A little bird told me that the Dog Park issue may be decided without regard for the petition. The Board wants to determine River Park’s use right after annexation in order to avoid potential dog-related litigation, probably in 60-90 days.
How interesting! I don’t know exactly WHO said it, only that “some people were talking”.
Oo-oo! I love that. It’s so FOX News-ish. Some people say …
Isn’t this fun?
Because of how I heard about it – via email – it seems obvious the rumor was intended for my ears – or eyes.
I asked Tod – since he’s on the Board and all – and he didn’t know a thing about it. Gosh. I sure hope that doesn’t mean OTHER Trustees are discussing the River Park issue and making decisions outside public meetings. They would NEVER do something like that. No.
Because if they did, somebody might find out about it and raise a stink about the Colorado Sunshine Law. And they wouldn’t want THAT hanging over their heads.
Potential dog-related litigation.
What is that? Perhaps this whole petition thing amounts to wrong-thinking on my part. Maybe instead we should’ve formed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the DOGS.
The truth is, there is no there there. Potential dog-related litigation is a non-issue.
That’s like saying if I walk down the street and a dog runs out and bites me, I can sue the town.
That’s like saying if river rafters or fisherman that use River Park get injured, they can sue the town.
That’s like saying if a kid gets hurt playing soccer in a Silt Park, his parents can sue the town.
If that’s the case then they’d better close ALL the parks and while they’re at it take out all the playground equipment to avoid any potential monkey bars-related litigation.
Last December, Tod and I met with Rick Aluise (Town Mgr), Silt Police Chief Paul Taylor, and Pamela Barber (Town Atty) and they said there is NO POTENTIAL FOR DOG-RELATED LITIGATION. The town is not liable. Period.
There was a brief discussion by Trustees last November about putting up a sign. If that’s what it takes to appease those who are worried about liability, then so be it. I haven’t taken a position on sign-age. The Trustees can battle that out. It doesn’t matter.
According to Rick Aluise, the annexation process requires at least 3 more meetings. So the first possible opportunity for a discussion about River Park use would be March 26 – even sooner than 60-90 days. I hope to have the petition turned in before then. But I’m not sure.
As I’ve probably mentioned I do have 6 MONTHS to collect signatures. That’s part of the petition process outlined in the Silt Town Charter.
The reality is the petition signers must be residents of Silt who are registered voters. I can talk to 20 people and get 5 signatures. Finding eligible signers takes as long as it takes. I’m not complaining. I just think I should be allowed to gather signatures without the threat of pre-emptive strikes by the Trustees hanging over my head.
A game of Gotcha over River Park is a really bad idea.
Since last November when The Mayor brought up dogs at River Park, I have followed procedures. My letters, verbal comments, meetings, the petition, and even my blog have always been respectful of the process.
I wonder why that same respect is not being shown to me, the petition, the petition signers, and all the people who have written letters and spoken out on behalf of the dogs at River Park.
Since there is no pending litigation or any emergency relating to the status of dogs at River Park, what’s the big damn hurry?
I think it says a lot about any Trustee who wants to make decisions before the people can be fully heard. It says that Trustee represents his own interests, and not the people of Silt.
While I DON’T understand the disrespect for the people – since the Trustees are elected officials and all – I DO GET the message. Some Trustees feel threatened by the people’s participation in the process.
So bite me.
BTW, just for laughs go to My Space and read my latest blog entry, If I was President …
Scroll down the page and check out my book slider while you’re there.