Tuesday, July 17, 2007
City Council and Responsibility Part II
Yesterday I wrote that City Council and the Mayor bear the ultimate responsibility for the never-ending dog park delays because they refuse to actively represent our needs, but rather wait passively for solutions to come to them.
The second reason is much more immediate and has to do with the recently-passed ordinance change. You will recall that the resolution forwarded to Council by PAC gave Parks staff the authority to designate off-leash areas in city parks according to a set of guidelines, but Council changed the language giving themselves the final approval. As I wrote at the time, I was not entirely surprised by this. Some people are apprehensive about dog parks out of unfamiliarity with them and it is in the nature of a political body to retain as much authority as possible.
Having reserved the right to yay or nay off-leash areas, however, Council brought upon itself the responsibility to do so expeditiously. The day after the ordinance change was approved, Parks held a public meeting to discuss a temporary off-leash area at Southeast Area Park. We were told that this was to be something of a stop-gap measure that could be enacted quickly and relieve some of the pressure until the permanent Swift Run facility could be completed. Public response to the Southeast Area plan was positive and we were told that once Council approved the plan, work could begin immediately.
That was June 19th. It is now 28 days later and Council has still not heard the proposal for approval. For four weeks now the only thing keeping work from starting on an off-leash area has been lack of Council approval. I had been told earlier that the plan would be on tonight's Council agenda. Now we are being told that Council has decided not to consider it this week, but wants to wait two more weeks so that they can consider all of the dog park proposals at the same time. That is to say that they are not going to consider the temporary stop-gap solution until they can consider the final city-county agreement for the Swift Run facility at the same time. This is sort of like not applying a bandage to a cut until you can get a doctor's appointment to decide whether or not you need stitches. Thus City Council is responsible for the ongoing delays by actively inserting itself into the process of establishing an off-leash area and then allowing that extra decision-making step to linger and delay a project for an additional six weeks.
At the June 4 Council meeting, when the ordinance change had its first reading, I addressed Council and asked them to take head of our pleas and to actively represent the needs of dog owners in Ann Arbor. The response then, and again this week as we seek answers for the delays, has been that they are doing all they can and that if we simply wait, a plan will eventually reach Council and be enacted. They seem to be saying that we shouldn't expect any more than passive representation.
If any member of City Council wanted to actively represent dog owning voters, she or he had the opportunity over the past month. Any one of them could have taken this issue upon themselves as they would a neighborhood request for a new swingset and they could have actively requested the plan from Parks staff and put it on the Agenda for tonight, or even two weeks ago. Just the same they could have at any time over the past several years pushed PAC and Parks staff to move more quickly to meet our needs. The Swift Run plan wasn't even considered until the County approached AAParks and suggested it.
If they intended for Swift Run to be open last Autumn as they told us last Summer, Council would have pressed PAC for the ordinance change and a final rules resolution a year ago. But they didn't. Not a single Council member has actively represented our needs as voters and taxpayers. They have passively waited for these things to come before them at which point they have been generally supportive. The primary active thing they have done was to add the final approval roadblock, which is the main reason we are not playing at Southeast Area park this afternoon rather than going to address City Council once again.
Please remember this and feel free to plagiarize it or draw from it this fall as we enter a new City Council election cycle. Let your friends know where the responsibility lies and let the candidates know that you hold them accountable. And consider these issues when you are in the voting booth in November. We deserve elected officials who will stand up and represent our needs!
The second reason is much more immediate and has to do with the recently-passed ordinance change. You will recall that the resolution forwarded to Council by PAC gave Parks staff the authority to designate off-leash areas in city parks according to a set of guidelines, but Council changed the language giving themselves the final approval. As I wrote at the time, I was not entirely surprised by this. Some people are apprehensive about dog parks out of unfamiliarity with them and it is in the nature of a political body to retain as much authority as possible.
Having reserved the right to yay or nay off-leash areas, however, Council brought upon itself the responsibility to do so expeditiously. The day after the ordinance change was approved, Parks held a public meeting to discuss a temporary off-leash area at Southeast Area Park. We were told that this was to be something of a stop-gap measure that could be enacted quickly and relieve some of the pressure until the permanent Swift Run facility could be completed. Public response to the Southeast Area plan was positive and we were told that once Council approved the plan, work could begin immediately.
That was June 19th. It is now 28 days later and Council has still not heard the proposal for approval. For four weeks now the only thing keeping work from starting on an off-leash area has been lack of Council approval. I had been told earlier that the plan would be on tonight's Council agenda. Now we are being told that Council has decided not to consider it this week, but wants to wait two more weeks so that they can consider all of the dog park proposals at the same time. That is to say that they are not going to consider the temporary stop-gap solution until they can consider the final city-county agreement for the Swift Run facility at the same time. This is sort of like not applying a bandage to a cut until you can get a doctor's appointment to decide whether or not you need stitches. Thus City Council is responsible for the ongoing delays by actively inserting itself into the process of establishing an off-leash area and then allowing that extra decision-making step to linger and delay a project for an additional six weeks.
At the June 4 Council meeting, when the ordinance change had its first reading, I addressed Council and asked them to take head of our pleas and to actively represent the needs of dog owners in Ann Arbor. The response then, and again this week as we seek answers for the delays, has been that they are doing all they can and that if we simply wait, a plan will eventually reach Council and be enacted. They seem to be saying that we shouldn't expect any more than passive representation.
If any member of City Council wanted to actively represent dog owning voters, she or he had the opportunity over the past month. Any one of them could have taken this issue upon themselves as they would a neighborhood request for a new swingset and they could have actively requested the plan from Parks staff and put it on the Agenda for tonight, or even two weeks ago. Just the same they could have at any time over the past several years pushed PAC and Parks staff to move more quickly to meet our needs. The Swift Run plan wasn't even considered until the County approached AAParks and suggested it.
If they intended for Swift Run to be open last Autumn as they told us last Summer, Council would have pressed PAC for the ordinance change and a final rules resolution a year ago. But they didn't. Not a single Council member has actively represented our needs as voters and taxpayers. They have passively waited for these things to come before them at which point they have been generally supportive. The primary active thing they have done was to add the final approval roadblock, which is the main reason we are not playing at Southeast Area park this afternoon rather than going to address City Council once again.
Please remember this and feel free to plagiarize it or draw from it this fall as we enter a new City Council election cycle. Let your friends know where the responsibility lies and let the candidates know that you hold them accountable. And consider these issues when you are in the voting booth in November. We deserve elected officials who will stand up and represent our needs!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This situation is particularly egregious given that the city is now sending actual police officers on bikes into nature areas to issue warnings to people with off-leash dogs, which will turn into citations in August. I'm tempted to force the situation and go to a council meeting with the ticket...
wow. i hadn't heard about stepped up enforcement but i know they've been talking about it. do you know any other stories from other parks or any official details?
Post a Comment