Dexter Training Ground

[basachs]

I asked if the dog area of the park really needed to be as big as was being proposed, because it didn't seem like there had been discussion or consensus on that. No comment from parks.

[Liamlunchtray]

Dogs are owned by people. And they are owned by people that live in the neighborhood. A lot of people chose the neighborhood in part becasue of the dog friendliness. They are homeowners, renters, tax payers, students, whties, hispanic and african-american. In short, they have just as much right to the park as anyone else. To say it should be temporary becuase we may need the space for something else is sorta disrespectful to the people that live here. Dogs have been a part fo the park for a long time, and are one of the reasons the park is so busy at it is. If the dogs and their owners did not clean it up and there were still bombed out cars in the middle of the park and hookers and drugs, would the park be as heavily used? Probably not.

What some people said, and wholeheartedly agree with is that all city parks should have accomadation for dogs. This rule of no dogs in a park is really outdated.

[basachs]

Having a dog park keeps a wider array of folks in the park during a broader range of hours, More people in the park makes the park a safer place for everyone, not just the dog owners.

[ruchele]

In general, I certainly agree that there is a din in the city, and living in the city means living with, and even enjoying, the din. I have no problem with din.

However, dogs just being allowed to bark is a different thing. I certainly think that the complaints of someone who lives across from a site that has suddenly been designated as a dog park are worth listening to. I would be equally annoyed if someone started playing a loud radio at 7:30 every morning, or if someone constantly honked the horn outside my house. There's a difference between just a part of the general din, and something specific and pointed like those. I think people who own dogs don't mind so much, just like the horn honking is convenient to the honker or the radio is great to the guy with the radio. Dogs owners don't get a pass that other people don't get. (No one complained about the noise of the people in the park. One guy did say that the park is just noisy, period, but that's just a fact of living on the park)

Anyway, let's not make this a forum about dog ownership, in general. Let's stick to the park.

This was mentioned as well. The fact that the athletics portion of the park will see heavy use in the warmer weather, but dog owners use the park 365 days of the year. This was not mentioned to say one activity is more worthy than the other, but pointed out to rebut the opinion that dogs should not be in the park at all.

[basachs]

Anyway, let's not make this a forum about dog ownership, in general. Let's stick to the park.

I didn't hear anyone make the argument that no dogs should be in the park. Someone did say that they remembered when no dogs were allowed in Providence parks.

[ruchele]

There were at least three comments regarding this. The fact that they did not think a dog park should be in Dexter to begin with. I recieved many more comments like this personally.

[basachs]

OK, people did make that comment, and I think the fact that a number of neighbors feel that way should be taken into account. "No dog park" isn't the same as "no dogs," though.

Sure- and folks have a right to dislike it when people being disrespectful has a negative imact on their lives, and try to fix the problem.

[ruchele]

Under the current laws of this city, no dog park does indeed mean no dogs. Not only legally, but if the dog park was thrown out, owners would go somewhere else.

[basachs]

Ok, so why not spend your energy on creating reasonable dog leash laws in the city, instead of requiring that a sizeable chunk of our limited and heavily used public space be dedicated to a single group of people and their animals? (and are folks really getting arrested or fined for walking leashed dogs in the park?)

And, really? If people had to leash their dogs, they would go elsewhere? Like, where? Some city without leash laws? The country? I think neighbors would still walk their dogs throughout the neighborhood, dog park or no.

[nick rivers]

I've been following the discussion here for a while. Very interesting points on both sides, and I'm happy the Parks Department & community groups appear to be headed (somewhat vaguely perhaps) towards resolution.

I don't want public parks sucked up by tot lots and playgrounds. I don't have children, and I don't plan to have children, so why would I support that? Because it is important to the health of the city to have all kinds of play and recreational areas for all kinds of people, and that includes making accommodations for people who have dogs instead of or in addition to children. Why should people with dogs somehow be second class citizens, behind the first class people with kids?

And yes, before anyone gets all huffy - I do believe that for many people (not everyone, of course), pets are, in fact, as important as children and frankly they cost less to taxpayers.

