Thanks for providing a clear account of the objections to the establishment of an off-leash dog park at L-F Park.
My own *opinion* is that the objections you have listed are reasonable, but not at all sufficient to actually block a dog park on the site. However, I understand that some folks see them as adequate to block the change.
I do remember some very, very silly and yes, hysterical reasons being given at the meeting. Someone stood up with a straight face and stated that the seniors from the Walker-Methodist complex would be in danger of dogs knocking them down and breaking their hips, while another stated that the toddlers would be in danger of being bitten by dogs (even though the play area is quite a ways away from the proposed dog park site). I remember those statements quite clearly. Similiar statements were made more than once, as I recall. I honestly thought it to be a NIMBY thing.
Incidentally -- I've run with my dog in the area of the proposed dog park art L-F, both off-leash and on-leash. She and I loved it. The terrain is fun, and in my opinion the site could be easily adapted to larger numbers of dogs and owners who would benefit from the fun and socialization.
Now I just walk or run my dog with a bike or trike. She seems to like that, and absent a legal site in my neighborhood it seems to be the best we can do, as a complement to playing in our fenced-in yard.
Dog ownership can be much more complex and challenging in the city than many people expect. Off-leash parks are a big need, it seems to me. I hope we can work it out -- soon.
It seems to me that it is easy to maximize the obstacles to making the needed changes in one's own neighborhood, while minimizing the obstacles for making such a change in the neighborhoods of others. Perhaps the Park Board can manage the process in such a way as to get an off-leash park put in somewhere -- in spite of this dynamic.
Is MLK Park still in the running as a potential site, by-the-way?
-Gary Hoover
Kingfield
In a message dated 4/24/02 9:17:42 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what meeting Mr. Hoover attended about the Lyndale Farmstead Dog Park but I can assure you that there were a lot of better reasons espoused than those described below. First the proposed L-F dog park would NOT have been where people have played with their dog off-lease for years. That area can be best be described as the bottom of the bowl. The proposed dog park would have been located west of that area, past the sidewalk where it is quite hilly with a number of trees. I rarely if ever see anyone play with their dog in that area. Also the site was quite small - 1.2 acres, plus as I said before it is quite hilly with lots of trees, good luck throwing a Frisbee there!!
The only reason this area was even considered as a dog park is that it was within easy walking distance of a few high profile ROMPers. It was rightly rejected by the Park Board (and at least 1/2 the neighborhood) because of these functional issues not due to a small band of hysterical neighbors.
Dean Carlson
Still Ward 10, East Harriet Farmsted, Dog Owner
