Laurie Gilman, a retired editorial and research director, has lived in Westport for 15 years. An avid reader, she recently helped establish the Winslow Book Club.
She has a significant other of 40 years, many beloved nieces and nephews, and an 8-year-old pug named Charley who was taken in when he was a year old. Charley walks her around Winslow Park nearly every day. Laurie writes:
We are less than a week away from a vote by the Planning & Zoning Commission on Text Amendment #874. It would alter the zoning laws at Winslow Park in order to build a “dogport” — a fenced area for dogs.
A survey, petition and letters show this is unpopular among dog owners and citizens who want to preserve open space in Westport.
Winslow Park (Photo/Ron Henkin)
The only convincing argument for this project is for dog safety. Gaps remain in the park’s perimeter, where dogs can reach busy roads. Very well thought out, detailed plans have been submitted to the P&Z website that would remove those gaps, and cost Westport less in terms of money and open space.
In addition to ignoring the good ideas to fence the park, a dogport has its own problems with dog safety — for example, dogs being more aggressive in an enclosed area. So we’re pretty sure this isn’t about the issue of dog safety. Far from it.
The amendments explicitly states, “By concentrating off-leash activities into a designated area the proposal helps reduce conflicts between park users, improves predictability for families and walkers, and promotes responsible pet ownership through rules, regulations, and accountability.”
How is it possible to “concentrate” all unleashed dog activity into a dogport when the majority of dog owners at Winslow want to walk with their dogs? Only if rules are changed that force dog owners into the dog port.
Dogs, on and off leash.
A rule requiring dogs to be leashed throughout the park could happen. But that won’t go far enough, because dog owners will still want to walk their dogs on leash. What is more likely is taking the extraordinary step of denying dog owners access to the rest of the park.
“The proposal helps reduce conflicts between park users.” We think the dog owners at Winslow have a very good relationship with all the other users of the park: kids riding bikes or scooters or sleighing during the winter; parents walking their children who stop to pet our dogs, and people of all ages out getting their walk in.
We have never witnessed a conflict between park users without dogs and those with dogs. We have seen conflicts between dog owners. If you were to go to the park today you might find posters of a woman whose dog attacked another dog, and did not take responsibility for the aggressive behavior from her dog.
We are all aware of this incident, and are on the lookout for the owner and her dog if they return. We are a community that acts to keep the park peaceful and protect all its users.
Winslow Park community. (Photo/Cat Malkin)
Finally, a dog port “promotes responsible pet ownership through rules, regulations, and accountability.” There are already rules and regulations posted at Winslow, and the vast majority of owners follow them. Keeping dog owners accountable seems to imply bad behavior of dogs. That can happen in or outside of a dog port.
We all value the beautiful open space and trails at Winslow. By passing this amendment and “concentrating off-leash activity,” dog owners are rightfully concerned that their access to the rest of the park will end.
It’s not a stretch to imagine other uses of the park will replace us. What those may be should concern all of Westport residents who want to protect the unique and cherished open area that is Winslow.
Laurie Gilman
On behalf of the Friends of Winslow Park
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all readers. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To help support this hyper-local blog, please click here.)
Close up dog access to North Compo Rd and the park is fine as it is. Thank you.
Perimeter fence on N. Compo. Win. Win. Woof.
Agree though you still have to contend with the car entrance and exit on Compo North.
For those dog owners who want a fenced in dog park, there is already one in neighboring Weston you could frequent. It is not restricted to Weston only residents as per their parks and rec department. For the rest of us who cherish the open space of Winslow and walk our dogs there off leash and unfenced, please just let it be. it has been wonderful as is for generations of dogs and their families.
Winslow is so wonderful, please don’t let a fence take this beautiful space away from people who want to walk
In the woods with their dogs offleash. People can walk dogs on leashes anywhere, and if your dog must be fenced in maybe they can fence in their own yards. Please just let Winslow be.
Odd suggestion. Wouldn’t the obvious response be “why not let your dog run around off leash in your unfenced yard while you are outside with them?”
Frankly, what Winslow park really should be used for is Rowan controlled affordable housing.
Town controlled.
Happy to ask for a show of hands as to who wants Winslow Park turned into Co-op City.