[ruchele]

I've been following the discussion here for a while. Very interesting points on both sides, and I'm happy the Parks Department & community groups appear to be headed (somewhat vaguely perhaps) towards resolution.

I don't want public parks sucked up by tot lots and playgrounds. I don't have children, and I don't plan to have children, so why would I support that? Because it is important to the health of the city to have all kinds of play and recreational areas for all kinds of people, and that includes making accommodations for people who have dogs instead of or in addition to children. Why should people with dogs somehow be second class citizens, behind the first class people with kids?

And yes, before anyone gets all huffy - I do believe that for many people (not everyone, of course), pets are, in fact, as important as children and frankly they cost less to taxpayers.

[runawayjim]

Pardon me if I can't just politely agree that the needs of children are equivalent to the needs of animals and the adults (who chose to have dogs in the city) who own them. And pardon me if I don't think that the expense to taxpayers is an acceptable way to measure the value of people.

Look, I like to swim. I also like to do other things. There is space for me to do other things in Dexter Park. There is not a place for me to swim. Does that make me a second-class citizen? Yeah, the poor, second-class dog owners. . . give me a break.

I am trying so hard to stay polite. I think I had better just shut up.

[basachs]

I thoght we were trying to stay on the Park? This discussion does not belong here.

People have a difference of opinion, fine. But whether children or pets are more important is a discussion for another thread. hell, its a discussion for another website.

[nick rivers]

Pardon me if I can't just politely agree that the needs of animals and the adults (who chose to have dogs in the city) who own them are equivalent to the needs of children. And pardon me if I don't think that the expense to taxpayers is an acceptable way to measure the value of people.

Look, I like to swim. I also like to do other things. There is space for me to do other things in Dexter Park. There is not a place for me to swim. Does that make me a second-class citizen? Yeah, the poor, second-class dog owners. . . give me a break.

I am trying so hard to stay polite. I think I had better just shut up.

[runawayjim]

I thoght we were trying to stay on the Park? This discussion does not belong here.

People have a difference of opinion, fine. But whether children or pets are more important is a discussion for another thread. hell, its a discussion for another website.

[nick rivers]

I thoght we were trying to stay on the Park? This discussion does not belong here.

People have a difference of opinion, fine. But whether children or pets are more important is a discussion for another thread. hell, its a discussion for another website.

[runawayjim]

For those who have dogs, in many cases, having a space to exercise them is necessary for the health of their animals. For those who like to swim, the same does not apply.

[nick rivers]

that being said, the city should do all it can (and it seems as if they are) to accommodate all the residents of a neighborhood, whether they're able to vote or not. residents of a neighborhood does not include pets, but it does include pet-owners. and in the case of this dog park, it seems as though the city is doing what it can to come to a compromise suitable to everyone, which is something i don't understand why they didn't do at the very beginning of this whole mess.

[quente]

Dog parks need to be a decent size. 150 by 150 is a good minimum standard. Especially with the amount of dogs in the neghborhood.

[Griswald]

Half an acre of land is not much space for any public park, especially in this case when it's only a fraction of Dexter Park. The point of a dog park is so that the animals can run around freely. Anything less than an [meant to say HALF an] acre is not sufficient for this use.

[Liamlunchtray]

For those who have dogs, in many cases, having a space to exercise them is necessary for the health of their animals. For those who like to swim, the same does not apply.

[basachs]

I do think that both uses can and should be accomodated.

However, if the minimum standard for a dog park is 150 ft. x 150 ft. I think that's rather oversized and certainly going to limit the number of places that these dog parks can be located (how many city parks have 22,500 sf of unused land to spare?). Unless there are dozens of dogs using the space at one time (which would probably not be a good idea to begin with), it would seem reasonable that the area could be trimmed back by at least half.

[runawayjim]

Thats why I did not say sq ft. I was not saying 150 sf by 150sf.

[quente]

Thats why I did not say sq ft. I was not saying 150 sf by 150sf.

[basachs]

you said 150 ft by 150 ft. the area of a square with those measurements is 22,500 sq ft.