It's the same reasoning that the Federal government is using thru the commerce clause to screw every citizen in this country.

It is a common sense interpretation based on actually observing the behavior of our Forefathers when they
built the first settlements in America  -----    at the center of each  community was the meeting house and the
common area.

Funny -- you seem to cite the Founding Fathers when it comes to other things ... but not this ... only because
their historic behavior actually proves my point.

I don't remember the founding fathers saying that the people would be taxed by the government to pay for parks, meeting centers or any other half baked idea like you're trying to sell.

Quoted from Shadow

I don't remember the founding fathers saying that the people would be taxed by the government to pay for parks, meeting centers or any other half baked idea like you're trying to sell.

I think you need to review American History 101  .... the early settlers were taxed ... they also had to do
community service   ....    they worked together building the meeting house .... clearing the trees for the
common area ----  and they had to JOIN the congregation ... mandatory attendance at Sunday services ...
and they paid an annual Pew Rental AND gave weekly contributions.

So this notion that you have that our founding fathers didn't pay taxes .. is the half-baked idea.

They paid taxes based on their church base more than not....or their 'klan base'......BTW...they dug holes and crapped in them.....we have the ability
to put in sewers but we continue to crap in holes....and yet we have a conversation about a park.....how many churches in this town? baseball fields...
2 schools, library and a crap load(literally) of MFRH......

the future is coming and we are talking about picnicing.......niiiiiice..........

Do you remember what the whiskey rebellion was about, did the government try to place a tax on whiskey and the colonists revolted maybe. Not all of the religions had forced attendance but the deists were one of the few that did. Yes the founders believed in volunteering to help with projects so .the cost could be held down and they didn't have to force a tax on the people unlike the blood suckers in government today. Not every religion of the day charged a pew fee and all the fees were eliminated after the Constitution was signed. Again use use a few strict religions and paint all the rest with a wide brush saying that they all did this when it isn't so.

As I was not living during the Whiskey Rebellion, I do not remember it but I have read about it.

In Massachusetts, a person was required to be a registered member of the local Congregational Church until
the late 1840's or early 1850's.

Pew Fees were charged well into the 20th century -- somewhere in my collection of "stuff" I have the special
envelope that a local church used for its annual Pew Fee collection.  

Even after the Pew Fee was eliminated, older folks still felt possessive about their family pew.
My grandparents sat in the same pew that had been assigned to my grandfather's parents ... every Sunday that they were married until the day they died  (in my grandfather's case)  --- my grandmother was a bit upset when in the early 1970's they took out "her pew" to make a cross aisle.

Quoted from Shadow

I don't remember the founding fathers saying that the people would be taxed by the government to pay for parks, meeting centers or any other half baked idea like you're trying to sell.

...........or for a theater(proctors), or subsidizing private businesses, or a park to socialize their dog!

Quoted from bumblethru

...........or for a theater(proctors), or subsidizing private businesses, or a park to socialize their dog!

well .. no tax dollars are being asked for to build the dog park or to maintain it

we will seek donations to build it and charge a use fee for the permit to use it -- and it should actually
provide a net revenue gain to the town to help finance other aspects of the town's parks and recreation
program --- so I would say it is a win-win for the taxpayers

And, like REMS, when enough people aren't paying to support it, we'll create a taxing district.  Yay!

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

well .. no tax dollars are being asked for to build the dog park or to maintain it

we will seek donations to build it and charge a use fee for the permit to use it -- and it should actually
provide a net revenue gain to the town to help finance other aspects of the town's parks and recreation
program --- so I would say it is a win-win for the taxpayers

I see that MT has already responded, but I would like YOUR view on what would happen if enough people don't actually pay for the permit to use it, for  example, not enough people have the time to go to the park, or not enough people want to pay to use it.  What happens then?

Quoted from Kevin March

I see that MT has already responded, but I would like YOUR view on what would happen if enough people don't actually pay for the permit to use it, for  example, not enough people have the time to go to the park, or not enough people want to pay to use it.  What happens then?

Since we are only in the very early stages .. gathering all the information for a proposal ... there will come
a time when we actually poll the dogowners to see what the level of support really is for the proposal,

The Parks and Recreation Commission can only study various ideas and make recommendations to the
Town Board - which alone has the power to approve or disapprove of any of the proposals.
The Parks Commission study does not cost the town a penny ...  we are studying an idea suggested by
residents  ---- whether we actually send a recommendation to actually build this dog park is far from
decided yet ...  so I don't see what all the fuss is about.
To directly answer your immediate question -- there are about 900 licensed dogs in the town --
neighboring towns charge $20-$30 for  a permit to use their dog parks.   The Parks Commission hasn't
determined what the minimum level of dog-owner support should be (# of dog park permits) nor has it
set a proposed permit fee.      
My personal thoughts are - a) somewhere between  33% to 50% of the total # of licensed dogs would
be a reasonable minimum support level to shoot for,  and b) the $20 fee is a more reasonable fee than the anything higher than that - although I'd prefer something between $10-$20 to encourage higher
participation.

I can tell you, I have ZERO plans to license my dog after 12/31/2010. She's an inside dog, doesn't "get out" - and I refuse to pay more $ for a program the even NYS decided isn't worth it and passed another "unfunded mandate" down to the local govts. Nor would I ever consider a project like this worthy of $10-$20.

Quoted from 147

I can tell you, I have ZERO plans to license my dog after 12/31/2010. She's an inside dog, doesn't "get out" - and I refuse to pay more $ for a program the even NYS decided isn't worth it and passed another "unfunded mandate" down to the local govts. Nor would I ever consider a project like this worthy of $10-$20.

the state still requires a dog license after 12/31/2010  .. so if you want to be a lawbreaker -- that is up to
you
you do know that unlicensed dogs can be inpounded and you would have to pay a stiff fine to get her
out ????

as to whether you would use the dog park or not .. that is your choice and of no concern to me

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

the state still requires a dog license after 12/31/2010  .. so if you want to be a lawbreaker -- that is up to
you
you do know that unlicensed dogs can be inpounded and you would have to pay a stiff fine to get her
out ????

as to whether you would use the dog park or not .. that is your choice and of no concern to me

This bothers me not. They'll need a court order to enter my house.