A Penny for My Thoughts

Jill Ford Harrington June 28, 2012 at 12:20 pm

I for one would have had no issue with a dog park. I might be misinformed, but a neighbor told me that a family had donated land for this specific purpose. However, why did voting cause such furor. I agree with this author thinking don't we have other more important things to fight over.

Dave June 29, 2012 at 12:42 am

Voting caused such a "furor", because the plan was to use protected land not private land for the dog park. The most troubling aspect is that the towns elected officials allowed this issue to unnecessarily escalate by even considering using protected land for this purpose. I own 3 dogs and I agree we definitely have more important issues to address then a dog park. There is a great dog park in Southbury on private land owned by O&G that we have taken our dogs to numerous times with excellent experiences.

barb norman June 29, 2012 at 04:17 pm

Jill - if said neighbor told you that a family donated land for the specific purpose of a dog park, and if, by "that land," he/she meant Happy Landings, then that neighbor was either badly misinformed or deliberately misleading you. Happy Landings was purchased by the town, and in 1999 was voted to remain "permanently protected open space" by a 3-to-1 vote. Ironically, this was the same ratio of the recent vote. I wish that people would listen to the truth for once: IT WAS NEVER ABOUT A DOG PARK, IT WAS ABOUT LAND!!!!!!! Land - open space - that precious commodity that is disappearing from the face of America in leaps and bounds. It was about the democratic process - this town had voted 13 years ago to keep and protect that land by a 3-to-1 vote - that result was being summarily brushed aside by the Conservation Commission and some of our elected officials. I would really like the head of the Conservation Commission to stand next to the sign that HER Commission put up at HL, and explain to me the rationale of their decision. It boggles the mind. No Jill, the dog park was NEVER the issue, it was where it was to be located. We were not fighting AGAINST the dog park, but FOR the land. The KK supporters used, as one of their arguments, "It's only 1 acre." I wonder what the little Dutch boy of legend would have answered if people had told him "Oh, take your finger out of that hole in the dike - it's only a little drip".

Lisa Allan July 1, 2012 at 04:07 am

The original issue proposed was a dog park. This brought up a vote from 1999 about protected open space. This is something I had no idea about since the officials were recommending this spot. When I became aware of this issue, I was told a dog park fit into the description of protected open space and passive use. That topic should have been dropped right there. Instead, scare tactics were used to lead the town to believe that putting a dog park in that spot was going to change the meaning of open space, therefor leading to further development.
Was the dog park an issue in and of itself? when it was convenient. Sometimes the argument would go to barking, grass, smell, safety, etc. That argument was used when they wanted to use it. Their whole campaign was "preserve Brookfield". From what? Providing the community an acre of town land to get together with their dogs? 431 people got out to vote for a dog park. That says something. They knew exactly what they were voting for. The "no" side were voting for too many different reasons. They voted no because they didn't want further development on HL. It's been said a bunch of times...It wasn't about a dog park. It was about fear.

Kathleen Gemmell July 1, 2012 at 05:12 am

Thank you to Lisa, Jill, Dave and Barb for your responses to "A Penny for My Thoughts.' My blog was to comment on my observation that ,while using the media, some handled themselves emotionally as opposed to intellectually. I see this interesting phenomenon in other areas,,,including the current health care debate.

kevin allan July 1, 2012 at 07:32 am

Hi Jill - Could you clarify your comment please, was this neighbor arguing for or against the park at HL, its unclear to me. I read this as an argument against since, why put it at HL if someone had donated land. For the record, there has been no land donated that the dog park proponents are aware of. The only thing I can think of is someone from the opposition offered to sell a plot of his land to us for around $200k, not donated in anyway. Appreciate if you could answer, thanks!

kevin allan July 1, 2012 at 07:37 am

Hi Barb, do you know where can one find history on Happy Landings? I have searched but unfortunately can't seem to find anything.

Lisa Allan July 1, 2012 at 04:38 pm

Kathleen, with all due respect there was a lot of intellectual comments. Yes it got emotional and personal. That doesn't mean there was no intellect involved. I believe the two went hand in hand.