Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Action Item: Tell A Friend
We've had some labor-intensive action items lately, so here's an easy one.
There are still an awful lot of people who don't know what's going on with the off-leash play issue. Almost every time I'm at Mill Pond or another play area, I hear people saying "Man I wish Ann Arbor had a dog park, any idea why they don't?" I usually take the opportunity to offer more information than anybody really wants, but it's clear that most dog owners have no idea where we stand.
Please help spread the word
Action:
- Tell anyone you know or meet who is interested where we stand
- Offer the information to strangers who seem interested when you are at Mill Pond, another play area, the pet store, or any other situation where they might be interested.
- Fill them in on the continuing delays and foot-dragging
- Let them know that an ordinance change is in the works and we are promised (again) something usable this fall
- Tell them about the continuing roadblocks to the community dog park program
- Give them the URL for this blog so that they can get more information, follow developments and get involved
The more people who know about this the better. There is clearly a lack of organization on this issue, but the more people who speak up the more seriously the city has to take us.
There are still an awful lot of people who don't know what's going on with the off-leash play issue. Almost every time I'm at Mill Pond or another play area, I hear people saying "Man I wish Ann Arbor had a dog park, any idea why they don't?" I usually take the opportunity to offer more information than anybody really wants, but it's clear that most dog owners have no idea where we stand.
Please help spread the word
Action:
- Tell anyone you know or meet who is interested where we stand
- Offer the information to strangers who seem interested when you are at Mill Pond, another play area, the pet store, or any other situation where they might be interested.
- Fill them in on the continuing delays and foot-dragging
- Let them know that an ordinance change is in the works and we are promised (again) something usable this fall
- Tell them about the continuing roadblocks to the community dog park program
- Give them the URL for this blog so that they can get more information, follow developments and get involved
The more people who know about this the better. There is clearly a lack of organization on this issue, but the more people who speak up the more seriously the city has to take us.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Ordinance Change Passes First Reading!
Tonight's Council meeting was quite long, but we're a step closer to legal off-leash play. Good news!
I won't go into details now since I'm pretty exhausted, but here are the basics -
There was another speaker in favor of the dog park during public commentary. He was extremely eloquent and powerful, hitting all the right notes concisely. My public commentary was considerably less well-delivered, but I think I got my main point across.
Council discussed the ordinance change for quite a while. Concerns mostly focused on neighborhood opposition and safety issues. I think most of the concern comes from unfamiliarity and a genuine desire for more information. While I don't think anybody on the Council is opposed to off-leash play outright, there are some real reservations. A few members were very vocally in favor of providing this service, hopefully this will translate into some real representation in the near future.
Jayne Miller was questioned for a brief time. She was basically brought up to state that the city has committed resources to this and are trying to make something happen, but that there simply isn't any public support. I'll have more on this later.
There was one change to the proposed language. As written, the ordinance change would have allowed Parks staff to designate off-leash areas. An amendment was added that requires Council approval of any off-leash area. This means a little extra slow-down before anything can be implemented, but it's really no surprise.
In the end the ordinance passed its first reading unanimously with several members expressing reservations and looking for more information before the second reading.
I spoke briefly again at the end of the meeting. I essentially thanked Council and noted that many of the concerns they have would actually be alleviated rather than aggravated by implementation of controlled off-leash areas.
In all, the meeting went about how I expected. It would have been nice to see the change passed on first reading, but that was always a long shot. Not having a single nay vote at this point is really a very good thing.
I won't go into details now since I'm pretty exhausted, but here are the basics -
There was another speaker in favor of the dog park during public commentary. He was extremely eloquent and powerful, hitting all the right notes concisely. My public commentary was considerably less well-delivered, but I think I got my main point across.
Council discussed the ordinance change for quite a while. Concerns mostly focused on neighborhood opposition and safety issues. I think most of the concern comes from unfamiliarity and a genuine desire for more information. While I don't think anybody on the Council is opposed to off-leash play outright, there are some real reservations. A few members were very vocally in favor of providing this service, hopefully this will translate into some real representation in the near future.
Jayne Miller was questioned for a brief time. She was basically brought up to state that the city has committed resources to this and are trying to make something happen, but that there simply isn't any public support. I'll have more on this later.
There was one change to the proposed language. As written, the ordinance change would have allowed Parks staff to designate off-leash areas. An amendment was added that requires Council approval of any off-leash area. This means a little extra slow-down before anything can be implemented, but it's really no surprise.
In the end the ordinance passed its first reading unanimously with several members expressing reservations and looking for more information before the second reading.
