Dog park controversy: Residents urge Ann Arbor officials to reconsider canceled plan for West Park
One of the hottest issues at Tuesday night's Ann Arbor City Council meeting was an item not even on the agenda: A proposal for a near-downtown dog park.
Council members heard an outpouring of support for a new off-leash playground for pooches at West Park from a handful of residents who lined up to speak at the start of the meeting.
Residents expressed dismay that city officials had pulled the proposal from the council's agenda after concerns raised by New Hope Baptist Church. The church sits directly across from the Chapin Street entrance to West Park where a dog park was being considered until last week.
The area at the Chapin Street entrance of West Park where Ann Arbor officials had considered placing a new dog park before the New Hope Baptist Church raised concerns.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
"If some congregation members are afraid of dogs, and I truly believe they are sincere in that fear, then I say to the members of the New Hope Baptist Church, please be open to change," said John Lawter, a former parks commissioner who has led the effort for more dog parks in Ann Arbor.
"Let's break this culture of fear," Lawter added, calling fear "an ugly thing" that should be put down whenever possible.
Ann Arbor officials pulled the plug on the proposal after church leaders raised concerns not only about noise and safety, but also about what they considered deeply rooted cultural differences.
Leaders of the historically black congregation communicated to city officials that a number of the church's members were born in the South and have different attitudes about dogs, and they simply see a dog park as incompatible with their ability to worship freely.
"There's no reason why it has to be placed in an area that's going to be offensive to us as a people and as a church, and right now it's offensive," The Rev. Rodrick Green said earlier this month.
City Council Member Christopher Taylor, who serves as a council representative on the Park Advisory Commission, said the dog park issue a tricky one.
The snow-covered area in the foreground, just north of the Chapin Street entrance to West Park, is where Ann Arbor officials wanted to construct a fenced area for off-leash dog play. The New Hope Baptist Church across the street opposed that plan and now the city is looking for another location, possibly still within West Park.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Taylor, who previously defended PAC's recommendation to put a dog park across from the church on a one-year trial basis, said he now supports the decision by the city's administration to reassess.
"This was a close case," he said. "Obviously there are many benefits to having a dog park in this location and many people who want it."
City Administrator Steve Powers said he sees it as a case where there's simply some additional time needed for further review. City officials say a near-downtown dog park remains a priority.
Ann Arbor has two-off leash dog parks: one at Swift Run in the southeast part of the city and one at Olson Park in the northeast part of the city. Residents who spoke at Tuesday's meeting said they'd prefer a neighborhood dog park they can walk to from their homes.
"I'm strongly committed to reducing my carbon footprint as much as possible and therefore I would never drive to a dog park," said Aina Bernier, lobbying for a dog park at West Park.
Multiple residents noted the Arise Church, a United Methodist congregation in Pinckney, established a two-acre dog park on its property and credits it with increasing church membership.
"We believe that God created people to be in community, and that we are at our best when we're in relationship to one another," the church's website reads. "Therefore, we provide this dog park not only as a fun safe place where dogs can get good exercise, but our greatest hope is that dog owners will make friends here and enjoy great conversations together."
Ann Arbor resident Harold Kirchen read that statement from the church's website at Tuesday's meeting and said that's been his personal experience at dog parks.
"I know the New Hope Baptist Church is saying the idea of a dog park and a church is completely incompatible," he said. "But these folks in Pinckney have grown their congregation by having people first come visit the dog park and then decide, 'Geez, these are good Christian values of inclusion, tolerance, charity and love,' and then they join the congregation."
Lawter said he believes members of New Hope Baptist Church are sincere in their concerns, but he still feels they are founded in a "gross misunderstanding of canine behavior." He said he's not comforted by the fact that city officials have vowed to look for an alternative site.
"As a former parks commissioner who has been working on this for years — and it has taken years — to get a central city site identified, I'm skeptical that an alternative will be found," he said.
Residents told council members having a dog park at West Park would be a great way to activate the space and build a stronger sense of community.
"We're the people who use parks," Kirchen said. "You get a critical mass of people out there and suddenly parks become safe. Suddenly you see mothers with baby strollers. You see women jogging where they wouldn't jog if it was a deserted park."
Missy Stults, who described herself as a relatively new resident of Ann Arbor and a new member of PAC, urged council members to think creatively about having more dog parks, as well as changing city ordinance to allow off-leash dog hours.
Two canines enjoy a summer afternoon at Ann Arbor's Swift Run dog park last August.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The presence of well-planned dog parks and off-leash hours, she said, would send a clear message that the city welcomes dog owners.
Gordon said many other cities that are larger and more complex than Ann Arbor have dog parks scattered throughout their neighborhoods, as well as off-leash hours in their major parks. She questioned how the city can have so many parks and only two dog parks on the outskirts of town.
Lawter said he thinks the proposal to construct a dog park at West Park as a temporary facility that can be removed after a year if it's a problem is a fair compromise.
"Let it go in," he said. "Take it out if it becomes a nuisance."
If anyone is concerned the dogs will be smelly, dangerous or bark incessantly, Lawter said he encourages them to visit either of the city's two existing dog parks.
"The people who will take the time to go to a dog park are not the people who own dangerous, dirty, obnoxious dogs," he said, adding the people who use dog parks self-police.
"Ann Arbor is a culturally diverse city," he concluded. "Our dog owners are a culturally diverse group, and our parks should be open to all cultures, including the four-legged variety."
PAC Chairwoman Julie Grand said she's still hopeful a near-downtown dog park could open this year. She said there's talk of using another part of West Park farther away from the church.
Green reiterated his congregation's concerns on Wednesday, and once again clarified the church wouldn't be opposed to a dog park at another location.
"We have no objection to a dog park in central Ann Arbor at all, even in West Park, but we definitely would not appreciate it in front of the church at the location they had proposed," he said. "We're not anti-dog and we're not anti-dog park. We're just anti-dog park for the location that was proposed."
Green said West Park is a big park so there are other options for the city to consider. As for the church in Pinckney that's making a dog park work on its own property, Green remarked: "If that works for them, God bless them. I don't think that would work for us, though."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
APWBD123
Sat, Jan 26, 2013 : 12:14 a.m.
Hmm... As a dog owner, and one who has lived in other cities without dog parks, I will unequivically say that having accessible dog parks is a wonderful thing and indeed, beneficial thing, not simply for dog owners, but for the community at large. Not only does it give dogs a chance for people to excercise their dogs, but to also socialize and train them, something difficult to do in an apartment or condo and which makes them far less likely to bark, bite, and to act as a nusiciance to the public. It also allows individuals (and hopefully those in the church as well) to socialize and build friendships with other dog owners, building relationships that reach into other civic and business activities. While I believe our city council is truly showing how much they care about the entirity of the community, and should be commended by both advocates and opponents, I ultimently feel that unwarrented fear and unsubstantiated beliefs should bear less weight then the actual facts and benefits which concern dog parks. Ultimetly a city, while being sensitive to others beliefs, must act on what actually exsists s and what would most benefit the local community, both which support the creation of a dog park at that location.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:21 p.m.
I love going to parks where dogs are running free. I had never heard that was a thing at Bird Hills but now that I know I might start going there. I don't have a dog who can be off leash myself but I always enjoy watching other dogs having a good time. It really maximizes my enjoyment of our parks. I still sometimes like to go to the Arb to watch the dogs playing.
