During last night's council meeting Neil Baron made a number of interesting comments during the dog park debate.
He proclaimed:
"The hundreds of petition signers I got"
I am hopeful someone will post a text of Baron's most memorable "dog park" comments.
Nonetheless, I applaud the citizens that spoke on both sides of the issue. In some cases the fuzzy logic was most entertaining. A gentleman spoke connecting the need for a dog park, pet waste, and Clear Lake clean water issues. I am glad someone else cares about Clear Lake water quality.
Does anyone else find it odd that a councilman would be a leader of a special interest group and use his elected position to advocate the group's special-use park?
Some have raised the question of a possible ethics issue. What do you think?
ps.
I did hear a good idea. A private organization could lease city land (or get private land donation) and operate the dog park by volunteer activities and donations. Why not?
29 comments:
I am a dog owner and personally against a city operated dog park but I do like the idea of a dog park built with private donations. Heck I would even donate! Why not land donated or purchased by some of the developers? Great PR for them! Let the city lease out the land already set aside for the dog park. Why not get Petco and Petsmart to sponsor? This has a world of possibilities that do not cost taxpayers or take money from existing park funds.
It's amazing that even until the last minute the proponents refused to even consider such partnerships. It would seem to me that a 501(c)3 would seek to expand it's expenditures beyond websites to such partnerships.
It's utterly selfish when people expect the government to completely provide frills for their pets.
I laughed at Neil's comments reported by GDN. Somebody thinks too highly of his pet.
Yea BHL. Bark9 is very impressed with their pet on council. I agree.
I am sorry that Phyllis disregarded the clear will of the people. Really sorry.
Neil is a mess but I had hopes that Phyllis was finaly starting to come around and understand how her roles relates to the people. It's all just a shame.
There were more people who voted in the various surveys than voted in any of these council person's elections. If they are that worried about the accuracy of the representation then they should step down immediately until a REAL election can be had with enough voters that Neil is confident in the outcome.
Why not partner with the County? The City could put up the land, the County could build it out and the Dog Park Association could be the Poop Patrol!
Babs,
I like your idea.
For the hard working dedicated folks of BARK I think this is a great opportunity to think outside the box.
Would I like to see a League City dog park? Yes, why not. How about eastside and westside parks?
Do I want Suzy to drive miles in traffic to socialize and let Rover, Spot, and Jake romp and socialize? NO
Can this be accomplished without city/park fund money?
After all, private funds support HOA Parks, golf courses, fitness centers, martial arts studios, etc, etc.
Astonishing as it sounds, Bow Wow Baron is launching yet another dog people park petition. Signators will have to be property owners.
What is he thinking? If a petition that included out-of-towners and was conducted in front of Petco, and one that polled only apartment dwellers couldn't generate sufficient interest, how can one like this become anything but a bigger embarrassment for the dog people?
Before the city can provide land, we'd need to get Arnold's opinion on liability. I don't know if a concession or leasor signing an affidavit to hold the city harmless would do it or not. Unlike Bow Wow, I am NOT a lawyer.
Lots of information on private dog parks can be found by simple Google search.
Here is one discussion:
(cut and paste)
http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-magazines/dogfancy/dog-fancy-americas-best-dog-parks-2009.aspx
I have inquired of Neil on the other blog regarding a partnership with Galco. If you read that blog you will also see that I've unilaterally called a ceasefire with regards to his dog park activities. No more Neil-bashing for me.
Let's put our best efforts forward and lead by example by working for a boundless playground, nature park improvements, and hike/bike trails.
How noble-sounding. But is Neil willing to do that? Launching yet another dog petition sounds to me like he still doesn't have a clue and isn't ready to wake up and smell the dog poop.
I hope he is really ready to compromise, and is not just bending you over. I'll wait and see.
"Wait and see" is a good position to take.
I love the way people bash Neil Baron for voicing his stand on this (and other) issues. Would you rather have a councilman that sits back and does nothing? To who ever said that NB needs to wake up and smell the poop ... I happen to know that Neil is a dog wner, I am sure he wakes up and smell the poop every morning! I am NOT a pet owner, and I am in complete support of a dog park. It's progression with the current times. I voiced my opinion in another blog about the 1970's way of thinking in this city! Wake up people, it is the 21st century! If you want to live in the past, without progressing to todays standards, feel free to move to Tombstone, AZ. I just returned from vacationing their ... It is a nice little town that is stuck in the 1800's. Modernize your way of thinking people. And by the way, Neil Baron at least shows that he has a back-bone by voicing his concerns and thoughts to better the city. It's more than other so-called leaders have done! You don't have to agree with Neil's ideas, but at least respect the man for taking on a leadership role and voicing his thoughts! until you as an individual dedicate countless hours to serving the city in an elected position, don't be so quick to criticize.
Let me also add ... I am not NB's puppet or spokesman. I happen to respect the man for taking the bull by the horns on numerous matters!
