Who let the dogs out? The City Council!
The City Beat had a story today about a proposed fenceless dog park in downtown Grand Forks.
The fact that it'd be fenceless has some people worried.
Council member Eliot Glassheim said his ward could be affected and he wants a public hearing.
Reader Duane Kargel of Climax, Minn., called in this morning to say he didn't think it would work because big dogs and little dogs don't get on well together. He's taken his dog to the Fargo dog park and it has fencing separating the two dog sizes.
Me, I think you could have designated days or hours for each type, say, odd days big dogs, even days small dogs.
Update 6:21 p.m., 5/10/06: Here's a diagram from the city showing the dog park's location vis-a-vis the Greenway. Thanks to Greenway coordinator Melanie Parvey-Biby.
The fact that it'd be fenceless has some people worried.
Council member Eliot Glassheim said his ward could be affected and he wants a public hearing.
Reader Duane Kargel of Climax, Minn., called in this morning to say he didn't think it would work because big dogs and little dogs don't get on well together. He's taken his dog to the Fargo dog park and it has fencing separating the two dog sizes.
Me, I think you could have designated days or hours for each type, say, odd days big dogs, even days small dogs.
Update 6:21 p.m., 5/10/06: Here's a diagram from the city showing the dog park's location vis-a-vis the Greenway. Thanks to Greenway coordinator Melanie Parvey-Biby.
posted by Tu-Uyen at 2:23 PM
17 Comments:
or maybe every other thursday you could have a cat park...
why the resistance to having a fence? Just wondering if anyone knew...
I think it is the lack of funding that is creating the fence-less park. It is my understanding that most people involved would like something fenced
I think it is naive for anyone to think that users of a fenceless dog park would keep as close of on eye on their dog or pick up after them as well as if the park had fencing which clearly marked the boundaries of the park. If we're gonna have this thing somewhere in town...we need fencing.
the park district operates on property tax, which has gone up each of the last three years...granted, they have cut the mill levy (minimally), but they still have gained double digit increases since three years ago. To pretend the park district can't afford a fence is insulting to taxpayers!
Agree with GFG.
Hey, great discussion guys! I always feel like I'm not in touch with readers so you're really helping out.
Just a clarification. I don't think paying for fencing is the problem, it's paying for new fencing everytime the river floods that's the problem. As a taxpayer, I'm sure I'd want to know why the city would keep spending money on something it knows would have a good chance of being ruined or destroyed.
Also, I think this dog park would be run by the city as a pilot progam (cancelable at any time) and not by the park district, which, last I heard, has plenty of debt to pay off.
Why would removable fencing be so quickly ruled out? Would it really kill a city worker or two to spend an afternoon putting up the fencing each spring and taking it down in the fall? From my experience, some of them could use a bit more to do with their time...
The park district is too busy trying to find a way to build a new $6 million fitness facility,
they certainly wouldn't have the resources for a dog park....
I have a simple solution for the flooding problem...put the dog park on the "dry" side of the flood control project. Seems like an easy solution to that problem. Anyways, I think that this boils down to the fact that the park district feels that some dog owners will be irresponsible. That is certainy true, as it is that some park users are irresponsible. Three years of debate on a couple of fenced areas around town seems somewhat obsurd, if you ask me.
by the way, glass half full - that is funny (but kind of sad, because it's true)
You're right, Ben. Why must the dog park be in the greenway? Is there no other location in town that this would fit in ok that wouldn't be prone to flooding?
Another thing about the greenway location. If we have an unfenced location, dog owners are not going to understand where the boundaries are and some won't really care. The word that "there's a dog park in the greenway" may become construed to "the greenway is a dog park". Having no fencing around the park will only cause the entire greenway to become a "dog park" over time and the problem of loose dogs in the greenway will only increase.
Yet another thing that I don't like about this location. Wasn't this area behind the Chamber building supposed to become a "festival ground" in the future for large festivals? Is anybody going to want to go to a festival that sits on land peppered with dog feces?
To be honest, I'm not sure if I agree with a dog park on the wet side of the Greenway. Why can't they just find a better, more suitable location? I mean the downtown area is a suitable spot for the dog park since it's in the redevelopment stages, but why on the wet side? That's just asking for more wasted money cleaning up the dog park after a spring flood. Unless they can come up with a plan to avoid the messy clean up after a flood, I don't think many dog owners will like this proposed location.
I don't know still, this topic will float around in my head for awhile.
Why not just wait till the landfill is closed, and turn that into a dog park?
It's on the dry side of the dike, and according to the Herald Editorial board, closed landfills make great parks.
Having a park on the northwest side of town may help town expand that direction, since land on the south side is soooo expensive.
With the value of real estate on the south side, taxpayers probably can't afford to build any more parks down there. In fact, maybe it's time to consider selling some park land on the southside to provide property tax relief.
Oh Yea, the landfill already has a fence, so that will save more money.
It's also big enough that the Park Board could put in another splash park. WOOOOOO HOOOOOO, SPLASH PARKS ARE NEATO!!!!!!
If you don't agree that splash parks are neato, let the Park Board know that you intend to vote them out.
Anybody given any thought to where the dog park ought to go if not in the Greenway?
A Belmont Road location was discussed but it sounds like homeowners thought there'd be too much of an impact.
Back in 2003, the city considered a location at Lions Park at that weirdo corner of 24th Avenue South and South 34th Street, the one near the mall that curves confusingly. No idea why that idea was dropped but, I wrote at the time that "The site lacks a parking lot, however. Paving one could raise the cost much higher than $30,000, but staff has avoided giving an estimate because it's not yet clear how many dog owners would use the dog park."
How about any number of parks with parking already existing...or the new park scheduled to be built behind the Super Target complex? If the residential impact is the concern, I think Ulland (47th & S. Columbia) or the new park behind Super Target might be the answer. That way, the area could be developed with the understanding that a dog park already exists there. Besides, it's not like people would be throwing the dog poop around.
How about replacing Riverside Pool with a dog park...that ought to make north-end residents happy!
Looks nice! Awesome content. Good job guys.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home