Response to Chris Pelly; Cecil Bothwell Agrees

Cecil Bothwell (cecil@braveulysses.com)

Add to contacts

10/31/13
To: John

I agree with your viewpoint on this, John.

-c

On Oct 30, 2013, at 12:34 PM, John  wrote:

---

From: 
To: chrispelly@avlcouncil.com
Subject: Your Proposed Nov 6 Meeting
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:57:14 -0400

Last Sunday, you stepped over to our group (at the Festival of Neighborhoods) and proposed a meeting to discuss alternatives to the dog park.  You suggested the Beaverdam Valley should be canvassed to determine what use should be made of this land which may be donated.  You said the neighborhoods should be "organized" so community sentiment can easily be assessed on this and future issues.   

We thought these were constructive ideas.

As involved residents, we know our community overwhelmingly opposes the dog park.  We know our few neighbors who favor the dog park, and we remain friends.  We are not "Hatfields and McCoys" as you suggest.  So the idea of canvassing the community is appealing.  But how can this be done?

Organizing the community, you say.  But disposing of the dog park issue and organizing the community are two separate projects.  There is no reason why dog park advocates should have any special representation in a community organization effort.  The same is true for opponents.  If there is to be a meeting to plan how to organize, the first step should be for each homeowners' group to appoint a delegate.  We should build on what's already in place, not start all over again.  The organizing group should not be in the business of taking a stand on the dog park, but merely setting up a means by which neighbors can be canvassed on that and other concerns.

But "organizing the community" just to decide the dog park issue may be a bit of overkill.  And, once "organized" can a poll be taken that will be regarded as definitive?  Would a surveymonkey.com poll be quicker and just as reliable?  Or you could simply stand on Wild Cherry at Beaverdam, ask passers-by and get a good sample!

The terms of the meeting you suggest are not appropriate.  First, you are a dog park advocate.  The moderator should be unbiased, and seen as such.  Second, if this meeting is to organize the community, the attendees are wrong, as discussed above.  Third, with the proposed attendees, it appears the meeting would be more of a sales pitch for the dog park, a rerun of July 18.  I do not see how any credible positive outcome could result from such a meeting.