If you don't have a use for a dog park, does that mean the city shuldn't build it? I, personally have no use for the library, does that mean that the city should tear it down? HELL NO! Many OTHER people do utilize the library. If you don't personally have a need for a dog park, so be it. MANY other tax payers do have a need for such facilities. Oh yeah, I NEVER drive on 96, so I say the city should tear it up and restore the green space being utilized. Now, you think I am be insane ... That's my point exactly! Don't be insane in YOUR way of thinking just because YOU don't own a dog, or have a use for a dog park. YOU are not the only tax paying citizen in League City, Texas.
I certainly hope you feel better now, even if your arguments have holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.
Neil's "leadership"? Now that's a laugh. He is "leading" a parade of roughly ten-percent of the people who can't think for themselves and can only keep up with the Joneses (anti-smoking, pro-dog, boardwalk, whatever). The dog parade was already going before Neil came along and merely jumped in front of it with his baton twirling and "See me, I'm a LAWYER!" grandstanding.
Newer is not always progressive or better. Rushing into it never is. Next, you'll have us tearing down all the oak trees because they are not the new, latest, progressive thing.
The library, on the other hand, is a different matter. We are well into becoming an electronic world where the post office, library and other 1800s tree-killing concepts will go the way of the typewriter and carbon paper. And good riddance.
The real leaders are the majority on our council who are paying attention to what their constituents want, not what a selfish few want the rest of us to buy them.
So go beat your drum for poor, oppressed and misunderstood Neil. He's out-of-step and really needs your support right now, 'kay?
"Wake up people, it is the 21st century! "
Jamey. Please take your own words to heart. In the 21st century should we put dogs ahead of kids in wheelchairs? Should we put dogs ahead of promoting and educating about the ecosystem we live in?
In the 21st century, should we establish and work to priorities?
In the 20th century, LC was run by Walter Hall. What Walter wanted, Walter got. The people's priorities were second fiddle.
Think very carefully about it Jamey.
whoops. before someone goes off and makes a false accusation. My comments are not directed at Neil, they were specifically addressing Jamey's thought process.
I see you got that phone call. They called me by mistake. Our numbers must be similar.
Background music reminded me of a cheesy Vincent Price flick, and then the recorded voice started.
"BHL... BHL... Come to the dark side..."
I kept interrupting, saying "I am not BHL," and "Stop it, Neil!" But the recording could not hear. It commanded me not to speak ill of the Prince of Darkness. At last it said something about me getting sleepy and that when I awoke, I wouldn't remem...
Uh, what happened? I must have dozed off. I had this strange dream. I must serve Neil. Must serve Neil. Must...
Paul,
I think you were dreaming. We voted out the prince of darkness two elections ago.
BHL: Point taken. I do not think a dog park should come first before such matters you spoke of. I completely agree with you there. But, I did speak about sharing the cost of a dog park with the county parks dept. in a different post about the dog park issues. My thoughts are to simply utilize an unused portion of Walter Hall Park. Parking, restrooms and other infrastructer are already there. The cost would be minimal do to only needing to erect a fence for such an area.
Sharing of infrastructure facilities is great idea.
Mix this with an operational agreement between non-profit organization and city or county facility and you have a winner.
In the case of Walter Hall Park there appears to be excess land and also nearby land (in flood hazard area) that might be purchased or leased at reasonable rate.
Land encumbered by easements and within flood prone areas would be well suited for additional park area.
Councilman Baron,
I am puzzled by your email I just received.
As I have stated before, I am generally opposed to posting personal emails.
However, this email was broadcast to at least 30 persons including other council members.
You stated “frankly you should have long ago requested removal from this particular hate filled email chain.”
First of all, I must disagree with your perception of this “hate filled email list”.
Secondly, because you see my email address on a list please do not assume to know my position on any particular matter.
I am for a dog park. I would consider donation of time and resources to assist in creation of dog park that is sponsored and operated by a private non-profit organization.
Councilman Baron's Email to follow.
Email from Councilman Baron
Hello
Dan/Chris
Why dont you leave Phyllis alone? You know I am the one you are really after and you know exactly where to find me. The action of council Tuesday night completely abrogated the prior will of the duly elected representatives of the people from 2 prior councils for purely political reasons. The clumsily orchestrated appearance of channel 2 was so clearly the result of a political agenda that it was laughable. I mean the "camera man" they sent must have been hastily hired earlier that day. He could barely figure out how to set up his tripod in time to film the dramatic "footage".
Dan
For about the one millionth time the park dedication fund cannot be used to construct or maintain drainage ditches AND we are working on the drainage issue. I have received numerous emails from open minded citizens thanking us and the hard working city staff for the work crews that have been out throughout the city clearing ditches and taking other corrective measures. Your continued refusal to acknowledge their efforts and to give us time to solve these issues during budget denigrates their hard work and completely destroys your credibility.Some of the very people who have thanked me are on this email chain!
