Letter to the Editor: Proposed dog nuisance noise ordinance

My wife, Jane, and I on Holley Road were forced for more than two years to deal with abutting neighbors with from one to 8 very noisy, barking dogs. The barking began from about 4 AM, usually for 15 to 30-plus minutes at a time, and continued at intervals through the day, often more than 10 times. It was often witnessed by other neighbors and our visitors. We followed the procedure set forth by the current Animal Control Ordinance, Chapter 4 (animal control), Article 1 (4-1.1 to 4-1.9). We had frequent contacts with the animal control officer, some with the police, kept a log of disturbances, and made sound and photo recordings of the dogs. The animal control officer talked (mediated) with the neighbors several times, and we tried an anti-barking sound device that was triggered by barking (didn’t stop the dogs, but did cause the neighbors to accuse us of harassing their dogs). We wrote letters documenting the situation to the problem neighbors and to the town. Finally, we took the neighbors to court by filing a formal complaint. Despite the case being presented by a police office with no experience whatsoever, the judge found for us, fined the accused, but left us feeling that she felt the whole thing was trivial. Luckily for us, the neighbors moved. Had they not, likely we would have been forced to file more complaints.

Obviously many people who have commented on the proposed new “dog barking” ordinance (Chapter 4, Article 2) have no experience such as ours. It is questionable that many understand the stress imposed on people by the owners of noisy nuisance dogs, and it is clear that many nonsensical and irrational objections to a strong ordinance have been raised. For example, whether or not dogs are used for hunting, guarding, dog showing, companioning, or breeding is irrelevant. What counts is what they do to the neighbors by way of civil disorder and “disturbing the peace” of a residential area. Equally spurious; does anyone really believe that a person who complains about a pet terrier that barks a couple of times when taken outside twice a day between 8 AM and 7 PM is going to result in a court summons; or even get support from a policeman or animal control officer? I do not see a slew of court dates building up from overuse of Ordinance 1 or proposed Ordinance 2.

We should all be clear about the basics of the situation when a neighbor forces their own form of clearly obnoxious “pollution” on others. It could be dumping one’s garbage in the neighbor’s yard; shining spot lights at the neighbor’s bedroom windows at 3 AM; shooting fire crackers or revving a car or chain saw from 3 AM until noon every day; staging wild, loud drunken parties; burning tires in the front yard; or allowing dogs to bark at the neighbors for 30 minutes at a time, 10 times a day, starting at 4 AM. It’s the same situation. It’s adults behaving dictatorially and without civility; demanding the privilege of taking away others’ rights of residential peace to suit their hobbies or other “wants.” It boils down to immature, high school bully-brat behavior, and it shouldn’t be that hard to stop in a community of responsible, mature adults.

I’d be happy to let anyone read all the documents I’ve sent to the Farmington selectmen and town manager about this. They attest, I think, that I’ve earned the right to critique here the proposed Article 2. In fact, I’m having a hard time supporting it as it stands now. Perhaps somewhere in my blather, there will be some good sense.

First, do we need a new ordinance, or should we simply improve the old one by amendment and addition? I don’t believe we need a new ordinance, no matter where a first draft of flashy proposed Article 2 comes from. I do see a crying need to take some parts of proposed Article 2 and beef up an edited Article 1. Any reasonable person of average intelligence in law enforcement, the courts, my neighborhood, etc. can see that Article one’s wording of the offense of letting dogs disturb the peace, noise or otherwise, is all-inclusive and conclusive. Nor has Article 1 generated spurious, unwarranted conflicts between neighbors as far as I know. And the text leading to noise being heard, “at or beyond the boundary of the property…”; does the law demand that these documents display a clear grasp of the obvious?

Let’s also get real about other legalise language in both documents. Much of it is wasted; overkill. Does anyone think we need to define “dog” to mean both sexes of dog? How about being sure we define “people” or “owner” as man or woman, gay or straight, liberal or conservative? Such legal “niceties” often simply muddy the water, sound silly, and indicate silly thought. In 4-2.4, how can an ordinance “regulate” dog barking? Can it change how dogs bark? That’s what “regulate” means; make it louder or softer, rare or often, etc. Is the ordinance definition supposed to mean, “ban or stop dog noise defined as a nuisance.” The words are ban or stop, not regulate. “Regulate” should refer to the owners; make them stop their dogs from being a nuisance, or move their dogs to somewhere else.

I see trouble ahead in not specifying precisely which “agents” of the town will enforce (investigate, mediate, give written warning) the ordinance. I see trouble because the ordinance nowhere identifies when, or after what process, a court summons will be sent. I see trouble if untrained police persons continue the task of prosecuting a case. I see trouble ahead with a formal mediation process or use of an appeals board, and I see trouble ahead with waiver fees as described. These things are alike in that they all confuse and interfere with a fair, efficient, and reasonably fast process of dealing with a complaint.

Clearly, the animal control officer is trained to carry out civilized mediation at the first stage of a conflict between neighbors. He/she talks to both parties, knows the ordinance, and gives a frank assessment and recommendation to both parties. This can be repeated if multiple objections to barking accumulate. It’s basic to the officer’s role in letting the accused know that the objections either clearly appear to show violation of the ordinance and should lead to a formal complaint; or letting the accuser know that their objections are nonsense and should cease.

So why, oh why, is a second mediation needed later, and by someone who has no “boots on the ground” experience with the case or long-term enforcement of the ordinance? Likewise is an appeals board needed? Both of these processes unreasonably delay the recourse to a judge (and an accused party knows it and will predictably play it). Importantly, why should anyone expect a mediator or appeals board to be superior in judgment to the trained animal control officer or a judge? A Farmington appeals board has absolutely no claim to any relevant, superior judgment. Police officers might assist the animal control officer, but it appeared to me over two years that they wanted to remain clear of the role of playing animal control officer, and also seemed unhappy to prosecute the case. I didn’t blame them.

And a waiver fee? It’s very wrong for the simple reason that it allows people with greater wealth to buy a privilege of infringing on the right of another person and knowingly to delay the process of justice. That’s called buying off the law. I hate to say it, but it sounds sooo American. Now, if the town selectmen were the persons who were having their rights “bought,” so be it. But it’s not, and ordinary citizens deserve the right to timely judgment by a competent party (judge), unless they get to keep the waiver fees. Justice in the USA, and too often in places we invade, is often wanting. We don’t need to weaken it locally with a dog ordinance.

On the aspects of proposed Ordinance 2 having increased penalties, I’m strongly in favor with one exception, and assuming the added penalties would be added to Ordinance 1. Why should an offended neighbor be forced to tolerate dog noise over the time that would pass for 6 violations to occur (and cause doubling of a fine). Six court appearances! That’s months (a year?) of tolerated violation and of continuing stress for offended neighbors. This is unmitigated nonsense, unless the offended neighbors get all the moola from the fines. Doh!

A parting shot; the sentence in proposed Ordinance 2, 4-2.7, the one about double penalties for dog noise between 10 PM and 7 AM, belongs in section 4-2.5 Penalties. On that note, let me summarize that we really need a strengthened ordinance, but not necessarily a new, redundant, and poorly organized and written one. And let me summarize that adding a new ordinance to the old (instead of merging the best ideas of the two) does that evil thing that a lot of people in Farmington say they don’t want. It makes government bigger! Twice as many laws, all these other bureaucratic processes! Must be commu-socialism! Let us stick with an improved Ordinance 1 that has the teeth to enforce civil, mature, respectful behavior. Sorry if I sound like Mammy Yokum. Somebody needed to do it.

Jim Parker
Farmington