Hey Alex: I don't agree. It would not create any problem with sliding down the bowl, the fence will be on the perimeter. It doesn't need to be ugly either, as long as it is not a tall silver cyclone fence (they look much better in black anyway). In concept, it is a compromise because it answers the needs of both sides.
The bowl could still be used for everything it is already used for. Resurfacing the bowl will cost a ton of money. It seems to me to be the least expensive way, would call for less change in everyone's lifestyle, and would not require numerous meetings to make changes in the master plan or to establish another dog park. S. -----Original Message----- From: Alex de Soto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:30 PM To: 'S. Sharrieff Ali'; 'Mario Giorno'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [UC] Dogs in the Bowl Sharrieff, Mario, and all, I find this to be an awful comprise. Not only does it have the potential of looking extremely ugly, but it would also make it difficult for kids (and adults) to slide down the sides of the bowl when covered with snow. The bowl could be resurfaced with something more lasting than grass (gravel, a la French parks) perhaps augmented by a water feature. A "dog park" should be funded by dog-owners somewhere else. The master plan should flex to accommodate them. Alex de Soto -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of S. Sharrieff Ali Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:14 AM To: 'Mario Giorno'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [UC] Dogs in the Bowl Hey...that's my idea! Mario: I also suggested that the bowl be fenced in. I see this as a compromise for all. It would provide a barrier for the children and an "enter at your own risk" area while allowing the dog owners to still have some since of community and freedom. It would be a "more" legal setting then what we have now. The fence idea should have been explored in the master plan for the park. I think that the dog owners that are interested in preserving the freedom for dogs in the bowl should get a committee together to fund raise, leverage government dollars and make it happen. The dogs' off-leash remains an issue of liability for the city and dog owners, assessment of risk, safety and security, law enforcement and responsible behavior. None of these factors will change no matter what we end up with. S. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mario Giorno Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:42 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [UC] Dogs in the Bowl Dave, Don't turn this into an emotional fight. We need to have a logical debate about this. Would you bring your children to Clark Park, if you knew that large dogs, some potentially harmful to children, were running around unleashed? You must admit that it's a legal problem. And as for the childish claim of "Who was here first?", I'd suggest you concentrate on the reality of who actually lives here now. There is a moral priority here. Children's safety is more important the the rights of animals to have a natural landscape in which to run and play. Perhaps it's the dog owners who should hightail it to the burbs if they want their dogs to have a place to run. The animals would be happier and healthier out there rather than in a metro area that is rather animal-unfriendly. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [UC] Dogs in the Bowl The dogs and their owners have been in the Clark Park bowl forever. Certainly long before the arrival of the yuppies to our fair shores. At first, some hailed the yuppies' arrival as some great thing. After all, they do bring a lot of disposable trinkets. But now the yuppies are breeding and they aren't happy with just all of PENN. They want Clark Park too. I say screw them. This is the city, they already have their suburbs. David ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
