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

Dog park dead?

As Tu-Uyen is reporting in Wednesday's Herald, it's looking like that city funded dog park proposal that advocates were pushing so hard last year might be dead. At the very least, it doesn't sound like the city is able to (or willing to?) fund any such dog park. Also, the Greenway has been shut out as a potential site. And to think that, just a few short months ago, some of our leaders were behind the plan to build a fenceless dog park in a very central location of the Greenway. What a difference a few months (and a few phone calls and a few blog posts) can make, huh?

Like I have said in the past, I'm not against a dog park. However, I have been against just about every proposal for a dog park that has been presented so far. My major problem has always been location, location, location. I just don't feel that we can have a dog park take up valuable green space in centralized locations of town. Surely we can find a more suitable location somewhere on the outskirts? I, for one, am excited about the potential for the Humane Society dog park. I hope that project can get going in a reasonable amount of time.

I must say I'm glad the city is, at least for now, putting the brakes (or tightening the leash) on this project.

No need to rush into this, k?

The Herald carried an article in today's paper about the pros and cons of dog parks.

A few interesting points:
•"In Boulder, Colo., large dogs have killed smaller dogs at the parks."
•"Matt Claussen, a park ranger in Boulder, said putting a lot of dogs together in a fenced-in area can create a pack mentality."
•"It can be very intimidating. I know of one where people won't go anymore because they say it is so scary."
•"Some dog parks in Boulder once had nice tall grass and now are mostly dirt and gravel."

Yikes. This doesn't sound like anything that the city of Grand Forks should be rushing into without giving serious thought to location and design. And to think that if some people around here had their way, a major portion of the Greenway near downtown Grand Forks would already be an unfenced dog park!

I think it's high time the city listens to people on all sides of this issue. Right now, there is a very vocal pro-dog park faction that is trying to make construction of a dog park in the city limits of Grand Forks seem like both an absolute necessity and an emergency. I really don't think it is either. Let's take some time on this and get the design and the location right. Otherwise, we could potentially end up with both unhappy dog owners and unhappy residents.

"Roaming Paws" turns to the Internet and petitions

Roaming Paws, a "grassroots" group which favors construction of a dog park in the city limits of Grand Forks, has set up a new website entitled "Roaming Paws Off Leash Dog Park Community Connection". This group is also starting to pass around a petition in support of a dog park.

Why do I put the word "grassroots" in quotes? Well, I see on the front page of the website that Melanie Parvey-Biby, the Greenway Coordinator for the City of Grand Forks, is prominently listed as being a part of this group and a contact person for those wishing to join. Perhaps this isn't news to some people, but it is to me. Parvey-Biby is a paid employee of the city of Grand Forks. Why is she becoming heavily involved with a "citizens" group that favors construction of a semi-controversial project that would be funded by her employer...the city of Grand Forks? I personally just don't like the sound of that. What do you think?

BTW, I notice that the group favors a fenced dog park. Why then was Parvey-Biby so fervently pushing the city council a few months back to fund construction of a fenceless dog park downtown? Apparently someone realized that a dog park without boundaries wasn't exactly going to fly with most people.

Picky me, but couldn't Roaming Paws find some better pictures? Who found this creepy 1980s stock photo?

If you're interested in reading more of my opinions about the prospects for a dog park(s) in Grand Forks, check out the following links...

•How I think a dog park could be paid for without taking neighborhood parks out of service and without requiring the city to put up the money.
•The results of a poll I did about dog parks in Grand Forks.
•Information about a petition being circulated by people who don't want a neighborhood park in southern Grand Forks to become a dog park.

Closing one poll, opening another

I'm starting the week of blogging by closing the current poll and opening a new one.

Out with the old...
I'm impressed with the number of people who voted in this poll. The question was "Which GF dog park proposal do you support?" and we had 50 unique voters cast their votes. Click here for the results. Remember that this poll is unscientific, but it is set up so each voter can only vote once. It does provide a snapshot of sentiments of a group of people interested in the matter.

I was very interested to see the low level of support for the current proposed locations for the dog park. Only 8% voted for the fenceless downtown location and 20% voted for the fenced Lion's Park location (or whatever the Park District wants us to call it). That means that only 28% of the voters favored one of the current proposals...less than a third of all voters.

People seem to generally be ok with the idea of a dog park in the city, but they don't seem overly thrilled with the current proposals on the drawing board. 12% voted for another fenceless location and 30% voted for another fenced location. That's 42% of the voters who like the idea of a dog park, but don't like the current locations being proposed.

If we look at the fencing component of a dog park, 20% of voters wanted a fenceless location and 50% wanted a fenced location. Most voters (including me) seem to see fencing as a must for any dog park in Grand Forks.

Finally, 28% of the voters simply did not want a dog park in the city limits and 2% voted "Other". I'm not sure what "other" proposal that voter was thinking of, but I would be interested to find out.

This was an interesting poll and I found it to be quite telling. When it comes right down to it, people seem to want a dog park in the city (although nearly 1/3 don't want one at all), but the dog park must be fenced and neither of the two current proposals seem very popular. I agree with these results. I think a dog park is ok, but I want to see a new location and fencing isn't even a question any more.

For some of my thoughts on the dog park and reader's comments, see the following posts:
•New poll: dog park
•How to fund a brand new dog park and not destroy Lions Park in the process
•Newsbits: Canad rising, dog park dilemma
•Dog park petition

In with the new...
The new question is "Would you like to see a Wal-Mart on Gateway Drive?". I will be interested to see what everyone thinks about the possibility of Wal-Mart opening a store on Gateway. This comes from my post entitled "Gateway cleanup" and some of the comments from that post. Happy voting!

Dog park petition

It looks like some of the people who live in the neighborhood around the corner of 24th Avenue South and South 34th Street aren't so thrilled that the city wants to convert a small park at the intersection into a new city-owned dog park. The owners of the Carrington Court apartment complex directly north of the park are circulating a petition for renters to sign. WDAZ-TV has a story on the petition.

I'm personally very glad to see this petition start up. As you probably know, I'm very much against a dog park at this location. Dog parks do not belong next to apartment complexes and single family houses, nor should an existing park which is already used by people be converted into an ugly fenced-in area for dogs. Dog parks are fine, but it is all about location, location, location when building such a facility and this proposed location is a very poor choice. I hope that the petition might spread to some of the other apartment complexes in the area and around the quiet residential neighborhood that borders the park.

I find it worth noting that the man who spoke in favor of a dog park at this location in the WDAZ report did not have his dog on a leash and was allowing him to run freely through the park. This is in violation of city law and, unfortunately, just serves to show that some dog-owners don't feel they need to follow city rules when they take their dogs out. If you're going to speak in favor of the city spending money for you to have a dog park that you can use, the least you can do is follow city law and have your dog on a leash!

Newsbits: Canad rising, dog park dilemma

••Take a drive down 42nd Street and look to the west...the walls are rising out of the ground for the lower floors of the Canad Inns tower. There has been plenty of work going on at the site for the past few months, but this past week saw the first time that any of the visible work was taking place above ground. I wonder when steel will start rising? Also, it looks like the foundation is pretty well in for the waterpark...can't be too long before the walls start to rise for that building too. There are so many piles of dirt and clay around the north side of the Alerus Center.

••Tu-Uyen says that the Lions Park (or whatever you want to call it) location is looking more and more like the spot for the new Grand Forks dog park. Great. You probably already know what I think about this.

Can't the city find a location that isn't right next to houses and apartments and that hasn't already been functioning as a park for years? What about my notion to fund a brand new dog park with some of the pet license fees in Grand Forks? Since the city deems the kind of dog park I'm looking for (one that isn't next to residential developments or isn't already a park) such an expensive undertaking, why not get creative with funding the project? As far as the location, what about Dakota's idea to locate a dog park adjacent to the Humane Society on North Washington? Seems like a good location to me.

If I were on the city council, I would think twice before locating a dog park next to major residential developments and on top of an already existing park. If they build such a facility, they are going to end up with some unhappy voters.

Update - 6/7/2006
I wasn't able to go to it, but a meeting was held on Tuesday about the Lion's Park location...read the Herald story. The article makes it sound like a dog park at the Lion's Park (or whatever you want to call it) location is basically now a sure thing. This has to be one of the oddest statements I've heard in quite a while: "The location is as removed as you can get from residential in the city." That comes from Steve Mullally, Park District superintendent of parks. Removed from residential areas? This is one of the denser parts of town! The area is ringed with apartments and there is a quiet residential neighborhood just northeast of the proposed dog park. One of the residents of that neighborhood, Dan O'Shea, was the only proponent of the dog park to show up at Tuesday's meeting (where was GrandForksGuy when you needed him???). He suggested that a better location for the dog park would be Ulland Park and I couldn't agree more. Ulland Park is not surrounded by homes and apartments and there would be plenty of space for parking. Why not build there? The Herald also has a story about the new Humane Society dog park which will soon be built. Wouldn't it be best for the city to watch how that dog park works and then use what it learns there to work out the kinks and build a much better city-owned dog park sometime down the road?

