Why does the City of Dunwoody allow itself to be held hostage by a bunch of outsiders threatening that they won't purchase anything in Dunwoody any longer if the dog park is moved to where they would have to share a parking lot with the skate park?
I, for one of many, have had enough of their threats against our city - a place they don't even live! I agree with the other citizens in Dunwoody who want to get rid of the dog park completely and use that space for our own taxpaying Dunwoody citizens.
We don't need these outsiders' threats, the increased traffic, and our stores can certainly survive without their occasional purchase of black dresses, broomsticks, and newts' eyes.
As a taxpayer and long time resident of Dunwoody who uses the dog park regularly, I am thrilled with the Council's decision to work with the dog park association's proposed plans to modify the current footprint of the dog park to accommodate all parties. I'm sure the hundreds of other Dunwoody residents that use the dog park share my sentiments. Thank you so much to the council members who support our community!!
Think I gotta agree with Colleen on this. Really tired of folks that don't pay taxes here telling us how to run our city. If these people want their say perhaps you might consider a five dollar charge for each dog whose is from outside Dunwoody city limits each time they enter the park. This would pay for a security guard and defer other maintenance costs.
But best idea is to just get rid of the dog park entirely and give that area back to the children of Dunwoody. We'd be done with the all the complaining and it'd be one less headache that our city government has had to expend entirely too much time on.
Exactly, but I think the stand-off we are at now is because these folks have been allowed to essentially take over this 5 acre area of OUR park, like the federal grazing land that Cliven Bundy annexed, and think they can dictate everything that goes on there.
Just remove the dog park completely and be done with it! With the out-of-shape looks of many people at the park, they could use the exercise of actually walking their dog and not just watching it walk, so we'd doing them a favor by getting rid of the dog park. But most importantly, the city government needs to spend their time on more important issues that have an effect on Dunwoody citizens, not mostly outsiders and a very small percentage of Dunwoody people.
Mr. Heneghan, we very much appreciate your support of the dog park! I am in Brookhaven, but grew up in Dunwoody and my parents still live there.
The beauty of a dog park for me, is to have another option, in addition to walking my dogs twice a day, where my dogs can have the opportunity to socialize with other K-9's off-leash. What I love about this park is the size of the park, and pathways where I am able to walk/exercise myself around the dog park perimeter. The dogs like that too as they move around with me running and greeting other dogs and people along the way. And wow, the shade! There are not many dog parks with shade, so this is a big bonus for Dunwoody!
Again, thank you for your help and support to allow the BRDPA and the city to work out a way to keep the park in its location.
In response to Mr. Turner's comment: For years, the dog park association has suggested that non-Dunwoody residents be charged a fee for using the park. Furthermore, BRDPA has never suggested that any portion of such a user fee be allocated to us. Any money garnered from non-resident users would go to the city, not to us.
And Ms. O'Casey, I am not aware of anyone "threatening" not to purchase anything in Dunwoody. The point they are making is that they won't be spending money in Dunwoody if they're not COMING to Dunwoody, which they wouldn't be doing if the dog park were moved. Quite different statements.
I have wonder about that myself, Dunwoody Mom. Is the city liable and not the dog-owner if a dog bits someone if it gets through the fence, or if there isn't proper security?
Maybe this type of risk is why other communities don't have dog parks.
As a long time resident of Dunwoody and daily patron of the dog park, I support my neighbor Ms. Samantha Suggs and her efforts to preserve the dog park in its current condition. To try and limit the use of Brook Run Park (et al.) to residents would be a very counterproductive move and would make Dunwoody, Georgia comparable to the old South Africa policy of "Show Me Your Papers".
As a taxpayer of Dunwoody and a two time visitor to the dog park - I don't have a hard and fast opinion of whether to keep it open or close it but I think spending any money on it is wrong. We/You council members have spent way too much time on this issue. If the majority says keep it, spend a couple of thousand to change the fence line to move it away from neighbors but for heaven sake, please don't spend any more money on it. I agree w/ the charging of fees to outsiders. I'm sure if it's the ONLY dog park w/ shad it would be worth a $2-5 fee. Thanks for all you do John!
I believe all this discussion about the relocation of the dog park is pretty well moot at this point. As the City of Dunwoody has already been advised in their commissioned study that the continued use of the existing area as a dog park will render the extant trees a hazard, the city is now obligated to move the dog park from its current location to the proposed treeless one, or else the City of Dunwoody and its already over-burdened taxpayers will be legally culpable if any of these trees fall and injure or worse - kill someone. The City of Dunwoody has no choice now but to relocate the dog park.
In fact, if everything is left status quo, members of the city government might even be held as criminally negligent if someone is injured by a falling tree. Analogous to a scenario where a government building is condemned by a building inspector and the city continues to allow for its occupancy. You know the old adage - "If a tree falls in a condemned woods, you can be damn sure an attorney will hear it."
As a proud and compassionate owner of three rescue dogs myself, I'm certain that as long as their owners ensure they have plenty of water, dogs won't mind their new treeless park one bit, and to accommodate their masters and mistresses who insist on standing in the sun to watch their precious pups play - brollies and parasols, respectively, could become all the fashionable rage once again. Dunwoody could create its own quaint "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" neo-impressionistic tableau - see there's even a win in all of this for the city's artist community!
Why does the City of Dunwoody allow itself to be held hostage by a bunch of outsiders threatening that they won't purchase anything in Dunwoody any longer if the dog park is moved to where they would have to share a parking lot with the skate park?