I spoke briefly again at the end of the meeting. I essentially thanked Council and noted that many of the concerns they have would actually be alleviated rather than aggravated by implementation of controlled off-leash areas.
In all, the meeting went about how I expected. It would have been nice to see the change passed on first reading, but that was always a long shot. Not having a single nay vote at this point is really a very good thing.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Council Meeting
The ordinance change allowing the city to designate off-leash areas is on the agenda for Monday's City Council meeting. Here is a PDF memo with the changes proposed.
Hopefully this can be passed quickly and something can be done to provide relief to the off-leash problem this summer.
Hopefully this can be passed quickly and something can be done to provide relief to the off-leash problem this summer.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Article in Today's News
The Ann Arbor News published an article today about the continuing saga of city obstruction to a dog run. They even included a link to us! If this is your first time visiting our blog, please take a look at some previous posts, there is a lot of background information here.
It's a nice article that captures the basic outlines of our situation. One of the things that Jayne Miller of the Parks Department is quoted as saying in the article is that "neighbors don't want [a dog run]." Although there certainly is opposition, I don't think that's a fully accurate statement. There were approximately four people (out of 40) at the first Ward Park planning meeting who voiced opposition to the plan. Of them, one didn't live in the neighborhood and at least one wasn't outright opposed to a dog run, he just wanted to make sure that it wouldn't cause problems if it went ahead.
Further, it is my understanding that previous plans have gained neighbor support. Swift Run for example has general support and South Maple Park had a series of positive public meetings but was nixed by the Utilities department who wants to put a water tower on the site eventually.
There will always be some people in opposition to any project. The dog run program is clearly one that draws vocal opposition, but it also has a huge amount of support. At all of the planning meetings, opponents have been outnumbered by supporters many times over. The city itself has identified this as a major need in the Pros Plan, the Dog Park task force report of 1998, and public discussion on the recent millage that was passed.
As Glenn pointed out in response to a previous post, the city is going ahead with a million dollar rennovation at the city market that essentially amounts to moving some trees and building a gazebo that many people have opposed. I think it's just as fair to say that Market patrons and neighbors "don't want" the gazebo, and yet there is $1,000,000 for it? How does that square?
There is a lot more in the article that I'll get to later. I'm fuming a bit right now over several things. The stories from Parks and Rec on several fronts seem to change every time I hear from them. There is no good reason that there isn't a dog run open yet except that we aren't considered an important constituency. Voices of opponents to these plans have been given far more weight by the city than those in favor, but don't we pay the same property taxes?
For now, take a read and don't hesitate to send your reaction to City Council, Parks and Rec, PAC, or The News as a letter to the editor.
It's a nice article that captures the basic outlines of our situation. One of the things that Jayne Miller of the Parks Department is quoted as saying in the article is that "neighbors don't want [a dog run]." Although there certainly is opposition, I don't think that's a fully accurate statement. There were approximately four people (out of 40) at the first Ward Park planning meeting who voiced opposition to the plan. Of them, one didn't live in the neighborhood and at least one wasn't outright opposed to a dog run, he just wanted to make sure that it wouldn't cause problems if it went ahead.
Further, it is my understanding that previous plans have gained neighbor support. Swift Run for example has general support and South Maple Park had a series of positive public meetings but was nixed by the Utilities department who wants to put a water tower on the site eventually.
There will always be some people in opposition to any project. The dog run program is clearly one that draws vocal opposition, but it also has a huge amount of support. At all of the planning meetings, opponents have been outnumbered by supporters many times over. The city itself has identified this as a major need in the Pros Plan, the Dog Park task force report of 1998, and public discussion on the recent millage that was passed.
As Glenn pointed out in response to a previous post, the city is going ahead with a million dollar rennovation at the city market that essentially amounts to moving some trees and building a gazebo that many people have opposed. I think it's just as fair to say that Market patrons and neighbors "don't want" the gazebo, and yet there is $1,000,000 for it? How does that square?
There is a lot more in the article that I'll get to later. I'm fuming a bit right now over several things. The stories from Parks and Rec on several fronts seem to change every time I hear from them. There is no good reason that there isn't a dog run open yet except that we aren't considered an important constituency. Voices of opponents to these plans have been given far more weight by the city than those in favor, but don't we pay the same property taxes?
For now, take a read and don't hesitate to send your reaction to City Council, Parks and Rec, PAC, or The News as a letter to the editor.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Temporary Fence
One of the ways that we might be able to have off-leash this summer is if we can convince the city to set up something temporary until Swift Run gets off the ground. We've discussed this here before and it came up again at the Ward Park meeting last week.