Nicole Streeter
Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 9:01 p.m.
I no longer live in Ypsi, but I have to agree with "Woman in Ypsi". I am an Eastern alum, and lived with in walking distance of my apartment. I frequently took my labrador to Frog Island park to play and swim in the river.. During the day, there were some "questionable" people there, but even in my late night bar walks home from depot town, I stayed away from Frog Island park at night. I think its great that people are once again able to go to the park at night. I have also lived in NYC and I do agree with leash laws, but again believe that the dog owners are the ones who need to be held accountable for their dogs behavior. If you have an aggressive dog, or your dog shows signs of aggressiveness, then you should not be in a public park!
jcj
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 9:23 p.m.
Women in Ypsi Give me a break! You are saying that a "minor snap" isn't serious enough to pay attention to! I will tell you what the next minor snap my wife or grandchild get the owner and or dog willpay more than attention!
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 8:10 p.m.
A2Citizen, yes there are an *estimated* 4.5 million dog bites but that number includes minor snaps that I don't consider serious enough to pay attention to and certainly not something I would compare to the violent crime that makes it into your statistic. Looking at deaths, a very measurable metric, in 2011 31 people were killed by dogs in the USA. In that same year 14,612 people were murdered by other people. It is clear to me where the greater threat lies.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 8:04 p.m.
I am still way more afraid of people than I am afraid of dogs. One thing I noticed in Ypsilanti, fwiw, is that the dog people make the park safe after dark. Dog people go to the park in all kinds of weather and often into the late evening when it is dark. I can remember before the dog people started going to the park in Ypsilanti. It was pretty normal for really scary dudes to hang out there drinking and doing crack. The dog people started calling the cops for such things and the park got a lot safer which in turn encouraged others to use the park again. Dogs in the park really improved the safety there although the effect isn't obvious to those who didn't see how things had been before. I know that Ann Arbor doesn't have the same sort of "people problems" in their parks but they aren't totally immune either, especially at West Park. If the city were to designate late evening hours (say 8pm -5am) as off leash hours, it might have the effect of discouraging even worse illegal uses of the park.
jcj
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 7:21 p.m.
Should have read our property.
jcj
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 7:20 p.m.
Women Well my wife has been bitten on out property by a dog on a long lease.My grandson was attacked at Bird Hills Park. So we assume any dog is capable of biting!
a2citizen
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 5:35 p.m.
There are an estimated 4.5 million dog bites per year, with 800k requiring medical care. There were 1.2 million violent crimes in the 2011. I'll let you decide whether, statistically, you are more likely to be harmed by people. I have been bitten by a dog and attacked several other times by canines. I have been shot at (not by a dog). I've never been attacked in a crowded park by another person. All things considered I don't trust dogs or people that are off leashes. http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/dog-bites.html http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 4:09 p.m.
I've also never had a dog mug me nor shoot me with a gun. Both things which people have done to me so forgive me when I find people's whining about dogs to be a little bit trivial.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
@JCJ I deal with strange dogs the same way that I deal with strange people although since statistically, I am much more likely to be harmed by people, I do admit that I am more inclined to assume a strange dog is friendly than a strange person. Basically, I don't entirely let down my guard but I also assume good intentions. I've had some ill behaved dogs jump up on me in the park but those dogs were perfectly friendly, maybe *too* friendly. I've only been bitten by dogs a few times but I have had thousands of interactions with dogs.
jcj
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 9:26 p.m.
Women When do you decide if a dog is friendly AFTER or Before it bites someone?
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 6:25 p.m.
I know it isn't legal. Since I wont be allowing my dog to run off leash, I can enjoy watching others do so with no risk. Not that there is much of one anyways. That is how it should be, IMHO. I am ok with leash laws so that the police have a tool to deal with very obnoxious and/or dangerous dogs but generally I don't think it is an appropriate use of police resources to crack down on friendly dogs in public parks even if they are off leash.
Javan
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:45 p.m.
It's not legal for dogs to be off leash in Bird Hills or the Arb.
Gina
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.
Even though I am a devoted dog person and dog advocate, I worry about this proposal. In other communities where I have lived, these small, fenced, in-town dog parks have tended to become a problem in the community and have fueled the anti-dog lobby. In addition, they are not really very healthy play environments for most dogs. We need large parks with trails and play spaces that can meet the needs of more community members. Two acres is not sufficient. I would not bring my dog to this park.
Gina
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:36 p.m.
I think this is a very different community with different expectations that NYC. I have lived in several big cities, and each has a different culture around dogs. Ann Arbor just doesn't strike me as a place that will do well with this kind of park.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:22 p.m.
NYC has a lot of really small dog parks. Some are around 1/2 an acre. The ground has to be gravel as grass would get worn out but even at that size, large dogs can get a good run in.
BHarding
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.
Please, inexperienced dog park people, here's a good description of what to expect: http://www.doggoes.com/articles/tips-having-fun-dog-park
LA
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.
That's a great article! I've bookmarked it. Should be handed out to everyone as they sign up for dog parks.
Nicholas Urfe
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:45 p.m.
Some people act like their dogs aren't already allowed in the parks. And then there are the dog owners who let their often wet dogs jump on people as they pass on the sidewalk.
sun runner
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:31 p.m.
Everything about this kerfuffle makes me glad I just have cats.
Frustrated in A2
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 4:27 a.m.
Can a fence be put up in another part of the park and put the dog park there. Moving it to western edge of the park seems like a win-win situation.
Nicole Streeter
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:07 a.m.
Does the church own the property? NO! Then why do they have the right to dictate what goes there? it would be pretty easy to negotiate.. How about the dog park won't be open til after service is over? The city's quashing the idea for a dog park based on church goers whining about their fear of dogs, when they go to church , what once or twice a week? The dog park is ENCLOSED and gated! what part of that don't you get? You think the dogs are going to have a party while you're trying to worship? They're going to do the freakin Limbo or Cha-Cha? The only way any dog should be any issue is if it's owner doesn't have control of it, and again, if you have an aggressive dog, you shouldn't be going to a public dog park. Ridiculous!
jcj
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 9:24 p.m.
Nicole People in this town are ALWAYS trying to dictate what others can do with their property.And most of it is from the liberal city council!
buvda fray
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:05 p.m.
Dog is God spelled backwards. Just imagine if it was a mad dog.
rm1
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:53 a.m.
I'm startled at the passion ignited by this issue. Much of it ignores the likelihood that the Park Advisory Commission and the church and other actually interested parties will work out a reasonable compromise. See this from the Jan. 16 article: "The decision to take a step back is merely a "hiccup in the process" and not the end of the idea for a more centrally located dog park in Ann Arbor, said PAC Chairwoman Julie Grand. She said there's already talk about using another triangular piece on the west side of West Park, between the two entrance paths off Seventh Street — further away from the church. "PAC and city staff will continue to work with the public to identify a suitable centrally located dog park as there is certainly an identified need," said Colin Smith, the city's parks manager. . . . the church['s] . . . leaders have said they wouldn't be opposed to another location in West Park." A little quiet, and fewer brickbats, while the parties reach a compromise might be in order.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 6:28 p.m.