ReplyDeleteI, for one of many, have had enough of their threats against our city - a place they don't even live! I agree with the other citizens in Dunwoody who want to get rid of the dog park completely and use that space for our own taxpaying Dunwoody citizens.
We don't need these outsiders' threats, the increased traffic, and our stores can certainly survive without their occasional purchase of black dresses, broomsticks, and newts' eyes.
As a taxpayer and long time resident of Dunwoody who uses the dog park regularly, I am thrilled with the Council's decision to work with the dog park association's proposed plans to modify the current footprint of the dog park to accommodate all parties. I'm sure the hundreds of other Dunwoody residents that use the dog park share my sentiments. Thank you so much to the council members who support our community!!
ReplyDeleteThink I gotta agree with Colleen on this. Really tired of folks that don't pay taxes here telling us how to run our city. If these people want their say perhaps you might consider a five dollar charge for each dog whose is from outside Dunwoody city limits each time they enter the park. This would pay for a security guard and defer other maintenance costs.
ReplyDeleteBut best idea is to just get rid of the dog park entirely and give that area back to the children of Dunwoody. We'd be done with the all the complaining and it'd be one less headache that our city government has had to expend entirely too much time on.
Thank-you,
Exactly, but I think the stand-off we are at now is because these folks have been allowed to essentially take over this 5 acre area of OUR park, like the federal grazing land that Cliven Bundy annexed, and think they can dictate everything that goes on there.
ReplyDeleteJust remove the dog park completely and be done with it! With the out-of-shape looks of many people at the park, they could use the exercise of actually walking their dog and not just watching it walk, so we'd doing them a favor by getting rid of the dog park. But most importantly, the city government needs to spend their time on more important issues that have an effect on Dunwoody citizens, not mostly outsiders and a very small percentage of Dunwoody people.
Mr. Heneghan, we very much appreciate your support of the dog park! I am in Brookhaven, but grew up in Dunwoody and my parents still live there.
ReplyDeleteThe beauty of a dog park for me, is to have another option, in addition to walking my dogs twice a day, where my dogs can have the opportunity to socialize with other K-9's off-leash. What I love about this park is the size of the park, and pathways where I am able to walk/exercise myself around the dog park perimeter. The dogs like that too as they move around with me running and greeting other dogs and people along the way. And wow, the shade! There are not many dog parks with shade, so this is a big bonus for Dunwoody!
Again, thank you for your help and support to allow the BRDPA and the city to work out a way to keep the park in its location.
In response to Mr. Turner's comment: For years, the dog park association has suggested that non-Dunwoody residents be charged a fee for using the park. Furthermore, BRDPA has never suggested that any portion of such a user fee be allocated to us. Any money garnered from non-resident users would go to the city, not to us.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ms. O'Casey, I am not aware of anyone "threatening" not to purchase anything in Dunwoody. The point they are making is that they won't be spending money in Dunwoody if they're not COMING to Dunwoody, which they wouldn't be doing if the dog park were moved. Quite different statements.
Laine Sweezey, President
BRDPA
What liability, if any, does the City face if a dog attacks another citizen in the Park?
ReplyDeleteI have wonder about that myself, Dunwoody Mom. Is the city liable and not the dog-owner if a dog bits someone if it gets through the fence, or if there isn't proper security?
ReplyDeleteMaybe this type of risk is why other communities don't have dog parks.
As a long time resident of Dunwoody and daily patron of the dog park, I support my neighbor Ms. Samantha Suggs and her efforts to preserve the dog park in its current condition. To try and limit the use of Brook Run Park (et al.) to residents would be a very counterproductive move and would make Dunwoody, Georgia comparable to the old South Africa policy of "Show Me Your Papers".
ReplyDeleteAs a taxpayer of Dunwoody and a two time visitor to the dog park - I don't have a hard and fast opinion of whether to keep it open or close it but I think spending any money on it is wrong. We/You council members have spent way too much time on this issue. If the majority says keep it, spend a couple of thousand to change the fence line to move it away from neighbors but for heaven sake, please don't spend any more money on it. I agree w/ the charging of fees to outsiders. I'm sure if it's the ONLY dog park w/ shad it would be worth a $2-5 fee. Thanks for all you do John!
ReplyDelete*shade (oops)
ReplyDeleteDog Park Relocation - It's a Mutt Point Now
ReplyDeleteI believe all this discussion about the relocation of the dog park is pretty well moot at this point. As the City of Dunwoody has already been advised in their commissioned study that the continued use of the existing area as a dog park will render the extant trees a hazard, the city is now obligated to move the dog park from its current location to the proposed treeless one, or else the City of Dunwoody and its already over-burdened taxpayers will be legally culpable if any of these trees fall and injure or worse - kill someone. The City of Dunwoody has no choice now but to relocate the dog park.
In fact, if everything is left status quo, members of the city government might even be held as criminally negligent if someone is injured by a falling tree. Analogous to a scenario where a government building is condemned by a building inspector and the city continues to allow for its occupancy. You know the old adage - "If a tree falls in a condemned woods, you can be damn sure an attorney will hear it."
As a proud and compassionate owner of three rescue dogs myself, I'm certain that as long as their owners ensure they have plenty of water, dogs won't mind their new treeless park one bit, and to accommodate their masters and mistresses who insist on standing in the sun to watch their precious pups play - brollies and parasols, respectively, could become all the fashionable rage once again. Dunwoody could create its own quaint "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" neo-impressionistic tableau - see there's even a win in all of this for the city's artist community!