Friday, May 11, 2007

PROS Plan Tidbits

I've been picking through the Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan (PROS Plan PDF) and found a few interesting nuggets.

Page 194 - Lack of legal off-leash play areas is the primary source of dissatisfaction among Ann Arbor parks users
Those who are neutral to dissatisfied with the Parks & Recreation department are more likely to be exercising with their dog, tobogganing/sledding, and ice skating. The addition of a dog park and an outdoor ice rink/ice skating were the first and third most frequently suggested programs that should be offered by Parks and Recreation, by those who felt additional programs/services were necessary


On page 198 there is a histogram reporting "Leisure-Time/Recreational Activities Participated in Regularly by Adults" at the parks. Exercising with dogs scores 5% of respondents. This doesn't sound like a lot, but that is the same number of people who answered that they use the parks to play basketball or soccer or for cross-country skiing. Although there are no formal cross-country ski facilities that I am aware of, that is an activity that is legal in any of the parks when there is snow. As for basketball and soccer, there are facilities for these activities all over town including some very large complexes like the massive Fuller Park soccer complex. Further the large amounts of "unprogrammed space" in neighborhood parks provide ad hoc soccer opportunities. Yet facilities for exercising with dogs are completely nonexistent in the same city.

That same histogram is made more poignant on page 225 where the survey question that produced it is listed. The question asked basically "what do adults in your house do at parks" and lists a variety of answers. "Exercise with dog" is listed in bold indicating that it was "added to the list." I'm not precisely sure what this means, but it appears that it was a write-in candidate, not one of the options originally offered.

So all this means that without being prompted, people volunteered "exercise with dog" as frequently as people answered that they play basketball or soccer in the parks, answers that were originally on the list. This happened despite the fact that there are facilities for playing basketball and soccer legally all around the city and there are none for playing with dogs. How many more people would have answered "exercise with dog" if there were already a safe and legal place to do it?

I personally seldom use the city parks even though there is one right across the street and two within walking distance of my house. Instead I drive to Saline to use Mill Pond Park. So I wouldn't have answered "exercise with dog" on that survey. There is a huge unserved need for dog run facilities in this city.

Would soccer or basketball players be asked to go indefinitely without facilities? If all of the soccer fields in the city were suddenly unusable would the city hold years of meetings and study groups about how to proceed without ever taking action? Or would they provide a temporary solution very quickly until ideal facilities could be provided? Why are dog-owning taxpayers not provided services like other groups are?

ed note - Page numbers given here refer to the page of the PDF document, not necessarily the original document page numbers

No comments: