DANSAYS ][+

I'm going to give Tumblr a try for a while. We'll see how long that lasts.

The respondent appeared at the hearing. Mr. Budiac did not dispute the allegations contained in the notice of violation (NOV). Rather, he testified that the signage prohibiting leashed dogs on the cited lawn was inadequate. He states that the only signage prohibiting leashed dogs on the lawn was an 8 1/2" x 11" laminated sign hung from the wire mesh fence around the perimeter of the central lawn. The mesh fencing rings the lawn next to the pedestrian pathway around the lawn. The sign was posted about 10' from the entrance to the lawn, visible to pedestrians entering from that direction. Mr. Budiac states that because he entered the lawn from the other direction he did not pass by the sign and therefore was not adequately notified that he could not bring his dog onto the lawn. Mr. Budiac adds that the posted sign, referred to above, conflicted with the more visible, more permanent "Park Rules" sign posted at the main entrance to the park itself. That sign, in relevant part, simply restricts, "unleashed dogs, except in designated areas." The NOV is sustained. I find Mr. Budiac's testimony to be credible. However, he does not dispute the allegations contained in the NOV nor does he establish a defense to those allegations. I credit the sworn allegations contained in the NOV and find that on the date cited in the NOV a violation of the cited section of law did occur. Accordingly, the NOV is sustained and I impose the Board-approved penalty.

A few weeks ago, I received a reply to my love letter to the New York Environmental Control Board:

To the Respondent or Authorized Representative:

We have received your letter of 7/28/08 requesting a hearing by mail. Unfortunately, this case does not qualify to be heard in this manner and must be resolved through a personal appearance.

Therefore, you are hereby directed to appear for a hearing at the above location on 11/14/08 at 8:30 am, at which time you should be prepared to answer and defend the allegation set forth in the Notice of Violation described above.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Environmental Control Board

Mail Adjudication Unit

68 John Street, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10038

Re: Citation No. XXXXXXXXXX

To whom it may concern:

On the afternoon of July 19th I, along with my 4-year-old dog Beta, met some out-of-town friends on the Oval Lawn in Madison Square Park to enjoy a lunch from Shake Shack. Shortly after arriving, we were approached by Officer Davis and her partner, and informed that our dogs were not allowed on the park lawn. While Officer Davis grudgingly conceded that, along our path into the park, there was no clear signage that indicated a no-dogs rule, she insisted that she was not permitted to exercise discretion in such situations, and proceeded to spend half an hour writing both me and my friend $50 tickets.

As you can see from the attached diagram and accompanying photographs, adequate signage was not posted at the lawn entrance. The small, 8.5" x 11" laminated paper which served as my only warning that dogs were not permitted on the lawn was not visible from my path. Furthermore, the large sign posted at the park entrance (see enclosed photo) specifies that park rules prohibit "unleashed dogs except in designated areas," implying that, since my dog was on a leash, her presence on the lawn was not against park rules.

I ask that you dismiss citation number E161619417. Furthermore, if the Madison Square Park Conservancy wishes to continue their no-dogs policy on the Oval Lawn, adequate signage should be clearly posted on both sides of all entrances. Lastly, I find it troubling that park officials are not allowed to exercise their own judgment in these situations. I believe my defense in this case is strong. Frankly, a whole lot of time, effort, and taxpayer money could have been saved if we were just politely asked to exit the park lawn.

Sincerely,

Daniel G. Budiac

cc: Madison Square Park Conservancy

Union Square Hospitality Group

Attached: diagram and photograph

Feet

When's the last time you looked at your feet? I mean, really looked at them?

On Sunday, I ran my second half marathon. While my first was plagued with knee pain, my second was relatively pain-free. In fact, the day after, I feel almost no soreness whatsoever... except for my right foot.

It's not so much an ache, but rather a pain, like something is broken or fractured. But I'm having a very hard time believing that's the case, since during and immediately following the race, I felt no pain at all. (Well, no pain beyond what is normal after running 13.1 miles.)

Then, this morning, I glanced down at my feet, and noticed the bunion on my right foot seems significantly larger than the one on my left. (I've always had wide feet, they run in the family.) Thing is, I have no idea whether this is related to the pain, or it's just always been this way. Like I said, how often do you look at your feet?

I think I'll see how I feel tomorrow, and call my doctor if the pain hasn't subsided.

Shiny

My addiction to the latest, greatest, fastest and shiniest is well-documented. Most of the time, the urge to hop the Queens-bound N/R/W to Mecca is driven by pure technolust. However, I rationalize my decisions based on the fact that, working from home, my computer is my connection to the world, both personally and professionally. A faster computer might run Aperture faster, sure, but my virtual machine will run Windows faster, too. Viewed through the lens of professional productivity, it's usually financially irresponsible for me not to buy a new computer.

Last November, I took a reading from my personal trainer's body fat monitor. At the time, I weighed 160 lbs, 27.68 (17.3%) of which were fat. After a year of regular exercise and watching my diet, I was now officially "fit."