Hello! Thanks for reading this. I’ve tried to outline the inconsistencies I have found from the village in this situation and some of the reasons I am frustrated with the village’s decision regarding the George Street dog park. I’m warning you this post is quite lengthy, but I tried to be thorough in explaining what I think are the holes in the village board’s argument and my thoughts and opinions on them. I will include relevant links where possible. Some of the sites and news coverage have a paywall so you may not be able to access it. If interested, please email me at kelly@kellyinbabylon.com

On January 20, the village announced that they had voted to close the George Street Dog Park and enhance the Locust Avenue Dog Park. They have decided to make it the “premier” dog park by including a host of additions and enhancements.

The Decision to close the park and renovate Locust Avenue

To begin, I think the things that bothers me the most about this issue is that absolutely none of the users of the George St dog park have said they want this. This was a solution proposed by the people who want to close the George st dog park, and not the people who would use the new park. In short, this was the suggestion of the anti-dog park crowd.

There was never any requests to the village board by dog park users to expand or enhance the park, aside from routine maintenance. The board insists that this new park will be an amazing attraction. Maybe it will. But this is not what anybody actually wants. There are many people who use the George Street Dog Park, some of whom have asked for updates and renovations, but no one who uses the George st wants a big, premier dog park. We want to keep what we have.

The Charm of George Street Dog Park

One of the things that is so great about this park is that it is NOT very busy. A “premier” dog park may get more crowded and be busier. One of the most charming parts of this park is that it is often not busy- usually, there’s no one even there!! This has been essential for many of us.

For me, my pup Eli does not like being in the park when there are many dogs there. This is one of several reasons I do not take him to Gardner dog park in Bay Shore or other larger dog parks nearby. I know of a couple people whose dogs need exercise, but their dogs are not very social so they only enter the park if their dogs will be alone to get their dogs to run around and throw a tennis ball, etc. Many of these people live in apartments or condos with no yards, so this park is a lifeline. The village board seems to not care about this, and I find it absolutely devastating.

This village board decided to make these renovations to the locust avenue park without any regard to the people who actually use the village dog parks. Additionally, the locust avenue park is also rarely busy. I don’t know of many people who use that park, besides one dog walker and one of the trustees who voted to close the George St. park. I can only imagine those who do use this park are not thrilled by the prospect of this park getting much busier either.

Why close the park at all?

Another thing I find concerning is the clear disconnect between the mayor’s letter announcing the closure of the dog park and her subsequent public and private statements about the decision. Here is a copy of the mayors letter from January 20, 2022:

This letter clearly references “comments and submissions of village residents” and says that the decision “was made in response to community concerns.” This seems to indicate that the village made this decision because of the complaints about noise. Yet when I spoke to Mayor Adams that very night the tone had changed and it was suddenly about safety. Here’s why I find this illogical: no one who spoke at any of the board meetings suggested that there was any kind of safety issue at the park.

I think that when Mayor Adams said this she was grasping at straws to find a more attractive reason for the closure because many people find the community concerns about the sound of barking to be a little ridiculous. By making it about safety I believe she thought she had reason to make this decision since it’s harder for people to argue about safety than about people upset over barking. However, this argument about safety is so feeble that even the slightest scrutiny shows it does not add up.

Police

Now, I am willing to admit that there have been calls to the police about the dog park. But in the six months before this decision was made, there were three. One of those calls was someone upset over barking dogs. This does not constitute a safety threat. Another of the three calls involved an off-leash dog outside of the dog park attacking an on-leash dog. This occurred in the field outside of the dog park. This should not be used as evidence of a safety threat at the dog park since the incident occurred in the nearby field, and not inside the actual dog park proper. Also, everyone I know who wants to keep the dog park open would support stricter enforcement of the village code with regard to off leash dogs. This does not create a reason to close the dog park.

Finally, the third call to police was made by a user of the dog park (person A) in response to an individual who resides in whalers cove (person B) jumping the fence, cursing at him and threatening him. I’m using person A and B to avoid using their real names, although many will know the identities of these individuals. Person B openly wants the dog park closed, spoke at the village board meeting asking them to close the dog park, and has been rude, aggressive, and threatening to people using the park. He has shown zero willingness to compromise. Now, if Person B is the reason for the “safety threat,” then the board has responded to the aggressive actions of this individual by giving him exactly what he wants and rewarding his poor behavior.

