I think one needs to be cautious in characterizing resident opposition to off-leash dog parks as nothing more than "NIMBYism" in action. It's far too easy to use this argument as a means to discount legitimate opinion and belittle those who may hold a contrary position to one's own. Let's argue the merits or deficits of specific site proposals and allow for active dissent.
As a member of the OLRA Site Study Committee, I and my fellow committee members witnessed first hand a spectrum of citizen opinion ranging from strong support to strong opposition to the idea of using city parkland for off-leash dog parks. Opinions ran from ROMP's organized efforts to establish a network of dog parks within residential areas of the city to individual residents who thought that establishing off-leash dog parks was an inappropriate use of public parks. The great majority of people who offered comments stood somewhere between these two positions. What became clear during the committee's work and what is now obvious to most neutral observers (if there are any left) is that many residents simply will not support the establishment of an off-leash dog park immediately adjacent to their homes. Does this really surprise anyone? Whether or not you support the basic concept of off-leash dog parks (I do) or choose to characterize any and all objections to dog parks as "NIMBYism" (I don't), the political reality is that some residents will fight what they perceive as an unwelcome intrusion into their "sphere of influence," that small island of land nearest to their homes over which they feel, rightly or wrongly, they should have some say. I and others on the committee raised this concern on more than one occasion, pointing out the experiences of other cities that have encountered similar objections. And besides happy dogs, what is the unifying characteristic of the four Minneapolis dog parks now up and running? None are immediately adjacent to the homes of residents. This isn't rocket science folks. As ROMP member Jean Johnson said in her recent post, compromise is needed. I'd add that a reality check is needed, too. The Park Board staff should step back from its current approach, examine the committee's final report, and propose a site in Southwest from among the top 10 ranked sites on the committee's list that can garner the support of neighboring residents and the appropriate neighborhood association. So far, I've seen no indication that the Park Board staff has even read the committee's report. To his credit, Commissioner Bob Fine has been actively involved in the site search process since his election to the Sixth District in November 2001, attending Site Study committee meetings as well as the boisterous community meeting held earlier this month to test community reaction to a Linden Hills dog park. He's also been available to anyone who cares to discuss the issue one to one. Will he support an off-leash dog park in the Sixth District? My money says he will. Mr. Giesen's recent assessment of the Minnehaha Parkway & Nicollet Avenue site is accurate. In short, it's a lousy place to build a dog park. And the Site Study committee concurred, ranking it 18th out of 19 sites reviewed. The reasons are obvious to anyone who visits the site, as all committee members were required to do. It's a steeply sloped, heavily wooded parcel of land wedged beside and beneath the south end of the Nicollet Avenue bridge. As advised by Pam Blixt and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the site is within the creek's flood plain and would create the potential for animal waste runoff entering the creek. It also offers no off-street parking and only limited on-street parking on a narrow two-way residential spur and, in my unscientific opinion, is more than a little creepy. What has never been adequately explained to the citizen committee is why the Park Board staff feels that this is the third most desirable site in the Sixth Park District. To my eye, it would (and does) make a great squirrel park, not a dog park. Perhaps we will get details of the Park Board's reasoning at the April 29th community meeting. As I've stated more than once on the list, I consider the Archery Range site north and east of Lake Harriet to be the best option for a Sixth District dog park. It's a large, open site, with some trees and the potential for off-street parking. It's also centrally located in a recreational area of the city. I stand by my opinion. Dennis Jon Member, OLRA Site Study Committee Fuller - Sixth Park District _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
