Have your say on dog park
Man, the power of the people is potent.You people said you hated that fenceless dog park proposal and -- WHAM -- the Grand Forks City Council came down on it like a ton of bricks.
City staff's now reviving an old dog park proposal at Lions Park, at the corner of 24th Avenue South and South 34th Street. It will have fencing and won't be anywhere near the river. Flooding river water is why they'd wanted a fenceless dog park in the first place, due to fears of flood debris snagging on the fences.
Only problem is there ain't a whole lot of parking spots at Lions Park, all of which are street parking used by apartment residents, most of whom probably aren't allowed to own pets. That means the city would have to spend a lot of moola to build a new parking lot. Total cost, including fencing and paving: In excess of $49,000.
Residents will have their say at two separate public meetings this week and the next.
The one for the fenceless park downtown will be at 6:30 p.m., Thursday, in room A101 at City Hall. The one for the Lions Park site will be at 7 p.m., June 6, in the library at Century Elementary School.
posted by Tu-Uyen at 8:41 PM
13 Comments:
I must say, while I'm not a fan of a downtown dog park, I'm not much happier with a dog park at Lions Park either. I can't see turning existing park space (which we are being told is at a premium in south Grand Forks) into a place for dogs to...ummm...poop. Why take a place where children play everyday and walkers and bikers enjoy using on a regular basis and turn it into a dog park? Is it impossible for the city to find a new spot that hasn't been a park for years like Lion's Park has and turn that space into a dog park? I just don't see removing park space from the community. While everyone can enjoy and use Lions Park as it currently is, only people with dogs will get much use out of it if it becomes a dog park.
Tu-Uyen, I got a bit of a kick out of your mentioning that people in the apartments near Lions Park wouldn't have dogs. I actually know someone who lives in the Forest Park complex and the place is full of dogs and cats even though they technically aren't allowed. Apparently, just about anyone can go to a doctor and pressure them into giving the "patient" some kind of a slip of paper saying that they need to have a pets in their apartment and no one can stop them from doing so. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine and dandy for truly handicapped people to have a pet in their apartment if they need it. However, the system has become so abused that now anyone seems to be able to get the OK to have a pet because they "need" it.
Whatever happened to behind Wal-Mart?
I've never heard of that proposal, JGS. Where exactly behind Wal-Mart?
I don't know much about dog parks and how much space and parking is needed. What about using some of the vacated area around 15th Ave. S. and Walnut Place. I think the city plans to open that back up to housing when the dike system is certified, but I think it would make a nice dog park, too.
Hey Guy,
I'm aware of that little loophole that allows people to have pets. But I feel differently about it.
There's a shortage of affordable housing so the city cracked down on landlords converting the homes into rental units. Which means it's pretty hard for people who love animals to find a place to rent and have animals. That is, unless they buy their own home, but with the rising prices of homes, they can't easily do that.
See where I'm going with this? Is owning a pet a right that only people with money should have?
Since the market hasn't seen fit to provide animal lovers with what they want, I wouldn't go so far as to accuse people of "abusing" the law. At any rate, who says that people who want pets don't really need them to be happy? I'll let the doctors' consciences decide.
By the way, I've been to Lions Park and I can tell you I rarely see many people using it. Also, even with an existing park and infrastructure, the dog park would already cost $49,000. Try and build it in a new location and it will cost a lot more. That would go against the electorate's overwhelming desire for a property tax cut. Everything has its cost.
Is it fair to me or anyone else if we rent an apartment unit in a building that is advertised as pet-free only to find that the building is slowly being taken over by pets simply because people want a herd of dogs and know what strings they need to pull in order to have their way? Is it fair that when I go to visit friends in apartment buildings that are supposed to be "pet free" I am often greeted by large dogs running loose towards me down the hall? I just don't see how this could be called fair. When someone knows how to pressure a doctor into writing up a slip of paper that allows them to keep animals that they do not "need" in an apartment building that is blatantly adverstised as being "pet free" I would have to call that abusing the system, but then I guess that's just my opinion.
I rent an apartment and I don't recall seeing "pet free" as a perk. It's more like a threat: NO PETS ALLOWED. I guess I look at it from the standpoint of someone who likes pets. I don't own one myself, because my apartment doesn't allow it and I've got no time to keep a dog company. But I can see that people allergic to animals might feel differently. The zoo you describe, though, isn't something I've noticed and a lot of my friends rent.
At any rate, I don't think doctors are being "coerced." Give people credit for being capable of moral decisions.
Wait you said "pressure" not "coerce." My bad.
Hrm, I swear I thought I heard one Monday night of a possible dog park being placed behing Wal-Mart? I'll see if I can try pulling it up on the city website.
You can't put it behind WalMart because illegal aliens will come out and steal your doggies.
Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
»
Very pretty site! Keep working. thnx!
»
Post a Comment
<< Home