro Comments followed: • An important aspect of the site not yet discussed is the large wetland and its corresponding 100' buffer. We fought to get this designated as a wetland and it is federally protected. Are there other alternatives which might be better—Bostwick Rd., Robert Treman Park entrance? • The wetland is not part of the current dog area so there is no conflict. • State says there is a problem, but gives no real mitigation suggestions. Only certain pieces of land are used; why not fence off what is not related to the dog's (wetland, tall grasses)? Never see non-dog owners in this area. There are lots of other places for non-dog owners and on-leash walking' in the City. We should be able to fix the concerns directly. We are "the State" and should remind the bureaucracy of this fact. • Non dog owner comments that she has seen people bitten and has herself almost been seriously injured. She is not anti-park, but feels she can no longer use this area because she is afraid of dogs coming up to her. Also feels that there are bad dogs— how will we screen them from the park, how do we keep people from being afraid. Other alternatives, such as several mini-parks, perhaps on Cornell land, could prevent over-utilization which might occur with official dog park. • Concern that the issue needs extensive long-term study by Common Council. State will not change its mind under current administration. If we maintain the current situation and keep accurate records, the records will speak for themselves as proof that an unfenced dog park is feasible. • Using the area has had great positive effect on dogs in terms of behavior/socialization. One concern is that there are no rules posted in area for first- time users. City has jurisdiction but should not move without accommodating' concerns of State. What would be the conditions to negotiate? Should not allow fence without lots of conditions. Pat Pryor responded: • TCDOG had suggested many conditions and compromises, but the State said no to all of them. Comments followed: • State receiving bad rap. There are only three areas with similar ecological significance in Cayuga Lake. The current proposal was limited by the Master Plan adopted by the State for that park. Current proposal did not come from State. • If wetlands and shoreline are sensitive, why are there duck hunters? • If this is an ecologically important area, the State should keep the fishermen and boats away. Not seeing data or designation of significance in this area. Dog owners have legitimate concerns. • Concern that we should remember how hard we worked 11 years ago to get this area designated as an official federal wetland. The area was then explored thoroughly in terms of ecological significance. Sensitive areas should be fenced and have signs to let dog owners know the significance. There are more birds in this area now because of Lake Source Cooling, and the burden on Stewart Park has been lessened. Concern L that current proposal will not work because of leptosporosis risk. • Did not know shoreline was sensitive. Always picks up after other users and considers herself to be responsible user. Dog does not want to be enclosed, and if current proposal goes through, will be forced to continue using area despite leash laws. Pat Pryor responded: • How do I justify telling people who would use fenced area that they will not have recourse? Approving the proposal will allow lines of communication with State to remain open. Comments followed: • State will look at results of this experiment and say it was a failure because of sickness and low use. Pat Pryor responded: • Does not want to cut off discussions with State Parks, especially since we can't afford anything else. If we say no to this proposal, idea of park will be scrapped. City and State have worked closely together in the past and do not want to jeopardize this relationship. Comments Followed: • Seems as if you have made your mind up, and that you are afraid to alienate the State at the expense of the active majority in favor of the few people who would use the park. • Concern that the leash law will suddenly be enforced no matter what happens. Can we not enforce the law until there is a viable alternative? Jack Clancy responded: The State has not completely stopped enforcing the law and continues to issue tickets in egregious cases. The master plan was a very painful process and should not be discounted. It includes provisions that dog owners are legitimate park users but those leash laws should be vigorously enforced. Comments followed: • Current proposal is not viable, needs of smaller group (who would use fenced area) are outweighing needs of majority. • No such thing as selective enforcement, not legally justifiable. • Incumbent of State to explain why suddenly taking position that current situation is unacceptable. • What will be the cost to the City when the current situation ends? Somehow, some way, City will bear the cost if there is no off-leash opportunity. Pat Pryor responded: • Concern that other areas (such as wildflower preserve) are being overused. • Believe the direction we need to move in is finding alternative spaces around City and L./ County to diffuse impact of use. Comments followed: • Have seen non-dog owners on site, who go there to enjoy other people's dogs. There are lots of dogs playing on the shore with no visible impact on the ducks. If we end up accepting the current proposal, we need provisions for study to compare to current situation. Non-dog owners are not suddenly going to start coming to site just because the park is fenced. • Negotiating for Master Plan went on for many years; we cannot expect things to move so quickly. This is not an either/or situation: if State wants to use City land, only agree with lots of provisions. • No one talking about known value of dog parks. Very valuable to behavior and socialization of