I didn’t think so.
Show of hands who want affordable housing built next to them or anywhere else in Westport except, of course, in a theoretical virtue signaling “we need more affordable housing” way.
I didn’t think so.
The problem is, by law, Westport needs more affordable housing but no one is coming up with solutions. That results in developers going (or threatening) the 8-30g route. As many have pointed out, that math doesn’t really get to the required outcome.
In that context, the best way to avoid Co-op City is for the town to control the development. Or, everyone can keep their heads in the sand and hope for a Republican takeover of the state legislature and repeal of 8-30g which isn’t happening any time soon.
I’ve followed the effort to create a small fenced area at Winslow Park, as I have two dogs who like to run, but who I prefer to be unleashed in enclosed areas. I appreciate the leaders of the Dogport effort, who have presented the case for a small fenced dog run with clarity, and patience. I don’t see how the proposed fenced area jeopardizes the freedom of the dog owners who “cherish the open space” of Winslow, as there would still be a large unfenced space where dogs can be unleashed and the paths on which dogs can be walked on leashes. The various essays expressing resistance to a fenced space list negatives that are debatable, given the popularity and success of fenced dog runs in several neighboring towns.
thank you, Laura! youve captured exactly what we’re proposing. a small fenced in area, adds an option without taking anything away–the overwhelmingly majority of Winslow Park remains open, and the existing off-leash experience remains AS IS. its about adding choice, not replacing what people already enjoy.
Laura, I resepect your point of view, however, it’s not about the dogport itself, it’s about a text amendment to change the land usage. If that passes anyone who would like to see something built on the property can start submitting to P & Z. Of course it will have to be approved by the board, but you start going down a slippery slope with P&Z being inundated with all types of new plans. The bottom line, you just don’t know what and how the land will be developed once you pass the Text Amendment. If Westport really needs a “dogport”, find another piece of property to accomplish that goal.
Cannot. It’s designated open space. I’m asking for preexisting fence to have an enclosure.
Andrew:
What you’ve been asking for has been changing so much that it has been hard to follow except by rumor. Perhaps it is time that you write your own Op Ed and clearly lay out what it is that you want and why you still defend the language that is in your amendment.
Laurie
I have a dog related question. Why isn’t there a CT law that prohibits dogs from sitting on a driver’s lap while they’re driving? It’s not cute in Westport. It’s unsafe everywhere.
If I want to see a ‘Yogi Bear’ I’ll go to the dog park. We don’t need to see you or your lap dog while you’re driving.
Spencer, You have to be overly attached to your dog if the dog is on your lap while driving. You might be a very lonely person too. It’s potentially dangerous too.
Keep open space
I have a non-dog related question. I’m looking for a book group to join. May I join your book group?
Hi Amy:
I’m sorry but the group all agreed to cap the number of members and we’ve reached that cap. But if you want to set a time and date to meet at the Library to discuss starting another book club I would gladly join you in that effort.
Laurie
Thank you to Laurie Gilman for an intelligent and observant article. Open space is a definite high priority. Unfortunate to know the irresponsible woman ,and her dog with aggressive behavior thinks she is tolerated. Ms. Gilman makes numerous excellent points. My thanks to her group.
Keeping Winslow as open space is extremely important given the over development in this town. It is a gem of 23 acres of open, undeveloped park land – like The central park of Westport. The issue isn’t so much about a fenced dog area in town but rather the location. Those proposing the fenced in dog area at Winslow jeopardize Winslow as open space for the future, as text amendments are very dangerous and a slippery slope. Passing of this text amendment won’t be a one and done specifying the amendment change just for use for this dog fence but instead the text change can and likely will open the door for other structures and proposed development at Winslow in the future. Very important to note that the promises being made by the Applicant and the RTM supporting her for the dog fence project cannot guarantee that the remainder of the park will remain AS IS as that is not a promise they can make. Yet they continue to say it which is very misleading and disingenuous. I urge Westport residents interested in keeping Winslow Park open space AS IS should write to P&Z or join the meeting on 9/14 and voice your opinion.
Does Andrew Colabella own a dog and utilize Winslow or is this just grandstanding on his part?