OSWEGO, NY – Three residents raised a bone of contention at Monday’s meeting of the Common Council regarding a proposed city dog park.
The council was considering establishing a dog park at the Crisafulli baseball diamond area of Breitbeck Park for a one-year term.
However, Martha Czirr and Julie and Jerry Losurdo who live across the street from the site raised several questions, including whether the city leased the property solely for “youth sports.”
Czirr said she wasn’t in favor of a dog park. It would be a hazard to the children in the playground at nearby Breitbeck Park, she added.
Julie Losurdo wondered who would clean up after the canines.
Her husband said he believes the VFW had given the city permission to use the Crisafulli Park for $1 for 100 years – “to be used for youth sports.”
“If they put a dog park there, then they go against the agreement,” he said.
“When you have a dog park, people that use the park, almost 99 percent of the time, are responsible enough to pick up after their pets,” Councilor Connie Cosemento said.
However, to ensure the residents get all their questions answered, she moved to table the resolution. The rest of the council unanimously agreed (5-0-2, councilors Mike Myers and Cathy Santos were absent).
“The residents raised some questions and we will get them answers,” Council President Ron Kaplewicz said. “It won’t hurt to put this off for two weeks.”
In other action Monday night:
The council approved various requests to use public space.
Betty Gray, tenant of a two-family dwelling owned by Tom Kells at 89 E. Cayuga St. wants permission to install a handicap ramp between the sidewalk and the front porch, fronting on East Cayuga Street.
Fran and Diane Enwright want to use Montcalm Park on Sept. 24 at 2 p.m. fro the wedding of their son, David, to Jugju Lee. They also requested permission to erect a small tent in case of rain.
The OHS Chamber Singers want to use the McCrobie Civic Center to hold a fundraiser on Sept. 30 from 4 to 11 p.m.
Burt Milligan, owner of the Blue Plate Seafood restaurant, 42 W. Second St., wants to construct a new 27.5’ by 10’ open deck and stair as well as a new 25’ by 7’ handicap ramp between the sidewalks and property line contiguous to the building at the northwest corner of West Seneca and Schuyler streets.
This was approved by the council (Resolution No. 231 of 2011). But, it didn’t include the property owner’s name. It was under the operator’s name (Brian Girad).
Resolution 231 was rescinded and the new resolution (with the owner’s name) OK’d by the council.
missing or outdated ad config
Pet Park? What about another location within the City limits that is less invasive of residential?
I was thinking that there must be other places, and many owners, myself included, would be willing to even ‘drive’ my pet to somewhere I could allow my domestic animal to have a ‘wild experience’ off leash for a few minutes. Currently, no animal can be on any city street without being leashed.
As for the fear of the clean up, it might be less invasive to property owners (there is an odor involved even when pet waste is removed…if you don’t believe it, check out on a warm summer day the ‘spots’ regularly used by any pet). How about using ‘community service folks’ for this? There are currently many more folks that do work restitution for petty crimes than locations in which to place them. These folks, maybe even two at a time, or with the assistance with an Ameri-Corp or maybe a correctional officer who might check in on them to make certain they are there, could work off their service in the outdoors, and the pet park would be supervised when open. It would be part of their job to make certain pet owners clean up after their pet, and maybe they can sprinkle lime or something at the end of the evening, when it closes.
There might be a limit (monitored by the staff member) to just a few animals each time, or certain sizes together at certain hours, and/or no animal with a history of dangerous behavior would be allowed in.
And maybe it might be gated off for different sized animals. Large together, etc.
Maybe an ID would be required you get from City Hall, or the Animal Shelter, in order to use the park. Getting one’s dog mauled by a larger, more dangerous pet, is always a consideration in these matters, and non-pet owners would not want the City taxpayers responsible for any lawsuits. THIS might solve this. Although there is the fear that an animal not registered (no fee, because a fee would nullify the security aspect) would be allowed in and be a problem.
I would love to have a place to take my pet to ‘run full tilt,’ even a few times a year. It is so sad that these regal creatures need to live like prisoners shackled for life, even if this is the only life they’ve ever known. I sometimes feel that way about dogs in the city.
Debbie
(obviously a dog owner)
BTW: Glad to hear the seafood location is doing well enough to expand! Yeah.
I feel they should find a different place for the dog park. I love the idea of having one but not there. There are empty lots in the city were they could make a dog park so it will beable to stay in one place. As i take it sometime you would have to find another place to put one. Stop and think it cost money to make a dog park so to save money why not find a place were it will beable to stay in one spot. I love animals but just stop and not jump in to something that could be a lot better place to put one.