Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Check out Wednesday's editorial page

In his editorial for Wednesday's Herald, Tom Dennis includes several comments from local bloggers. The subject of Dennis' editorial is the culmination of the lengthy debate over where to place a dog park in Grand Forks. The editorial lays out two arguments made over at Tu-Uyen's blog. Commenter People in GF Hate Change criticizes the way the dog park has been debated and handled. On the other hand, yours truly, GrandForksGuy, praises the long but fair process that has taken place. Tom calls mine "the stronger argument." I really appreciate that. Thanks, Tom! I also appreciate the mention of my blog and its address.

My full comment:

You know one thing that I like about the way this dog park thing played out? The fact that, in the end, no one was ultimately able to force their particular plans or agenda without taking into consideration the opposite side of the argument. Some dog park proponents would have wanted any dog park plan regardless of what kind of an impact that plan would have had on the neighborhood or city. On the other hand, some dog park opponents would have been happy if the whole dog park thing had just gone away and no park had been built. In the end, both camps had to make concessions and revise their plans - no one side was able to force their agenda down the other side's throats. I think it's a good thing when an issue has to be weighed and debated and when ALL sides have to be given the ability to be heard. In the end, that is what occurred and we are left with a decent plan that satisfies almost everyone. To me, that's not such a bad way to handle a controversial issue.

Posted by: GrandForksGuy on 7/17/2007 6:36 PM


Anonymous said...

I agree with Mr. Dennis: It was A Howling Success ! 5 years is too long though but the debate can move along with area blogs and talk radio. I very seldom write a letter to the editor anymore, it's often a 3+ day process. But maybe a 5 year process would have been better for our county jail ! The rush to judgement is going to cost GF County $Millions. There should have been public forums, debate,blogs, etc. My point still remains with Mr. Dennis's editorial: 10,000 dogs and cats are violation the law and would bring in needed income for dog park. Only 500 are licensed now. We will enforce the law if dog park is built ! Maybe citizen arrest warrants would work, if police and city are not up to law enforcement. greenglass4.

Anonymous said...

I would hope our police force has better things to do.

ec99 said...

"I would hope our police force has better things to do."

I'd bet that if fines for unlicensed dogs brought in the same kind of revenue as traffic citations, the city would make it a priority for the police.

As for the dog park, interesting that this has become a responsibility of the city too. It would be nice to see how many dogs actually show up, then you could set up a dog/dollar ratio.

Anonymous said...

Hey Greenglass4,

I look forward to you attempting a citizen's arrest over an unlicensed pet, my friend. I believe a well-placed boot up your ass would be the result! At least in my case.

Anonymous said...

Tough guy...

Anonymous said...

IMHO this will be typical GF...take five years to discuss it...finally build is used so much we build 2 more....

and why we all piss and moan of 20k is beyond me....when we have 100's of thousands going out the door on other projects that just get a passing glance...

typical thinking that keeps us a town rather than a city

webmasterzero said...

My suggestion to anyone against the GF dog park is to watch the short video my friend Pat Joyner put together for his mother Nancy, who was involved in efforts to make the GF dog park a reality.

I never knew what a dog park was until I watched the video (and all the footage he shot). Initially, I thought it was going to be more like a kennel situation, where the dogs just bark alot and defecate all over. But upon seeing the video, I realized that my preconceived notions were totally wrong.

It was all about dogs playing with each other, to the amusement of their owners. Owners had to clean up after their dogs (if a dog took liberty to "litter" in the park), but mostly alot of sniffing and running around. Not once in the video did I hear a dog bark as it seemed they were way too preoccupied with the other dogs to care about anything else.

So honestly, it's kind of a dog amusement park...and what could possibly be wrong with that?

Also, all the footage used in the video was taken from the FM area, not that it matters, but it's interesting that we have dog parks here that I never knew existed.

Now, I just want to buy a dog to take to the dog park...

Anonymous said...