It would have been better if an alternate site were selected *before* the brakes were put on the first proposed site. However, knowing what I know of Ann Arbor, you are likely to get NIMBY responses no matter what site is picked so there is a good argument for just going forward with the first one too.
jcj
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:25 a.m.
"Let's break this culture of fear," Lawter added, calling fear "an ugly thing" that should be put down whenever possible. Have you ever been BITTEN by a dog Mr Lawter? It is not so easy to dismiss that fear. How do you feel about spiders, bees, guns? All things that might instil fear. Maybe we need to put down those ugly fears!
hmsp
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:08 a.m.
@ pbehjatnia, re: "Next I tried playing fetch with my ball obsessed pointer. There was a particularly nutso dog there who would not give me the chance to throw our brand new ball for my dog to fetch." Yep. I've seen this all too often. Multiple dogs trained to be "ball obsessed" by multiple "ball obsessed" owners. Throw a ball for our dog over, and over, and over again, without engaging in other activities, and yes, you will end up with a "ball obsessed" dog. That is guaranteed. I understand the urge, after a long day of work, to wear your dog out with a minimum of personal exertion. Wanting to end up with a completely tired-out, happy dog is admirable. My dog likes lots of different games, but we don't do only one thing, and if he seems to be focused too much on any given activity, we stop playing that game for a while. Simple. No problem. And yet, I have been to dog parks where "One-Trick-Pony" owners refuse to adapt when faced with the problem of other dogs, that other owners have taught to be as obsessive as they have taught their own dogs to be, fighting over that one, lone ball. Our job, in those situations, and in our private sessions with our dogs, is to be observant, and to be amateur "Dog Psychologists." They are simpler, more honest beings than we are, so it's not as hard as it might sound. On one occasion, I actually had to temporarily confiscate a ball after a half-dozen dogfights, because the clueless owner kept throwing it in the presence of several other similarly-trained dogs. The ball-throwing guy pocketed his ball in a huff, but the fights stopped, and the dog-socialization resumed. Problem solved. And it was NOT a dog problem.
hmsp
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:29 a.m.
@ Nicholas Urfe, re: "It took them [skateboarders] many years of hard work... Why do some dog owners think they should get what appears to be preferential treatment?" The local dog owners have put in many, many more years –– decades, actually –– towards the goal of adequate dog parks than the skateboarders had to, and they have always paid their own way with their dog parks. And the City's NIMBY response, two parks as far out to the outskirts of town as they could possibly be placed, was a joke.
Brad
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:19 p.m.
Paying a dog park fee isn't the same as "paying their way". I doubt that's actually the case.
hmsp
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:26 a.m.
@ ccsummer, re: "I simply don't understand Lawter's statement that he's skeptical of an alternative spot being found." That is because you haven't ever sat down with John Lawter to listen to the years and years of resistance that he has faced, and the years and years that it took him to get just this one, measly lot temporarily "approved," only to have it yanked off the table, COMPLETELY AGAINST ALL PROCEDURAL RULES FOR THE PAC, by a couple of people who suddenly got NIMBY cold feet.
Gardener1
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:25 a.m.
I applaud the City Council for pulling the dog park proposal from the agenda. If it were my church where they wanted to put a dog park across the street, I would object also. I think people were being insensitive in the first place to choose that spot when, according to previous comments, there is a better spot within the West Park area. Not all dog owners are sensitive to others and they do not train and maintain control of their dogs.
hmsp
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:21 a.m.
@ Heimer Boodle, re: "I'd be interested in an explanation from the City as to why the location across from the church (and abutting the sidewalk) is the only place..." Good question, indeed. When Mr. Lawter first joined the PAC, and pointed out the need for dog parks, he was told, "Sorry, the Master Plan for West Park is in place, and is cast in stone!" So, when the City acquired the lot in question, he said, "You can't tell me you already have a cast-in-stone plan for THIS parcel, because we just got it!" The main problem here is a combination of bureaucratic inflexibility, and too much willingness to NIMBY-out, to avoid controversy. Mr. Lawter has been doing a tireless job of fighting both of these problems for years.
hmsp
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:18 a.m.
@ Peter Eckstein, re: "...there has apparently been little negotiation with the church over the possibility of keeping the park locked around the time of Sunday services..." Dead wrong there, Peter. The proposal included many suggestions along the line of following the Arise Church's model of closing the park on Sunday mornings, for instance. Anyway, who would think of even turning onto Chapin on a Sunday morning if they weren't going to New Hope? The West Park lot, clearly-labeled PARK USE ONLY, is always packed with church cars on Sundays, as it also was on a recent Tuesday, when I tried to park there, but found that something was going on at the church. Few of us in the community begrudge this trespass –– we simply say, "Oh, well," and then we find another park, as I did on that Tuesday. All we ask of New Hope is for them to display a similarly tolerant, inclusive attitude, which they have not done to date.
P. J. Murphy
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.
Weekends are the peak times for both churches and dog parks. Were I a member of this church I'd be rightfully skeptical of such an accommodation as being simply a "foot in the door" tactic. Meanwhile this city has a long history of relaxing parking regulations on Sundays, as the members of churches (and motorists) on North Division and Washtenaw well know.
hmsp
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:15 a.m.
@ Brian Kuehn, re: "If someone adjacent to or near a proposed dog park has an objection, then the City should find another spot." That's called NIMBY, and that is exactly what the City's policy has been to date: Two dog parks that were placed as far out as the City could possibly place them –– climb over the fence at either one and you have just officially left town! Completely unworkable, but NIMBY does seem to be the last resort of the spineless.
Brian Kuehn
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:29 a.m.
You toss around the "NIMBY" phrase rather easily. Just because someone has a legitimate concern about a significant change in one's neighborhood doesn't mean they are against all change or development. It is easy to try to dismiss someone's concerns with the pejorative label "NIMBY" but that ultimately won't get you your dog park. Why not consider proposing a more acceptable location within West Park. The area is rather large and it seems like one could find a spot set further from homes and other buildings.
hmsp
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:13 a.m.
@ Unusual Suspect, re: "Before we do anything more for the dog-owner community (of which I am one) I would first like to see some more responsibility exhibited by them... write some stiff tickets." Hmm. First pretend that there is no need for more dog parks, aggressively suppress those people who find some way to give their dogs the exercise they need, and then, and only then, deal with reality? No. First, provide for the needs of the community, and then, and only then, get aggressive about enforcement.
hmsp
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:12 a.m.
@ NoPC, re: "I love the comment to (sic) one lady (I think it was a lady) about how she wants to reduce her 'carbon footprint'!" I happen to know that she "walks" her talk every day –– to work, and then back home. And re: Only in Ann Arbor... Rare, yes. But definitely not "Only in Ann Arbor..."
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:04 a.m.
Then again, many cultures embrace dogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:56 a.m.
Some churches don't like Halloween. Should we cancel trick or treat?
pbehjatnia
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:13 a.m.
I own three dogs. I recently decided to try out a dog park in Ann Arbor. I don't want to fork over $180 without first having tried at least one. I lasted 20 minutes. It was on Dhu Varren. I was jumped on mercilessly by a completely untrained ca. 110 lb adult black lab whose owner lamely stood by and recited how 'sweet' he really was. Really? When I have 110lbs of aggression on me and in my face sweet just doesn't come to mind. Next I tried playing fetch with my ball obsessed pointer. There was a particularly nutso dog there who would not give me the chance to throw our brand new ball for my dog to fetch. After 15 minutes of that he actually took the ball from my hand making contact to my skin with his teeth (yes, another sweetheart I suppose?) When I said to his owners that I would like my ball now so that we can leave I was told that it wasn't so easy and they couldn't just take it from their dog. Yes. I said I want my ball NOW, they said NO. In other words, they stole my property. I was either going to have to go after a very aggressive dog (who was worse? dog or owners? I cannot tell.) or leave without my $7 ball. I left without my ball. I wouldn't recommend any more dog parks until the city finds a way to control who is using them. If the dogs (and owners) are safe. Is the owner in control of their dog(s)? My dogs are obedience trained. If anyone decides they're not with the program, they go back to the car. I am in control and aware. I won't support this park (in my neighborhood) or any other city dog park until owners are required to first pass a test of obedience (because it's all about the human). I think the parks are dangerous and I don't at all blame church members for fearing this.
ArgoC
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 11:47 p.m.
You would like the (privately owned) dog park out at the corner of Territorial and Zeeb. The member dogs are screened by the owners, and the owners are often hanging around and are willing to talk to problem dog owners.
BHarding
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:36 p.m.
@pbehjatnia, No, it wasn't me, my dogs don't chase balls, as I said. I would have retrieved your ball for you. But, consider this: would you take a plate of chocolates into a nursery school at play time and expect that only your toddler would eat them? That seems mean. At the dog park, and you admitted you were trying it out for the first time, the owners who socialize there regularly play with each other's dogs, toss balls, and break up dogs who get over-excited, and generally everyone gets along very well. It's play time for the dogs. I think you came in with certain expectations, private space for you and your dog?, rather than finding out how others have worked it out. There are several people who toss balls for their workaholic pointers, but they just use any of the 50 balls that are laying around.
pbehjatnia
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:35 a.m.
@BHarding: You sound just like the self-centered owners I encountered at the park. Was it you? If so, return my ball and get some obedience training for your dog and some basic civil manners for yourself. You need them badly. @Eye: Yes, I did get a double dose of AA 'tude. And it was more than enough. The people were horrible and their dogs were horrible. No need for further comment.
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:59 a.m.
You got hit with a double dose of Ann Arbor Attitude. Sounds like a bad day. No wonder you are PO'd.
a2citizen
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:47 a.m.
Buvda, agree 100 percent. Some dog owners seem to have a strong sense of entitlement. When it comes to another person's pets and balls dog owners should be required to train their dogs to lick...
BHarding
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:46 a.m.
What? You throw balls at at a public dog park and expect that the other dogs won't run after it? It's all about the dogs having fun at the dog park, it's not a training session. I throw balls for other dogs all the time because my dogs don't chase balls. My dogs just want to run and chase and be chased by other dogs. It's about dogs socializing, not about you having a private session with your dog.
buvda fray
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:22 a.m.
Agree. None of us should have to witness untrained "pets" chomping on other people's balls and the owners of those pets refusing to make it right. Responsible dog owners train their dogs or bring their own set of balls to the park.
buvda fray
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:09 a.m.
Are we not in Ann Arbor? This is 2013, people. Are each and every one of you living in the dark past with no regard for any kind of civility and sensitivity? You know who you are, and you know what this is all about. I will say it once and for all: They are not dogs. They are canine Americans, for God's sake.
TheDiagSquirrel
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:13 p.m.
If the proposed park had collection plates at the entrance, I bet Reverend Green would suddenly be for it.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:12 p.m.
If there is so much demand and desire for convenient downtown dog parks, then maybe someone should open a private business. Surely all the users would be willing to cover the cost.
Halter
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 11:23 a.m.
You do know that even with the dog run, you have to pay the city for a yearly license to use it above and beyond the dog license...that is ALREADY existing...maybe you should read up on THAT...
LA
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:08 a.m.
There are a number of private dog care facilities and private dog parks. One neighbor has a van come everyday to their house and pick the dog up. I belong to the very best private dog park ever...Paw Run, in Dexter. 18 acres, lined (huge) swimming hole, creek with a wooden waling bridge over it. Dog toys are available, benches to sit on, open areas for Frisbee and catch and shady trails to walk. Trails, a seasonal 'swamp', high grasses, wild raspberry bushes, a separately fenced agility course within the park, free parking, and loads of wonderful people to talk and walk with. That said...I do live in A2 and would like a park near downtown where I live.
aanative
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:36 a.m.
Here here! I wondered where all the free-market proponents were in this debate.
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:09 p.m.
I see many insulting comments, as quoted in the article and here, trying to distort and, I think malign the church members by describing them as "fearful" and "afraid". When people say chuch members are: "afraid of dogs" "sincere in that fear" "Let's break this culture of fear," "callling fear an ugly thing" That's just wrong and manipulative. I think that's like asking someone "have you stopped living in fear yet?"
pbehjatnia
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:16 a.m.
you have nothing to fear but fear itself. lol.
Halter
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:59 p.m.
The lack-of-understanding of what a dogrun is, and is not, is really quite astonishing here -- I lived in NYC for decades and there are dogruns in every single public park, and generally about every 10 blocks...they are usually 1/2 the size of the dogrun proposed for West Park...and they rarely, if ever, have a single complaint about them in the forty years they have been there -- and that's in a residentially packed area where hundreds of people live ten feet away from them, not commercial and church properties that are 50 feet away and on the other side of the street. - Dogruns are NOT DESIGNED for people to "get exercise walking to and from it". They are designed to have a fenced in area for dogs to run around and chase balls for a few minutes with other dogs. -Dogruns DO NOT cause barking and lots of noise. In fact, dogs that are usually in dogruns are there to play and why would they bark? Dogs bark when they are warning owners about perceived danger, or warning off other people or dogs. That doesn't happen in dog runs. Go to the existing dog runs and listen for barking....what, you say? You don't hear ANY barking?...no surprise there. -Dogruns DONT substitute for walking dogs. They are usually NOT filled with poop, nor do they smell. Dogs don't poop where they play, just like people do not. Smaller dogruns almost never have that problem. Larger ones (Swift run) DO because they are too big and dogs lose their sense of "territory" "Dogs are treated different in the south" -- Pure drivel -- you get arrested down south for neglecting or abusing your dogs, just like you do "up north" -- and there are dogruns in every single major metropolitan community "down south"....
Suzanne Taylor
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 3 a.m.
Amen. Thank you, Halter!
LA
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:02 a.m.
Good response. thanx
Nicholas Urfe
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:19 p.m.
Skateboarding advocates had to raise the funds for their special interest park, and then make their case to the city for a location that would not disrupt the neighbors. It took them many years of hard work. Why do some dog owners think they should get what appears to be preferential treatment? Dogs are arguably louder than skateboarders, though maybe similar. Skateboard parks don't usually have the urine and dog dropping smells often noticed when passing by in-town dog parks. Give the neighbors some consideration and move on to a more viable location.
LA
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:01 a.m.