Many folks seem unclear on what this would look like. I'm posting some photos of the temporary dog run that Saline set up last year while they were reseeding the Mill Pond Park Dog Run. As you can see, this is temporary snow fence, which the city most likely already owned for use in winter months, held up by steel fence stakes, which are also probably owned by the city. Thus the costs must have been quite low.
When I have suggested this in the past, I have heard concerns about keeping this type of fence erect. I don't know if something special was done to the fence at Mill Pond, but in the month or two that it was open I went several times per week and never saw sections falling down. The gateway was a bit of a problem. (seen in the third picture) All that was done at Saline was to tie some wire around the top slats where the fence came together so that people could hold the ends together when they came in. This ad hoc gate fell down occasionally and people sometimes found it difficult to close properly. If that is too much of a worry for Ann Arbor, I'd suggest getting a single chain-link gate, either set two posts for it or get a free-standing temporary piece. This obviously would add to the cost, but we are still talking about much lower numbers than even the pittance that Parks is willing to spend for this project.
One other note - you'll notice that a children's play area is located very close to the dog run. As far as I know there were never any problems with interactions between dogs and children, nor were there any between dog owners and children. This is a concern that we hear very often, if dogs and their owners come near play areas, the children will be in grave danger. The Saline example proves quite the contrary, several times when I was there, parents would bring their children over to watch the dogs. Dog owners and parents should not be set in opposition to each other the way dog park opponents seem to think is natural. In many cases they overlap and in most cases we get along splendidly.
Many folks seem unclear on what this would look like. I'm posting some photos of the temporary dog run that Saline set up last year while they were reseeding the Mill Pond Park Dog Run. As you can see, this is temporary snow fence, which the city most likely already owned for use in winter months, held up by steel fence stakes, which are also probably owned by the city. Thus the costs must have been quite low.
When I have suggested this in the past, I have heard concerns about keeping this type of fence erect. I don't know if something special was done to the fence at Mill Pond, but in the month or two that it was open I went several times per week and never saw sections falling down. The gateway was a bit of a problem. (seen in the third picture) All that was done at Saline was to tie some wire around the top slats where the fence came together so that people could hold the ends together when they came in. This ad hoc gate fell down occasionally and people sometimes found it difficult to close properly. If that is too much of a worry for Ann Arbor, I'd suggest getting a single chain-link gate, either set two posts for it or get a free-standing temporary piece. This obviously would add to the cost, but we are still talking about much lower numbers than even the pittance that Parks is willing to spend for this project.
One other note - you'll notice that a children's play area is located very close to the dog run. As far as I know there were never any problems with interactions between dogs and children, nor were there any between dog owners and children. This is a concern that we hear very often, if dogs and their owners come near play areas, the children will be in grave danger. The Saline example proves quite the contrary, several times when I was there, parents would bring their children over to watch the dogs. Dog owners and parents should not be set in opposition to each other the way dog park opponents seem to think is natural. In many cases they overlap and in most cases we get along splendidly.
Point of Reference
The average annual property tax paid by a homeowner in Ann Arbor is $5,520 based on an average home value of $230,000*.
I find this interesting considering the amount the city is willing to provide for the community dog run program. In addition to being less than a third of the city's in-house estimates for what this project will cost, the $5,000 that they are willing to provide is less than the average property taxes paid by a single home in a single year in Ann Arbor.
I'm looking for information on how many dogs or dog-owning households are in Ann Arbor (out of town at the moment, sporadic research/posting). I'll let you know as soon as I find out how many of us there are, but it is clear that we have paid more than enough into the Parks budget to provide the services we have been promised for a decade now.
We have paid our share, we have waited patiently, we have offered constructive voices. It is time for the city to live up to its responsibilities.
*(These statistics came from here and are unsourced, but based on what I pay and what my home is worth, this seems pretty accurate. I know it's an unusual source, but it's the best I could find quickly).
I find this interesting considering the amount the city is willing to provide for the community dog run program. In addition to being less than a third of the city's in-house estimates for what this project will cost, the $5,000 that they are willing to provide is less than the average property taxes paid by a single home in a single year in Ann Arbor.
I'm looking for information on how many dogs or dog-owning households are in Ann Arbor (out of town at the moment, sporadic research/posting). I'll let you know as soon as I find out how many of us there are, but it is clear that we have paid more than enough into the Parks budget to provide the services we have been promised for a decade now.
We have paid our share, we have waited patiently, we have offered constructive voices. It is time for the city to live up to its responsibilities.
*(These statistics came from here and are unsourced, but based on what I pay and what my home is worth, this seems pretty accurate. I know it's an unusual source, but it's the best I could find quickly).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
