June 1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I received an anonymous phone call the first Saturday evening in May. I don't generally respect anonymous callers, but this lady seemed quite reasonable. Her question concerned motorcycles and mini -bikes in Arden Hills. Apparently on her street there were several of them zippitgup and down all hours of the day and night, particularly on week -ends. She and I agreed that we hate to bother the police with such things; we want our Police Force to be rescuing kidnap victims with the S.W.A.Te team and breaking up International Drug rings in- stead. However, motoreyoles CAN be a nuisance. Lieutenant McCall of the Arden Hills Police Department says they've received many calls this spring on the same subject. So here are a few reminders from him: Schoolgrounds, Ramsey County Open Spaces, and 'Honda Hills' are all closed to cycles. In Schmidt Park, it's O.S. to drive your cycle on the paved portions, but NOT on the foot trails. Stay off private property. Motorcycles and mini -bikes can use any public road if the vehicle is properly licensed. The driver must be 16 and have a valid operator's license also. The cycle must have a state -approved muffler. Although you no longer need wear a helmet while driving a motorcycle, you must have some sort of eye protection. It bothers me though that this lady is being disturbed by noise pollution, and yet it appears to be legal. Isn't there some compromise solution? Can't she call the cyclists, who apparently live close, and discuss the problem? Perhaps they could find a non-residential area in which to ride. I guess that's why there are lawst to decide what is most fair to the greatest number. Along the same line comes Arden Hills' proposed new dog ordinance. Currently in AH, you must have yoxr dog under "effective control" at all times, but it's very difficult to define just what this means. In order to clarify the situation, a new dog ordinance has been proposed. It is very similar to New Brighton's ardinance because both villages want, to use the same dog catcher. In essence, a dog will be legal onl when he is in his house, in his fenced yard, or on a leash (not to exceed 8 feet in length. A complaint about a noisy dog must be made by two people of different households. A lifetime dog license will be is- sued (rather than a yearly one) and rabies vaccinations will be required. All feces must be picked up and disposed of in a sanitary fashion (not defined). At the April 25th Council meeting, the dog lovers turned out in force, and I must say I have seldom heard such eloquent and well -thought-out arguments. It was suggested that such a restrictive ordinance would reduce the number of dogs in Arden Hills, and thus the number of 'poor man's burglar alarms' and crime would increase. One man wanted to know how the police were going to enforce the part about cleaning up feces, especially at night. The Council referred the ordinance over to the May 5 Public Safety Committee meeting for a recommendation. At the Public Safety meeting, the dog haters arrived. They were less restrained than the first group, maybe with just cause. One man said he was afraid to complain about a neighboring barking dog to its owner because of fear of retaliation. (I really became a little upset that this type of situation occurs in our community.) Several other speakers agreed however.Amthw problem occurs when people walk their dogs off -leash in an open area and then do not see to it that the dogs stay out of surrounding landscaped yards. The Council hopes to make a final decision on the ordinance at their June 27th meeting, so if you have strong feelings on the matter, please call, write or come. Remember, it's YOUR council. r,2. "You realize it's very difficult for us to be completely objective about the new dog ordinance."