I live across from a neighborhood park where, yes, there has often been an underground dog park with as many as 10 large dogs at a time running free (in past years, no longer) and many many dogs on-leash every day. It is cleaner than most parks and there is no urine smell. The garbage can with all the bagged poop only smells in high summer as you approach it and I noticed a neighbor put a couple of stick-on deodorizers on it. My front door and patio is upwind of the garbage can and believe me, it is FINE. If the city were to make our neighborhood park a dog park I would be thrilled!! Dog owners really do police their own very very well. Don't forget WE are also walking in that park and so are our children.
Nicholas Urfe
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:22 a.m.
GoNavy, it is the urine smell that is the biggest problem. You can't wipe that up. Dozens of dogs each day in a small area, all urinating multiple times, is in no way comparable to wild animals passing through a backyard.
Brad
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:54 p.m.
@Navy - not to mention what the fish do in the water.
GoNavy
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:39 p.m.
39% of American households own dogs. Hard for skateboarders to match that number, don't you think? As for dog urine and excrement, I have two responses: 1.)I clean up after my dog, hopefully setting an example. 2.)Every animal in nature does its business wherever, and whenever it wants. In the river, on your lawn, on your roof and on your porch. What do you propose we do about all of these animals doing their thing without respect to any of the laws we've passed?
ccsummer
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.
If Ann Arbor really wants to populate its downtown, it absolutely has to provide walkable places for people who decide to live there. That includes a dog park. No one who owns a dog wants to go to a park where there are violent dogs. As stated, people who use dog parks self-police. The very idea of a dog park is for dogs and their people to socialize peacefully. Yes, there will be barking because dogs bark and they bark when they're happy. Providing a dog park that is walkable from downtown is an amenity that is vital to a populated downtown, and it's healthy for dogs and their people. I applaud the comment that it increases one's carbon footprint to have to drive to a dog park on the outskirts of town. When dog parks aren't provided, people will use other parks to let their dogs run off-leash. It happens in my neighborhood all the time. It also happens at County Farm Park, on the playground at Pittsfield School and at Sheffield Park. I urge Ann Arbor to provide more neighborhood dog parks. The people at New Hope Baptist say they don't want a dog park close to their church, that they have people who are afraid of dogs--I can respect that. But dogs are much safer in an enclosed area than when they're running free in an open park. I bet people are already letting their dogs run free in West Park. I simply don't understand Lawter's statement that he's skeptical of an alternative spot being found. West Park is fairly large and surely another spot in West Park can be designated. I also like the suggestion that a temporary dog park be set up in the original designated spot to see if the fears of the Church are well-founded. It's certainly possible that Church and dogs just might get along.
pbehjatnia
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:17 a.m.
why dont we burn some crosses too? just to test the fear. think about what youre saying please.
Basic Bob
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:17 p.m.
How many of those downtown apartments allow dogs?
HeimerBoodle
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:39 p.m.
I'd be interested in an explanation from the City as to why the location across from the church (and abutting the sidewalk) is the only place in the entire park system where a dog park is viable. They say they have studied other locations, but why were they deemed inappropriate? I find it very hard to believe that with all of our open park area there's nowhere else for it to go. What about (just as an example) Almendinger? It's open, not particularly scenic, and within walking distance of downtown. Or as someone suggested, one of the many sections of Vets' Park?
dfossil
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:36 p.m.
Whoa! For all you folks that think we dog owners don't deserve your financial support. Remember this: We dog owners must have CITY DOG TAGS. I pay $48.00 for my 3 dogs every 3 years and for this I get--- ZIP! I have been paying for over 28 years and get nothing for it, absolutely nothing. Unless I wont get a serious fine if my dog gets loose in the city and gets caught by Animal control. Fat Chance, try getting animal control to come out and then time that. All you complainers about loose running dogs, I sympathize with you. My dog is under control and I avoid people when we walk, that said, YOU should be the ones pushing FOR areas where the dogs are behind fences when off lead, not oppose it. You are safer that way. Frankly dog owners, if we don't get more support from the City I suggest we NOT renew our dog licenses. What? You think they, are with the limited police, going to come after us in our homes? When we protest financially then we will be taken seriously!
Suzanne Taylor
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:55 a.m.
I'm not as ticked off about the city dog license as I am about the Dog Park permit fees. Is everyone aware that, in order to use the [small] Olsen Dog Park, an AA dog-owner has to pay the full city fee for the use of BOTH Swift Run (at least 6 times as big as Olsen and with separate big/small dog areas) and Olsen?? On the other hand, if you want to use ONLY Swift Run, the fee is reduced! Am I the only one ticked off about this? or is it, perhaps, that I'm the only one stupid enough to pay for a Dog Park permit?
arborani
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
I recently had occasion to call for help about an injured animal (not a dog). Animal Control (based with HSHV) showed up within the hour.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:53 p.m.
The thing is, dfossil, the thinking that having a dog park nearby will lead to responsible dog ownership is naive. Considering past behavior, I think the west side should be the last neighborhood to get a dog park. Giving that neighborhood one now only rewards them for their illegal activities (Slauson) over the last several years.
Halter
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:01 p.m.
This is the most sensible article I have read in these comments -- thanks dfossil....
Ken
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:30 p.m.
Did anyone ask the dogs what they'd like?
Suzanne Taylor
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:46 a.m.
In my experience, dogs like (1) affection/attention, (2) treats, (3) other dogs, (4) people (not necessarily in that order, depending on the particular dog). So . . . since dog parks provide lots of (1), (3), and (4), what the eff are we arguing about? (AND, I might add that some dog owners may inadvertently carry small treats in their pockets so (2) could might well be an attraction). Aren't dogs wonderful?
Brad
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:52 p.m.
Away from other dogs? It is a DOG PARK! And truth be told, the fact that it is near the landfill is probably lost on the dogs.
Halter
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:02 p.m.
Dogs like dog runs. They particularly like them when they are not hidden away in some landfill somewhere away from other people and other dogs.
arborani
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:30 p.m.
Dogs like just about anything.
a2miguy
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:24 p.m.
"We believe that God created people to be in community, and that we are at our best when we're in relationship to one another," the church's website reads. "Therefore, we provide this dog park not only as a fun safe place where dogs can get good exercise, but our greatest hope is that dog owners will make friends here and enjoy great conversations together." Translation: We need your money, so we're gonna bribe you with this nice dog park. We don't care if joined our church because of Christian faith or not. Just join us.
C. Montgomery Burns
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.
"Release the hounds."
Brad
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:27 a.m.
C. Montgomery Burns Park
Basic Bob
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:15 p.m.
I guess Burns Park is out of the question.
Peter Eckstein
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:07 p.m.
"If some congregation members are afraid of dogs, and I truly believe they are sincere in that fear, then I say to the members of the New Hope Baptist Church, please be open to change," said John Lawter, a former parks commissioner who has led the effort for more dog parks in Ann Arbor. I do not know Mr. Lawter, but I find this comment to be extremely arrogant. Many phobias are deep-seated--fear of heights, crowds, airplanes, dogs, etc. It is not very helpful to tell those who have them that it is just time they just got over it because he would like a place to run his dog. This is especially true when there is an alternative West Park location farther away from the church and when there has apparently been little negotiation with the church over the possibility of keeping the park locked around the time of Sunday services and other designated events.
pbehjatnia
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:21 a.m.
arrogance doesnt even touch lawter's attitude. recall this guy was the 'leader' of the group that was letting their dogs have a weekly run at a local elementary school. yes, kids love playing on dog poop. all the while he was a parks commissioner and head of grounds for the U.
Brad
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:08 p.m.
Group phobias?
RuralMom
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:23 p.m.
The rest of the world shouldn't have to dance around their phobia's either!
cibachrome
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:04 p.m.
My relatives live in Buffalo. Lots of dog walkers and play areas in Delaware Park, there. Plenty of churches around there, too. They ALL get along. Me personaly ? I own a pack of large dogs. I think its a bit cruel to not have enough property of your own for your dog(s) to enjoy what comes natural to them. Hunting, sniffing, frisbee, body slamming, and fetch are all the 'apps' a dog comes with. Don't have the land ? Get a cat.
Irislover
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:24 p.m.
Used to be that nobody ranking lower than an earl could lawfully own a Scottish Deerhound. Guess times haven't changed much since the middle ages since you're proposing the same for those of us who are not landed gentry in the twenty-first century.
Jim H
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:01 p.m.
The church could be missing a fundraising and teaching moment: WWFD bracelets and lessons - What Would Fido Doo?
arborani
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:28 p.m.
Doo-Doo, obviously.
Arboriginal
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9 p.m.
How about converting a diamond at Vets? It's hardly an idyllic park, already has fencing, and has ample parking. WOOF!
aanative
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:30 a.m.
Yeah, who are those ball players anyways, taking up all that space with their games and their league fees and their team fees!?!
Halter
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:03 p.m.
While this is a GREAT idea, there aren't enough diamonds there as there are -- they are all reserved from March through October. The location would be great, though.
Arboriginal
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:54 p.m.
Now that this is taken care of, when are we going to leash those murderous cats?
Brad
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:06 a.m.
My cats say "bring it on!"
Arboriginal
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:38 p.m.
I know.
arborani
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.
By all means. I personally have been jumped on by a very large tabby, and menaced by a pack of five (yep 5) snarling kittens.
Brian Kuehn
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:46 p.m.
If someone adjacent to or near a proposed dog park has an objection, then the City should find another spot. Once the church and its members objected, we were correct in not proceeding. I would not want a dog park across the street from my home unless it was well set back and there was little visual, auditory or olfactory evidence of the location. If and when we create more dog parks, the City should also use some of the fees collected to enforce the leased dog ordinance on the books. There are quite a number of dog-owning scofflaws who appear to believe that leash laws only apply to certain people at certain times. When we erect ordinances and fail to enforce them, we create an attitude in many citizens that they can pick and choose which ordinances they want to follow. That is a recipe for chaos.
zeeba
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9 p.m.
A recipe for chaos is to allow anyone to veto any nearby public projects they object to. There will always be someone or a group of people who object to any public initiative, so to simply say the city should find another spot means nothing would ever get done. You'd have no parks, swimming pools or softball diamonds. I'm sure there were some people who had objections when New Hope Baptist decided to build in that neighborhood - who wants all that music and singing on Sunday mornings and certain weeknights, let alone the traffic? When you live in a community, you have to accept that not every decision will cater to your desires - you need to save your energy to fight the things that are real problems and not just things you find mildly annoying.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:46 p.m.
Before we do anything more for the dog-owner community (of which I am one) I would first like to see some more responsibility exhibited by them. Bird Hills, for example. Everybody knows it's full of people who break the law and walk their dogs off the leash. We have all had the experience of their dogs behaving aggressively toward and getting in fights with our leashed dogs, while they stand there and say, "Oh, it's OK, he's really a nice dog." Let's get somebody out there to write some stiff tickets.
Suzanne Taylor
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:27 a.m.
I agree that dog-owners should take more responsibility for their dogs. I, too, am a dog-owner. I've experienced similar problems (although not with my current dog) at city and county parks on the northeast side of AA. (I've owned dogs at my current residence for 20 years.) After adopting a 7-year-old dog last year, I purchased a "Dog Park Permit" for the Olsen Park Dog Park in NE Ann Arbor (well, actually, I was forced to pay for a permit for BOTH city dog parks . . . but let's not get into that lest my blood pressure be raised)) . . .To continue . . .ONLY ONCE has any City official EVER checked for the Park permit! So much for the city's help if you're looking for "enforcement of any kind." And that's in a Dog Park!!! Do you really expect any kind of enforcement in city/county parks? As for irresponsible dog-owners . . . I wish I could recommend a solution. Some common sense is required and, unfortunately, that isn't always readily available. :-( The Swift Run Dog Park has separate areas for big and small dogs. Olsen Park, on the other hand, is a very small one-area park. I would, indeed, describe my dog as "nice," but she weighs 80 lbs., for Pete's sake! I don't want her playing with 15-20-pound mini-dogs. All she'd have to do is accidentally sit on one of them and it'd be all over. And owners of 15-20-pound mini-dogs should know better than to throw their peewees in with 60-120-pound dogs!! (Needless to say, I and my dog leave the park when mini-dogs enter.) Asking the city to issue tickets is just not feasible It's a matter of educating dog owners (well, at least those dog owners who are currently without any common sense!!).
Brian Kuehn
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:48 p.m.
A very appropriate observation. Well said.
Ryan J. Stanton
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:40 p.m.
I was able to connect with the pastor from New Hope just now and have added some additional comments from him to the story.
average joe
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:38 p.m.
Missy Stults- "We looked at some statistics and we know we have tens of thousands of dogs," she said. "We don't have enough space to accommodate all of those dogs,....", and "The presence of well-planned dog parks and off-leash hours, she said, would send a clear message that the city welcomes dog owners". Is she saying that we have too many dogs already, or do we need more?
arborani
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 4:18 a.m.
LOL Bob.
Basic Bob
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:13 p.m.
Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled mastiffs.
Elaine F. Owsley
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:32 p.m.
A friend with her big dog, and I with my little dog, spent a great hour at the dog park in Pinckney. Everyone polices their own dog, picks up after it, disposes of the deposit in the container provided and enjoys watching the dogs run and play together - much better than people do sometimes. Dogs are God's creatures, they enjoy a nice sunny day of play and their owners are thankful that the Arise Church has given them that opportunity.
Suzanne Taylor
Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 1:18 a.m.
I agree, Elaine. Although I'm not familiar with the Pinckney Dog Park , I and my dog, frequent the Olsen Park Dog Park in northeast Ann Arbor. I regularly contribute "poop" bags to the communal "poop bag box" (provided by the City of Ann Arbor) and always bring a gallon of water to furnish the four water bowls at the site. As with Pinckney, the human users of the Olsen Dog Park remove their dog waste and act responsibly. To have anyone imply that, as a rule, dog-owners in AA (or Pinckney) are irresponsible is an incredible slur . . . and incredibly FALSE! And thank God for the Arise Church. Indeed, "all God's creatures,"
AAbob43
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.
"Break this culture of fear......an ugly thing." I think that dog folks, and those that think that everyone should welcome off-leash dogs, need to embrace some reality. We have leash laws for a reason. In the past few months, while minding my business in City parks, I have been jumped on by a huge great dane, and menaced by a pack of five (yep, 5) off-leash snarling dogs. You are not paranoid if someone (or someone's dog) is really after you. So let's stop minimizing the risk presented by dogs. That said, I'd love to see two things in AA: (1) a dog park that doesn't sap other valuable park land, and (2) no off leash dogs anywhwere else. As for #1, I am conflicted by using public resources for a splinter need, but I guess we have skate parks and ice rinks, so what the heck. And maybe a user fee would make sense. No one gets into Vet's Ice Arena for free, why should I subsidize a dog park? As for #2, in my decades of trail running in AA parks, I say "good luck." Dog owners seem to be an arrogant and self-assured group: "Maybe dogs are supposed to be on a leash, BUT NOT MY DOG. MY DOG IS PERFECT." Except, it's not perfect. It's been jumping on me and chasing me and snarling me and nipping at me for years. If dog owners want special treatment, they should start by abiding with the laws now on the books. But instead, they just appropriate public places as their self-appointed dog park.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.
So you are ok with a dog park but only if it is located on the least desirable possible park land? Sorry but dog owners are citizens too and have just as much right to use the best park space as you do.
arborani
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 4:06 a.m.
Ah yes, gang dogs - "West Park Story" - starring the the Barks and the Pets.
BHarding
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.
I don't know how this conversation turned to off-leash dogs. I thought it was about a fenced dog park. I love dogs, but I hate hate hate seeing dogs off-leash, because it makes some people nervous, but more importantly because a simple squirrel can tease a dog into the street, and that ruins everyone's day. They also get into garbage, hang out with gang dogs and become uncivilized.
Wolf's Bane
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:22 p.m.
I don't own a dog, but I can see how turning part of West Park into a Dog Park might not be a bad idea. The land sits idle most of the time. I say this as a neighborhood resident. I also hope a dog park will deter irresponsible dog owners from letting their animals roam the neighborhood everything.
a2cents
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:50 p.m.
Bet:n irresponsible jerks will continue to be.
salineguy
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:20 p.m.
Dog Park in the what is probably the most central to downtown park in the city? Probably a good idea. How about a compromise? Move the location a bit West within West Park so that it is midway between the church and the houses to the West and South. The church should have no issues with this. I do not see how this impacts the ability to worship. As far as being offensive, there are many other things that the church could find offensive if they chose to - not dogs running around stiffing each other!
NoPC
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:18 p.m.
I love the comment to one lady (I think it was a lady) about how she wants to reduce her 'carbon footprint'! LOL. Only in Ann Arbor...
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
She probably doesn't want to know the carbon footprint of your average medium sized dog. IIRC it is comparable to a small SUV driven 10,000 miles a year. :) But still, regardless of her reasons, she doesn't want to have to drive to access the dog parks and she is entitled to have the city where she lives consider her needs when planning park usage.
arborani
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 4:03 a.m.
"West Park Story" - starring the the Barks and the Pets.
Brad
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:05 a.m.
She must have a silicon-based dog.
Basic Bob
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:11 p.m.
People who want to reduce their carbon footprint need to stop exhaling so much carbon.
average joe
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:46 p.m.
That person must work at home too....
Javan
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:17 p.m.
Why don't they put the dog park on the other side of West Park, away from the Church? Or in the big field on top of the hill behind the bandshell?
zanzerbar
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:07 p.m.
Green reiterated his congregation's concerns on Wednesday, and once again clarified the church wouldn't be opposed to a dog park at another location. "We have no objection to a dog park in central Ann Arbor at all, even in West Park, but we definitely would not appreciate it in front of the church at the location they had proposed," he said. "We're not anti-dog and we're not anti-dog park. We're just anti-dog park for the location that was proposed."
lefty48197
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:17 p.m.
Why should the taxpayers fund a park where dog owners can bring their dogs? It sounds like they just want a place where their dogs can $%#@ instead of dirtying up the owner's yards. If you don't have a yard big enough for a dog then. Don't buy a dog! What's next? Cat parks? Ferret parks??
arborani
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:08 p.m.
A cat-and-ferret park might be interesting to watch.
Peregrine
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:23 a.m.
My observations is that those who use dog parks are very self-policing when it comes to cleaning up after their dogs. They want the area in which their dogs run and play to be clean. Second, many of us believe that have public amenities like libraries, parks, dog parks, nature trails, recycle centers, quality public schools, good public transportation, etc. enhance the community and make it more attractive to interesting people who contribute to its vibrancy and economy. So since you played the "if ... don't ..." card, let me play it back on you. If you don't like a community with nice public amenities don't live here. I'm sure you'd be happier elsewhere.
zeeba
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:36 p.m.
Why should taxpayers fund a park where parents can bring their kids? Where fat people can play softball? Where hormone-crazed young people can stroll with their objects of sexual desire? Where our nation's youth can be taught the un-American game of soccer? What's next? Jogging paths? Bicycle trails? Oh, the socialist horror!
David Cahill
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:42 p.m.
The supporters of a dog park across the street from this predominantly African-American church should contemplate how they themselves would feel about dogs if their parents/relatives had been attacked by police dogs in the South a generation ago.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.
I have a feeling that church wouldn't like it if people were protesting *their* existence and right to be where they are because of some past bad experience with Christians.
DennisP
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 6:11 a.m.
"History lives a long time..." But, it remains just that. History. History not from one generation back but two. We're talking 40 years here. We learn from history. We needn't be trapped in it and continue to live as if the world has never changed. In a nation where whites will soon be a minority, the President is a black man and his family owns and loves a nice, big dog, it seems outlandish to portend that a dog park--a common sight throughout the nation--recreates an era of sheriffs with hoses and police dogs unleashed charging against unarmed protesters. I guarantee the dogs held no animus based on race 40 years back. It was their handlers who trained and directed them to attack black people. This type of pandering is as nonsensical as saying we should think how we would feel if our grandparents saw white percale sheets at Target because it is reminiscent of the KKK.
hermhawk
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 6:08 a.m.
I agree with Mr. Cahill, and it's not just about churches. ANY major establishment would have a problem with a dog park right across the street from it. Same with a department store or a restaurant; they would have the same problem with customers doing their business as well. There ARE places where dog owners can have a park that is NOT major buildings such as mentioned above.
Snarf Oscar Boondoggle
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 5:43 a.m.
thank you dave .. history lives a looooong time adn should not be so flippantly disregraded as seems to be the general huffle-puff here.
RuralMom
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:29 p.m.
I assure you neither myself or my Children who are decendants are not afraid of Dogs, get in the NOW please!
zeeba
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:29 p.m.
I doubt that many of them had their relatives attacked by yorkies, labs, border collies, chihuahuas, Jack Russell terriers, etc. etc.
AJD
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:22 p.m.
So since a Jewish family was attacked by Germans a generation ago, that family and all their descendants should hate and fear all Germans? Your comment is not rational.
Ghost of Tom Joad
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:16 p.m.
yeah...that doesn't really hold water. If we extend this logic, then we'd see the same outrage from synagogues.
FrankOZ
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:58 p.m.
You have got to be kidding! I don't even know what to say to this comment except that this kind of pandering attitude is what is keeping all of us from moving forward.
jgold47
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:51 p.m.
Thats like me protesting Metzgers because my family is Jewish. Makes no sense. They and everyone else need to move on and stop with the woe is me and my people crap. That goes for EVERYONE who does that.
grye
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:32 p.m.