Well just returned from the lake. A couple responses to others comments. A lot of people are harmed in amusement parks, listen to the news ! Police enforce laws that the city council passes, plus it may be a revenue generator ! And finally to the guy with the "boot", you can keep your "boot" to yourself or you and your "mutt" will be arrested and hauled away ! Goodnight. greenglass4.

webmasterzero said...

That's cool. At least you have an opposing point of view that is valid.

Also, greenglass4, you can tag your name to your comments by using the "other" radio button (checkbox, whatever) instead of posting anonymously all the time. At least that way, if you have a blog or website with your views, you can just link it easily.

Anyway, I'm "for" the dog park as it has no dangerous rides involving hydraulics and pneumatics and dogs.

The whole "leash fee" argument is totally valid, and honest to god, more dog owner should leash and register their pets, but they just don't. They have no incentive to, aside from providing he city with a fee that it doesn't demand.

It's kind of like the "bicycle license" thing that GF pushed back in the 80's, where bike owners could register their bikes, and if they were stolen, they would be recovered easily. Or at least more easily because they were registered and tagged with a license.

The pitfall is that the tags can be removed easily (dog or bike), and therefore don't do alot of good aside from providing income to the city. Which is good, but then the question still remains as to what good they are doing for the owners?

Why register and pay a fee when your dog/bike will never get stolen, or if it does happen, the city can't recover the dog or bike? Then you're just out money and a dog/bike as opposed to just a dog/bike.

The argument is kind of abstract, but I think it's valid.

People should register their pets/bikes, but does it require a fee? Maybe it should only require a fee in the even that you stolen belongings are recovered, because at least that way you are paying for the recovery.

Just my opinion.

Amber said...

I'm 100 percent glad they are finally building the dog park.

Katie said...

I know at Target anyways if you buy a bike, you can register it for free...

Anonymous said...

Greenglass4, I'm just saying if you come at me with "Let me see some paperwork for that dog, or I'm putting you under citizen's arrest.", and you don't have a badge on you, I'm gonna feed you your clipboard.

Leave me and my dog alone, and nothing happens. Got it?

Lay off the comic books and realize that you could get hurt accosting people while playing 'rule enforcer', buddy.

This isn't Metropolis, and you sure as hell aren't Superman.

Anonymous said...

Who ever you are you are just too funny. No I am not superman and neither are you, so just cool your jets, hang on to your mutt, and pick up after him. Don't be a whiner and law breaker. Just be a good citizen ! greenglass4.

Anonymous said...


Is being a good citizen writing blogs as you did on the City Beat page July 9th where you ask if there are plans for a "Doggie Style Rape and Abuse Crisis Center" and comments about doggie rape?

Obviously you have some history with CVIC. Your baggage about gender war, women "asking for it" and how CVIC is just for women shows just what kind of cave you must live in at the Grand Cities Mall.

Peter said...


Anyway means "anyhow" or "in any case." "Anyways" is a strictly colloquial expression, as ungrammatical in written English as "anyhows" because adverbs cannot be plural.

Anonymous said...

UPDATE: Laziness will kill you every time. As several commenters have pointed out, "anyways" is listed in standard dictionaries — including all three of the volumes that reside two feet from my desk — as (variously) nonstandard, archaic, colloquial, or dialect versions of "anyway." I think I'd still argue that this makes it unsuitable for standard written English, but then again so are "heh," "um," "er," "gotta," and "dunno," which are all blogosphere favorites for capturing conversational tone.

The hell with all that, though. I still don't like it. I guess I'm officially entering curmudgeonhood or something.

Anonymous said...

buy some pills

[url=]overnight cialis soft[/url]
[url=]viagra cheap[/url]
[url=]viagra empty stomach[/url]
[url=]roomid 71 cialis[/url]
[url=]toprol diovan lipitor sinus[/url]
[url=]thief of memory lipitor[/url]
[url=]viagra genetic[/url]
[url=]cheap propecia no prescription[/url]
[url=]hair loss lasercomb baldness propecia[/url]
[url=]casodex psa 288[/url]
[url=]need a prescription for viagra[/url]
[url=]tadafil generic cialis[/url]
[url=]cheapest kamagra uk europe[/url]