Do you also want us to shut down the sportsplex and League Park and the Senior Program and the youth sports programs and the Nature Center and Heritage Park etc etc etc all of which were and are maintained with general revenue funds/grant funding and other tax generated public revenues? What kind of city do you really want to live in? You can continue to send these silly negative emails or you can come find me to talk person to person about it!Whatever happened to the meeting at your house to examine the drainage problem in your neighborhood. I am still waiting to hear from you!
Chris
Exactly where did you study democracy? You do realize that we take an oath to represent all of the people dont you? That includes voters and nonvoters,adults and children,pet owners and non pet owners etc etc.Do you also want us to close the town library and countryside park and cancel the Girardi House project, BLM the Eastern Regional Park and the Hike and Bike trail system all of which are also funded and or maintained with general fund revenues/grant funding and other public generated tax revenues?
Government by"consent of the governed" includes all of the people not just the select few that think the same as you or who were allegedly contacted in that "scientific anonymous phone poll" conducted by the terrifically annoying auto dial.I am sure our hard working citizens were overjoyed to receive another politically motivated recorded call.Incidentally I did not get a call even though I have voted in many many city/county/state/national elections. What is the matter? Dont you guys like me?
There are a number of people on this list whom I personally know(not to mention more than a few whom I have helped out of one jam or another)and frankly you should have long ago requested removal from this particular hate filled email chain. The authors are against the farmers market concept,the BLM museum,the dog park etc etc etc. How long do you think it will be before they also speak against the projects YOU want?
Neil G. Baron
League City City Council
Position 1
300 West Walker
League City, Texas 77573
Neil.Baron@leaguecity.com
281-910-0108
I haven't looked recently, but there used to be tall chain link along a considerable portion of the line between the county park and private property west of it. In that never-used southwest corner, you'd need fence on only three sides to have a nice, shaded, enclosed dog run. Related facilities aren't far away.
Don't know if the county will want to hear this, after they spent a big wad in the park already, seemingly to flex their jurisdiction at a time when LC city officials were foolishly talking about building a "rivermarket" right through the middle of a park that's not theirs.
I have said this before and will again.
Take the 194k and divide in 2 put a dog park and boundless playground in a park on the east side and one on the west side bingo we kill many birds with one stone.
Has for my Baron I am sorry I wasted my vote on him now. Really wished I could have it back or he would just go away.
You know what the old saying is foolish is what foolish does so I guess we will just have to deal with him.
Has he said oppose projects with so much infrastructure problems around League City that is a very good idea think what all that money on the loser idea of a BLH project that would not be used much would have done for drainage.
Oh and before any get on me about history of League City I know it and many of the people including Hall. My family has 70+ years in League City.
Since Paul posted Neil's email, I thought it might be good to see my answer. BTW, I got a friendly email from Phyllis who promised to respond in detail later when her computer is working.
---------------------------------
Stuff it Neil. Don't tell me what I want or what to do. I didn't pick on anyone I responded to an email sent to me. I notice neither you nor Phylis bothered to respond to these very points when I sent them to you directly BEFORE the vote. And now I wrote to someone whom I respect who I felt disappointed me and her constituents. Every point I made was spot on and you know it.
Let me cue you in to something. I THOUGHT THE DOG PARK WAS NOT TOO BAD OF AN IDEA!!! None the less, when the preponderance of information available indicated that the park was not just a low priority for citizens but that they where overwhelmingly against it, I tried to respectfully ask the council to respect the wishes of the people.
If you are so sure you are on the right side of this issue, rent a dialer and ask the whole darn city. You brag on blogs etc. about the money you spend on this thing or that thing. Well role out the doe and ask the people. Ask every last one of them. Many won't respond but you ARE familiar with representative sampling I would assume. However, we already have a larger sampling base than we we had in your election and I don't see you running around doubting the validity of those results.
Chris Stevens
Mr. Stevens,
You wrote: "I am sorry that Phyllis [Sanborn] disregarded the clear will of the people."
You also wrote: "If they [i.e. council members] are that worried about the accuracy of the representation then they should step down immediately..."
Your lynch mob mentality against this twice elected council member reeks of hypocrisy. You're the one who asked me "Why do you have to be so angry at someone for disagreeing with you?"
And don't give me spin masquerading as "the will of the people." The single issue poll on which you grasp so tightly reminds me of the brainless "spin polls" I see and ignore daily on popular news websites. The yes/no mutually exclusive radio buttons are exactly the kind of "binary thinking" I've been exhorting against for years. Can you imagine if we have a yes/no poll, one by one, on every new park project that comes up in League City? Not a single new park would be created. If the proposed park is on the west side of town, the east siders would come out in force to kill it. And vice versa. At least the 2005 parks survey had some degree of tradeoffs presented. Not a single effort to determine "the will of the people" with respect to city parks has included both tradeoffs and cost, elements crucial to properly managing a public parks system. Management by spin polling leads to chaos and waste.
Sometimes the needs of the few outwiegh the needs of the many.
Yeah, a park for ferrets with fedoras, and the rest of y'all can go take a flying leap.
Post a Comment