This is undemocratic, irresponsible, and just plain wrong. This is the only evidence of a “safety threat” that existed that I have been able to find. I am still awaiting my FOIL request of complaints from the dog park to code enforcement. However, I believe that anything that constituted a true safety threat would have been reported to police before code enforcement. So honestly, this is the only thing that turns up in a scrutiny of the safety issue.

Both sides?

Now, Mayor Adams claims that there have been issues of wrongdoing on “both sides” of this, and has cited poor language and discourteous but nonthreatening remarks made on social media. There was one post on social media which was taken to be threatening. However, this post was interpreted out of context, quickly removed, and the person who posted this remark has since apologized and clarified that there was, in fact, no harm meant by the post in any way. Also, this post was made after the announcement of the decision to close the dog park, so that particular post could not possibly have been used to justify closing the park. I address the way in which this post was taken out of context in my email to the board on January 26.

While people may not always be polite on social media, none of the comments made prior to the boards decision on January 19 warrant closing the dog park. Also, none of the posts made after January 19 warrant it either. I’m willing to admit some of the comments are unkind and critical of the current administration, but elected officials have no right to seek revenge for individuals being rude on social media by closing a beloved and popular community park.

More about safety

I want to return to the idea of the public safety threat. Mayor Adams has claimed that because of the calls to code enforcement, rude social media comments, and calls to police that there is a safety threat and it has come from both sides. I reject the idea that users of the dog park have created a safety threat. Further, one of the people who signed my petition is a Suffolk county police officer who said that there have been zero safety issues among people using the dog park. Any wrongdoing on behalf of people using the dog park has been greatly exaggerated by the current administration to justify this bad decision.

Hostilities?

In my phone call with Mayor Adams on February 9, she once again reiterated the public safety issue. Mayor Adams said that this was further proven by the fact that someone who spoke in favor of keeping the dog park open acknowledged that the situation is “hostile” and put emphasis on the fact that someone chose that exact word. She said that the village cannot have a “hostile” situation and the fact that it could be described as such justifies closing the park. First of all, I take issue with the fact that Mayor Adams is cherry picking this individuals words to justify her decision, when the individual spoke at length about the reasons for keeping the dog park open and made many multiple helpful suggestions to the board. It feels to me like she was only listening for what she wanted to hear.

However, even if it were the case that the situation is “hostile”- this person was referring to tensions between users of the dog park and this individual who has made a menace of himself to users of the dog park. Yet hostile does not necessarily create a threat or a safety issue. When my union was having stalled contract negotiations, people described the situation at work as “hostile.” When a witness in a court case is uncooperative to attorney questioning, he or she can be described as a “hostile” witness. This word alone does not justify a threat. When a witness is hostile or when one feels hostility from an employer or an uncomfortable situation, it does not mean that anyone feels that they are in jeopardy.

In fact, I would even say that the Babylon Village Board’s attitude towards me is “hostile” since no one except Mayor Adams will speak with me or respond to my questions, even though I have been nothing but courteous and respectful towards them. Yes, I acknowledge that I have been openly critical of their decision, but the constitution is pretty clear that I have every single right to do this. I have availed myself of my legal and democratic rights but I have always done so in a peaceful, courteous and professional manner. I recognize they might take offense at what I have said or what I am writing now, but I am peacefully using my rights. While I am disappointed in what I would describe as their hostility towards me and my petition, I do not feel that there is any threat to my safety.

The Obligations of the Village

One of the reasons Mayor Adams states that she must close the dog park is because if there is a public safety threat that she knows about and does not act, then she is opening the village to liability. I have a lot of thoughts about this idea which I will have to address at another time. However, I believe that she is accurate in that when there is a credible threat, and someone in a position of authority knows about it, then yes those people are obligated to do something about it.

However, I believe the issue here is twofold. One, as I have stated above, I do not believe there is a credible threat to public safety, even though I do believe that the individual in whalers cove has been threatening and I have concerns about his behavior. Yet secondly, when an individual in a position of authority acts in response to the threat, that action should correspond to the actual threat. These officials should weigh the actual evidence of the threat, make a determination about the nature and credibility of the threat, and then work to minimize the threat.

As a public school teacher, I have worked in districts where there have been specific threats of a shooting on social media. Officials never chose to close the school, even for a day, and I believe that was the right call. Officials investigated the threat, determined that the threat was not credible, and yet instituted additional security measures in schools the next day which included police presence in school buildings and individuals being searched upon entry to school. This is a measured, thoughtful and reasoned response to a threat.

