L a s e r B e a m � wrote:
Dubin, Elisabeth wrote:
I believe the point is to create a _public_ dog run. We already have a
non-public dog run a bit farther west. I don't understand Ray's logic
below because child owners do not pay to use the tot lot, and no one
pays to use the park in general.
ok, my logic in asking what I was asking had to do with the public process of getting a dog run in place, not with whether or not I support a dog run.
here's what I'm getting at, put another way: if we're using a process (voting/membership via focp) to create a free public dog run, then that process should be free and public as well, don't you think?
Ray is confused. He seems to think that the decision of the membership of the FOCP would be the be-all and end-all of the matter.
The fact is that Clark Park belongs to the Department of Recreation. They make the final decision. And last I checked, one doesn't have to "join" the Department of Recreation to lobby them either way.
---- 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>.