How to fund a brand new dog park and not destroy Lions Park in the process

I've been doing some thinking about the proposals which have been floating around town lately for a Grand Forks dog park. As you may be aware, I'm against the proposal for a fenceless dog park in the Greenway and I'm also against the proposal to turn a portion of Lions Park into a dog park. Read some of my comments under this post to see why I feel the way I do. I'm not the only person who hates seeing a neighborhood park become a dog park...check out this story.

I can only come up with one conclusion: any dog park that is to be constructed in the city limits of Grand Forks should be a fenced park not placed on top of a current park, but should be placed in a presently vacant and unused part of town. I know what some of you (including some of our city leaders) will say when you read this proposal. "It's too expensive to buy a new piece of property and put up the necessary fence and parking lot." Well, why not find creative ways for funding such a dog park?

I'm unable to find statistics (maybe I'll email someone at the city), but I believe that only a very small portion of the dogs in Grand Forks are actually licensed and that means that local government is being cheated out of a substantial funding source for such a dog park. Let's crunch some numbers.

According to Wikipedia, there are 19,677 households in the city of Grand Forks. According to this table, 36.1% of North Dakota households have dogs and those North Dakota households with dogs have an average of 1.5 dogs each. Using these figures, we see that around 7,103 Grand Forks households have dogs and there are about 10,655 dogs in the city. The cost of a license for a spayed/neutered dog in Grand Forks is $5 and, if we pretend that all dogs in Grand Forks are spayed/neutered, we arrive at a grand total of about $53,275. This means that Grand Forks dog owners should be spending a total of $53,275 each year to license their dogs. Yep, $53,275 each year. How much do you think it would cost to build a brand new state-of-the-art dog park on a vacant piece of property in Grand Forks? Well, would something like $266,000 be enough? That's the minimum of what we could have for a dog park if every dog in Grand Forks was licensed and all of the money collected for five year's worth of licenses were put together and used to pay off the construction costs of a new dog park.

I think it may be time for the city/police department to look into enforcing dog licensing and use those fees to buy the dogs and dog owners of Grand Forks a state-of-the-art dog park. Do you really think it would be too much to expect a dog owner to pay the $5 (or $15 if the animal is not spayed/neutered) that they are already legally required to pay for each dog they have and get the benefit of seeing that small fee go towards the construction of a new dog park that they could use as much as they want? I don't think it would be expecting very much at all.

Or how about this, if you don't want to offend the dog owners of Grand Forks by enforcing licensing and using that as a mechanism to finance a new dog park, why not build a new dog park on a currently vacant piece of land and then charge a small sum to the dog owners who use the park after it is constructed? It wouldn't be the first time dog owners would have to pay to use a new dog park...check out this story. I don't think it would take that long to collect enough to pay off construction costs for a brand new dog park.

Perhaps a mixture of the two funding mechanisms mentioned here would be the best option for building a new dog park on a vacant piece of land instead of turning an existing neighborhood park into the dog park. I wish that city leaders would think about my ideas. We could end up with a state-of-the-art dog park and keep the Greenway and Lions Park as they are: valuable park space in an ever expanding city.

New poll: dog park

Time to change the Grand Forks Life poll again. First, let's take a look at the results of the old poll question. The question was "What would you like to see more of in downtown Grand Forks?" and there were a total of 64 votes. The most wanted addition to downtown appears to be "Stores" which received 31% of the vote. "Restaurants/bars" was another popular answer with 25% of the vote. "Housing" and "Offices" tied with each other by both getting 19% of the vote. Lastly, "Other" got 5% and "Galleries" got just 2% of the vote.

It's interesting to see that people seem to want stores more than anything else downtown (that was my vote, too). I might observe that several stores have opened up downtown in the last few years only to later close likely because of a lack of customers. My feeling is that these stores weren't exactly what people were looking for when the were talking about retail establishments in the downtown area. In my opinion, interested parties should take a look at what kinds of stores seem to go over well in other regional downtown areas and try to repeat the same formula in downtown Grand Forks. With the recent influx of restaurants and - especially - housing, it will be interesting to see if stores will follow suit by locating downtown. It seems like there will be more and more people living downtown in the near future and all of those people are going to need places to eat and places to shop...right? Guess we'll find out soon enough.

Time for the next poll. The new question is "Which GF dog park proposal do you support?". Make your voice heard on this important issue. Don't think that city leaders don't "lurk" on local blogs to try to gauge feelings on local issues. Cast you vote right now!