If church members are so afraid of dogs that would be in a fenced-in area that the potential for the dog park may be nixed, then how would they react if citizens were walking their dogs on the sidewalk adjacent to the church? What next, a sidewalk that prohibits dogs?
GoNavy
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:31 p.m.
Tactically speaking, this is going to be a very hard thing to go through with. Once the church played the race card (as in, your French Bulldog brings back terrifying memories of snarling attack dogs in Birmingham, Alabama) they will stick to it until the end. Anybody supporting the dog park will become de facto racists. Do we have many pols in this particular city who are willing to stand up to that charge?
arborani
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.
"Once the church played the race card (as in, your French Bulldog brings back terrifying memories of snarling attack dogs in Birmingham, Alabama) . . ." Again, source, please?
Bcar
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:12 p.m.
Hey now, this is Ann Arbor, where the wants of a few outweigh the needs of the many!
Brad
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:06 p.m.
First they came for the twenty pound carp, then for the dogs ...
Chris Blackstone
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 6:58 p.m.
If people are so keen to exercise their dogs, why not walk them to one of the two current off-leash dog parks? Walking is great exercise, for both humans and dogs. Also, there is undoubtedly a racial angle to this whole issue, particularly when the church is a historically African-American church while the surrounding community is overwhelmingly white. That's the elephant in the room that no one has really talked about. Finally, dogs are fine, but they're just dogs, not people. They don't have "cultures" and they don't care where they run. Why doesn't someone volunteer their backyard for the dog park?
Belisa
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 6:56 p.m.
I walk my dog 3-5 miles every day, depending on the cold now ... my pup loves the walks but they pale in comparison to the joy he gets socializing at a dog park. Also we do have a good sized backyard and love to have the neighbors bring over their dogs. "Culture" is just a label and most people don't understand dogs (let alone other people) ... I don't know if the dogs know what's going on or have a "culture" but I do know they they have a great time socializing with other dogs at parks and with people/dogs during walks.
BHarding
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:44 p.m.
@Chris, "Finally, dogs are fine, but they're just dogs, not people. They don't have "cultures" and they don't care where they run. Why doesn't someone volunteer their backyard for the dog park?" Dog owners are people. We pay taxes for other people's recreation, such as the pools, the rinks, the baseball and soccer fields, etc., etc. Our preferred recreation might be to see our dogs play with each other, and not only do we pay the property taxes that support these dog parks, but we pay for dog licenses and a separate dog park license. The owners get to know each other, share training tips and the majority of them clean up after their dogs diligently. Btw, there is no sidewalk out on Pontiac Trail past Arrowwood, so walking there with dogs is impossible.
ArgoC
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:39 p.m.
You might be overreaching on the racial aspect, Chris Blackstone, making it perhaps a bigger deal than it really is. Let me talk about the elephant in the room then. It actually may not matter to people who are voicing their opinions. Have you thought of that? Speaking for myself, most of my own comments happened before I knew there was any kind of racial predominance at that church. And once it was brought up, it changed my opinions not one bit.
RuralMom
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:11 p.m.
I guess I have to know what you mean by racial angle, as the mother of 3 racially mixed now grown adults, I assure you my response has nothing to do with ones skin color, ethnic background, or religious preferences. Its the blaming the fact that their members are predominately from the South, with a "different" attitude or view of Dogs, that is ridiculous!
a2citizen
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:49 p.m.
Cinnabar - In Chris's defense he did not bring race into this. And Chip, the CDC estimates over 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year, with 31,000 requiring reconstructive surgery. The "dog as weapon" argument is lazy.
kmgeb2000
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:42 p.m.
Too use your phraseology, it's just a church. I thought we separated church and State (or City in this case). If the congregations' members who live on the block or in the immediate neighborhood also have an issue then by all mean express them. As for the church, they reside in the community. In this case, a community that appears to view dog parks as a positive addition. The congregation is the one that should decide if the community fits their needs, not how to bend the community to theirs.
Chip Reed
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:39 p.m.
It would seem that race is a factor here. White people have probably not had the experience of dogs being used as a weapon against them. Fifty years ago, this was a not uncommon practice in some parts of the USA.
cinnabar7071
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:25 p.m.
Chris just to set the recond straight the surrounding community used to be overwhelmingly African-American. At least it was when I grew up there, and I take offence to you bringing race into this.
Ryan J. Stanton
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:08 p.m.
Walking from West Park to Swift Run would be about a four-hour roundtrip walk, not counting the hour or two you spend at the dog park.
Dog Guy
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 6:52 p.m.
Ann Arbor is most fortunate to have John Lawter as a former parks commissioner.
RuralMom
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 6:51 p.m.
Leaders of the historically black congregation communicated to city officials that a number of the church's members were born in the South and have different attitudes about dogs, and they simply see a dog park as incompatible with their ability to worship freely. Well you are in the NORTH now, times change, and as Christians you should not be caught up in this controversy. If this was a strip club I could see the problem, however this is a dog park, get over it!
arborani
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:11 p.m.
"Leaders of the historically black congregation communicated to city officials that a number of the church's members were born in the South and have different attitudes about dogs . . ." Source, please?
a2citizen
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:52 p.m.
"...If this was a strip club I could see the problem..." Why don't we just agree to disagree.
cinnabar7071
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:15 p.m.
Yeah git!
whojix
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 6:47 p.m.
Owning a large dog in an urban environment is irresponsible.
Belisa
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 6:34 p.m.
I always felt like it was always the smaller dogs that were the toughest ... I've got a big dog and he always hightails it when the little ones start barking and running circles 'round him. Dogs are so cool.
whojix
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:15 p.m.
Size makes a difference in their danger to humans. If either of the dogs pictured in this story were off leash and charged at me I'd grab my keys and get ready to defend my life.
justcurious
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:59 p.m.
"Owning a large dog in an urban environment is irresponsible." Old wives tale. No it isn't. The exercise needs of dogs have nothing to do with their size. Likewise, aggressiveness has nothing to do with their size either, only how they were raised makes a difference.
ArgoC
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:35 p.m.
What is this continuing thing about large dogs? Where does it say a dog park is for large dogs?
Elaine F. Owsley
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 8:22 p.m.
Small dogs use the dog parks, too. Dogs get along better than some people.
cinnabar7071
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 7:14 p.m.
Owning a large dog and not having a place to exercise it is irresponible. Which came first?
Ghost of Tom Joad
Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 6:43 p.m.
what does it matter what the residents think? Aren't we always supposed to kow tow to the religious establishment lest we be seen as ungodly sinners?
DennisP
Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 5:54 a.m.
It isn't the religious establishment here. There are no church laws I'm aware of in any Christian faith that dictate or prohibit dog parks. Quite the contrary, all Christian faiths promote stewardship of the earth's creations. This congregation has concerns that it has raised implicating racial prejudice going back to the 1950s and 1960s and earlier. Whether that's bona fide or being used politically, I can't tell. But, it was effective in halting the PAC where claims of noise, smell and disrespectful decorum didn't sway the PAC initially when this story first broke. West Park is a big park. Seems like another location in the area should be a good compromise. Everybody wants to be good neighbors and not foment ill will. The fear though is that the City Council will table this and bury it. It should put a time table on reassessing other nearby locations and demand the PAC provide an evaluation of possible sites.