Now, the threat at these schools was far greater than the threat to people from a community dog park, yet the village of Babylon has responded to this in an entirely disproportionate way by voting to close the park altogether. Why not take more reasoned, measured and moderate steps? Why not ask for a greater presence from code enforcement? Why not ask the leaders of the Suffolk first precinct to have police drive by or stop at the park more frequently on patrol? Why not take the time to investigate the nature and credibility of this so-called threat? While I reject the village’s argument about liability, there are a host of other actions the village could take if it did interpret a threat that would minimize liability while still allowing residents to use their beloved community dog park.

The swift decision to close the dog park is a wildly inappropriate response. It is reactionary, extreme, and undemocratic. Peaceful and respectful users of the dog park are being punished by losing access to a vital community resource while the board has taken drastic and unnecessary action.

What’s really going on here?

Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that this decision was never actually about public safety at all. I think there was something else at play. When I addressed the board at the January 25 board meeting, I wanted to ask members of the board several questions. I was denied. However, I asked if the board members would respond individually to me if I were to send them an email. They all agreed they would. I sent an email on January 26 asking trustees Bencivenga, Cardali, and Silvestri to get back to me. (I have linked this above but will do so again here). On February 2, I spoke with the mayor and she said that the board members had received that email.

On February 8, I still had not heard from anyone. I mentioned this publicly in my speech to the board. The next day, Mayor Adams alone returned my call. She told me the decision was final and the board would not be changing their minds. But why won’t trustees Bencivenga, Cardali, or Silvestri speak with me? Why won’t they even respond to my emails? This has been extremely frustrating for me in that the elected officials of my small municipality will not speak with a resident who has organized a petition. Why?

To be clear, I still hope for and welcome any response from them. I will not be “hostile” towards them. In fact, I am eager to communicate. I hope to change their minds. Really, I would like to discuss things with them and have a conversation to more fully understand their thinking. I would be happy to communicate via email, over the phone, in person or via video conference.

Why not compromise?

I think the reason the village actually voted to close the dog park had to do with the quality of life complaints from some Whalers Cove residents. That is what Mayor Adams’ original letter implied, and I think that was the motivation behind this. I have some speculations about why and how this came to a vote. I will have to include in another post as I am already going on at length. If you made it this far, THANK YOU!!I owe you a beer or a cookie, depending on your age and/or preference. Take me up on it!
However, what we can’t get over is that there is a disconnect. Why say one thing in the letter and then another thing when challenged on that issue? What is the real reason? And why the change in tune?

If the village board made this decision in response to a threat- why not take less drastic action? If they made this decision in response to concerns about quality of life, why not work to establish a compromise? Why not invite interested parties to come to a discussion and hash out an equitable solution? This would be more appropriate since the closure of this park will negatively impact the quality of life of so many who use this park.

One of the complaints was that this park is located 30 feet away from residences when other dog parks are more than 100 feet away. The field on George street is quite large- why not work on a compromise? Why not look at utilizing other areas of this field to push the park back? According to the Suffolk County Geographic Information System, the field is over 4.5 acres. Surely we could find some middle ground between users of the park and residents who dislike the noise?

The only answer I can come up with is that some people in Whalers Cove wanted this park gone, and somehow got the board to approve that. I have made it clear to the board that while I do not agree with those who complained about the noise, I remain willing to work with anyone and participate in a democratic discussion to find a solution that can satisfy all parties, or at least a compromise we can all live with.

Final Thoughts

Thank you again for taking the time to read this. I know I have a lot of thoughts but I hope I’ve been able to spell things out in a way that makes some sense. Maybe I have even been able to convince you of my point of view. I want to reiterate here that I am reasonable and open to compromise. I always try to be a kind and thoughtful person. I’m aware that I may be upsetting some people by writing this. It’s just that this whole thing has felt so wrong to me. I feel I have to do something about it.

I never wanted to start trouble, and I feel a load of anxiety over all of this; Whenever I spoke at a board meeting and every time I post something that I know will upset people I feel nauseous for a few days before and after. I would much rather lay low and go back to peacefully using my local dog park and spending my free time at my sewing machine or reading a book. However, I need to make myself proud here. I can’t do that if I give up just because I’ve been told “no.” I don’t want to have a bad relationship with the village board. I feel sick over the fact that that is what is happening. But when I see something that feels unjust I can’t do nothing either. If you have any questions or concerns or feel that I have misrepresented anything, please contact me at Kelly@kellyinbabylon.com