dogs. Has State looked at existing parks? Concern that there is contradiction with not allowing dogs on site because of environmental reasons, but allowing fishermen and hunters. Pat Pryor responded: • TCDOG did research about benefits of dog parks. Invited audience to update this information. Comments followed: • If the only reason Robert Treman is being discounted is lack of water, can't we put in a pond? Many user groups in area in 1983 (non-dog groups). Difficult to see the effect of dogs on area because no data from pre-dog use. Jack Clancy responded: • Allowance of hunting depends on each park. Most smaller parks, including Allan H. Treman, do not allow hunting. Only one State has dog parks within State Parks (Delaware). Most parks are municipal, very small, and usually fenced. Dog owners not usually validated as a user group. This effort may be pioneering process to raise awareness about dog parks. Comments followed: • We didn't always have leash laws. • Some dog owners afraid of off-leash dogs. Leash laws there for a reason. They should be respected. • All dog owners need is one accident for litigation to quash whole park. Very idealistic to think this will be easy, even after a park is put in place. Pat Pryor responded: • Not convinced that a dog park is any riskier than any other public park. r� To the Common Council of the City of Ithaca: C.Zo $"c'S�. u LM 2 1 Z We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of_ Ithaca's lands, a practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, City Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Let It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that a trusting and unrushed dialogue with the City of Ithaca alonet to explore constructive options is now in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's Office regarding sovereignty over its own land and the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dealing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. I; Of 23 IVV IIS . Z a , I 6102,-_-- 402 N (3cwv ._A 1 So,as+�+ wtsr)._ 1/6PA�--ST,.__R14A CA 1J ---- g� Z t ell- gs o2 o�i W QS+ (-{�eq �� rJ ki i L4 ?,Snn r �d 2. �p S�e fri_�l -- '-- aca�. .j�j`( _ S6 0-- 8. --1v: TA.v rot 115-01 A-_J - °� -cam --t- _ --k NY s /01. I - k— BE sA^,.4 Coop- Yq( AmL, Avii, 41 8 _#_ _1-1acN� 1 fTo the Common Council of the City of Ithaca: We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) bean ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, City Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Let It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that a trusting and unrushed dialogue with the City of Ithaca alone to explore constructive options is now in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's Office regarding sovereignty over its own land and the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dealing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. AIK csz 61 TAJ SS- S-pL , , �,�,r�r.��a.�d�----��s�-T.a���_�r►�_�s����d .��Ac�,� _�V. _l-�i..�s-.s�_ -- i I' yS- oZ Ic�O ltiLs_��f.e cc __�S� __fie use ,�e ev, l[e� �V l3 aa Li.ry. _ _�_ds b� ��'/-i�,G I(• � �.5, � � i � - � �j 0r aZ ; t�e�e t�Jci Pa _ _ _ frits ►' _ -- .- M$ ►S9 ��� ES _ Com_AV - _ 41 �a(Mr _C_a m _ cvJ ' i:._ 4 N` - I .��'1s11-.._ ___ _ _ `�.�__ SP�_l�,✓ ltilv(,.� --�s.�, �`��G ply, _ __ _ _ To the Comaon Council of the City of Ithaca: (AL 04 We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing yogi of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a �.i practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, City Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; t It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council tat the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that, a trusting and unrushed dialoguelwith the City of Ithaca alone to explore constructive options is now in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's Office regarding sovereignty over its own land and;the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dealing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. t S3 sSeym PA �C� "'!"_— t� _ p��0"if 1 — IS I _0 �)4, ky- -5 °z ' a a All er' yon �, lhpz N1` d%V aA cam Ato i P� Q 2 0 s)kw1 O_,JL_S Z 12 � 1 o the Common Council of the City of Ithaca: 6 We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, City Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Let It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that, a trusting and unrushed dialogue with the City of Ithaca alone to-explore constructive options is now in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's Office regarding sovereignty over its own land and,the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dealing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. U l Ef a !� - g 3 o► ,ti rte► ooh /j�U®. ����ccs / DZ I � W�f�2- D, ---./� ...- 3.T`-S ►_ - ---- - - - - a Z, ' j /1 iG /Yl cfc� S� • -- U, S� . � << Al Y ldso i__ 7 Z 'fi9r19 may'_ --- -- � L,\3 U. Ct%oak S C�LTiy t1 A- JAr �_ b /4orowi ---- 1 Wop�-�i.rti�� L.w. --Ec-ook -` c�/'0 -- i; -Ia 0-- R--- ------- -� _ - '' .-�J►�'r �e __. _ ---�t(0 11� . TO40t,, res- . qO_ ---- YL 2 o 51� ZJ L_ To the Common Council of the City of Ithaca: We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, City Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Let It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even Close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that a trusting and unru ed dialogue with the City of Ithaca alone, to explore constructive options is no in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's Office regarding sovereignty over its own land and, the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a pr6blem dealing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains ue now. Common Council and dog owners will work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. tZK144 Ica ���• �r�aea.t� l n -MCI - ----� �--- S 1-7 (y-L Art% �,,<.,\ykJ -g i S u,� L -- . n-- ,t5 Q► SPL. -7 (9 1✓r1 C to r 0 C� d a ELL� 'F-Fote o► l�{�SS� OIL i kQ2L<o zo f Z -ozco- 0,-Z, 6- sk�__ f S OZ _----- - ---_._Qp - T� g �Z a•c./ /� ' t�-•, t P� -3 0>1 «, A1Y 8410 rale-_ -l.ee. _ _.---C1° -aAa..r ._S aiC,_._sto-et a_C �Z �� /yam►- S -7---- J --- -- -- ,------- - --- NSC.____ _. . _!Vis___V _�_ .� `�"� AJ _ 14ta— �amu.. f`4 c w i-i O2CS7-,i-. � A-y-0 To the Common Council of the City of Ithaca: We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, City Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Let It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that, a trusting and unrushed dialogue with the City of Ithaca alone, to explore constructive options is now in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's Office regarding sovereignty over its own land and, the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dealing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. - --------- L bO IS C1,17SAV'O' _..�" oma _ lA -AXI - - --- - -- __._ 0 fo 1, 61&VeV4 5_7 -W-7 --f JOVAL iv VlYeK7 ----.. Ut0 g GY p SGS--61- -2�- -- f-'WS CMC _ � _-A)V 102 R V F_-LL_ 22- 14AVOLMOENE Qi�(,UL 42H4 o i a - g VS — I / 42 70'? %a.k hn v� ����'l � �cec�}h! pav o Z � Y S 3 ��1� w.�O d ✓. �� G-ce, 5e Z5'b I ' Ili a r V"e r vt k II `' '910f _00� .(._..-- :.__g� 02- - ,4` 11�© � -- =-36, C .---- - �---.--C�--fie---. - --_. DD �� /G2- G,►.\. c6evallartI!, 2 �o fr�rs�-S� • � �c l�E�50 VX I g•�t d y ar?t - r a a..__u cad tJ` --------- . ---- -- ------ rg Cors}oc-�_ Qck- ii pa C07- r., .200 � Z J ?_ To the Co=on Council of the City of Ithaca: We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, city Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Lot It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that a trusting and unrushed dialogue with the City of Ithaca alone, to explore constructive options is now in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's office regarding sovereignty over its own land and, the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dealing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will , work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. VC (K~* 7-6-101- L Lori "'�bm 131(0 ca'-w kAh _Bm 01 C,2. 5rreR�1" tabdem2­2-:L U Wxtoft)-A -f r-CJ A VO Kd _ sus "_ "' � - > ­_tA411L .35 & I- I IMA (Mot ---� . G - ----------- tu -- ---- (,P-AH* :r Tw-kc pit fA 0 0 n AUS to Jaz 1, rte _ / ._ d� -d. 1 Z To the Common Council of the City of Ithaca: �_ We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a •1*1� practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, City Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Let It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that a trusting and unrushed dialogue with the City of Ithaca aloner to explore constructive options is now in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's Office regarding sovereignty over its own land and;the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dialing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. Si, 01 Z 7- Z, ° _AeAel I� -- � _ - - Vl/�. / w � 9 -- A,4Ar 2ol 91 ._.._VTC C!1..--5 ---- — � - -- . -- _ P - to, - - -- /V 0 0(p &i&A oloe -- -_ 1 -- ) � .,-for.-, ) al"� 7/ 2- the Common Council of the City of Ithaca: We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, City Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Let It Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that, a trusting and unrushed dialogue with th' City of Ithaca alon to explore constructive options is now in order. We reque t that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Att nleyls office C regarding sovereignty over its own land and the possible us of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dealing- directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will . work out a harmonious solutionPresented; August, 2002. 43 crt- _P�A(h /72 /7 112 'C ZO _21PLIO-2— If__y9e_46er_Ab_ SOY.1�-1,rle-_AIV.I J1 qVZ_i_1 _A4_. 61W-0--a-4+- IF11JUAL ii IVAI (> � _�___.___ ._ ___cam 4v _Z J-1� it Let— o ta4- ky te-LA To the Common Council of the City of Ithaca: We, the undersigned dog owners of the Ithaca area, are unanimous in informing you of the following: --Whereas, in 1999 New York Finger Lakes State Parks (NYFLSP) began ticketing dog owners for violating State Parks' rules while on City of Ithaca's lands, a practice with no legal standing; --Whereas in 2000, we were encouraged by the NYFLSP to join them in a petition to Common Council for the use of some of the City's Festival lands, along with some State lands, as an off-leash area under the management of State Parks; --Whereas on April 10, 2001, city Council acceded to the request as a trial period not to extend beyond August 31, 2002; --Whereas we have witnessed since that time NY State Parks placing ever more restrictive provisions as to the rules and locations of proposed dog area; Let it Now Be Known: We stand clear and resolved in conveying to Common Council that the State Parks' proposed location is not even close to meeting our basic needs, and therefore is unacceptable to us. We believe that,a trusting and unrushed dialogue with the City of Ithaca alone,, to explore constructive options is now in order. We request that in the interim, Common Council obtain advice and counsel from the City Attorney's office regarding sovereignty over its own land and the possible use of the proper posting of the law in addressing liability issues. The City of Ithaca has never had a problem dealing directly with its citizens without interference. This remains true now. Common Council and dog owners will work out a harmonious solution. Presented, August, 2002. '00�7 14540 n L4,040' Ke"I St C). 0 Z, avibc, ------ 0. 32S boy 4L13Le ___ 1 Knyn I 1AJA rD2. A-C ih -7 67 n ---------- ffA:. Z 40 AA _A�Oyxtn ka M'ck\,Ct L N A-1134