[Vision2020] Aug 10 Update on Dog Park

[Kit Craine]

While Mr. Lindsey may disagree with my using the adjective "major" to 
describe the degree of loss associated with the proposed solution to 
the school district taking part of the Dog Park, I take umbrage at my 
statement being called "a bit out of line." My definition of a "major" 
loser is someone who has no forewarning of an action, no voice in the 
decision, and is left to deal with the consequences without 
compensation or mitigation.

That almost happened with Dog Park. The original proposal was that the 
school district's driveway would cross the park and in return the 
school district would (generously) spend $15,000 on a retaining wall 
that would minimize the area they were taking. The "request" was 
presented to the city with little notice at the end of July under 
circumstances where if the council did not immediately agree, the whole 
project (subdivision, street extension, driveway, ability to use buses 
once school began) would fall apart.

The members of the Public Works/Finance committee (two of whom were 
newly elected) did not fold under this pressure. They told the staff to 
find a solution that would best meet the needs of the school district, 
the park, and the Humane Society/Animal Shelter. They delayed the 
process long enough so the affected parties could be involved in the 
discussion. The committee should be commended for that.

Is this the perfect or ideal solution? No.
Is it a "win-win" situation for everyone? No.
Is the discussion over? No.

Are there losers? Yes—primarily the Humane Society/Animal Shelter.
Are they "major" losers? Find out the facts and form your own opinion.

At least the society/shelter has a place at the table. If they feel 
that the staff is ignoring something that could create a major problem, 
they should be taking their concerns directly to the committee members. 
I think the council members will listen.

One more thought: If the citizens of Moscow want to put "community" 
back into the oversight of development then voting in an occasional 
election is not enough. Each and every one of us needs to be both 
vigilant and vocal. "Vigilant" as in diligently reading the council 
agendas that are posted here and the legal notices in the Daily News 
(how many of you caught the Dog Park encroachment item that was in the 
agenda posted on Vision2020 on July 23rd?); "vocal" as in researching a 
proposal then telling the mayor, council, and the appropriate 
commission what you think.

Kit Craine

On Aug 10, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Steve Lindsey wrote:

> Kit,
>  
> Thanks for the information, however, the statement "there will be no 
> major losers" is a bit out of line.  For one the "New" area of the dog 
> park in the Southeast corner will be if not directly connected very 
> close to the existing outdoor dog kennels on the south side of the 
> shelter.  The Humane Society staff, when meeting with the city 
> engineers, specifically asked that a concrete or cinder block wall be 
> built to separate and obstruct the view of the shelter dogs and the 
> dogs in the park.  This request has been ignored as have many other 
> requests the Humane Society has asked for.  Who will be 
> responsible should a dog from the public jump the fence into 
> the Humane Society kennels or vice versa, and one of the dogs is 
> injured?  Who will be accountable when the poor dog or dogs that stay 
> in the kennel closest to the dog park become "kennel crazy" due to 
> watching all the other dogs in the park run free, and therefore being 
> at the shelter for a much longer time? Thankfully the Humane Society 
> is a no-kill shelter, and spot will not be euphonized because he has 
> been there for months.
>  
> There will be major losers in this and it will be the users of the dog 
> park, the Humane Society of the Palouse, and the dogs. 
>  
> Steve Lindsey 
>  
>  
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com 
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Kit Craine
> Sent:Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:05 PM
> To: 2020 Vision
> Subject:[Vision2020] Aug 10 Update on Dog Park
>
>
> Here's the latest on the Dog Park:
>
> Yesterday (August 9, 2004) staff presented what they feel is the best 
> solution to the encroachment into Dog Park to the Public Works/Finance 
> committee. This was a report so no decisions were made.
>
> According to the City Engineer, the proposed route through the park 
> is, in fact, the only viable solution to the school district's 
> requirements for a bus\-compatible driveway. The following actions 
> will be taken in order to mitigate the damage to the park:
>
> \-> The school district will trade land that is currently a landscaped 
> buffer along the east boundary of the park for the land they need.
>
> \-> The east side of the park will be expanded into that area, plus a 
> chunk on the south\-east corner of the existing park; roughly, this 
> chunk goes along the east side of the shelter to the south side of the 
> shelter. The result will be an L\-shaped area that is approximately 
> 5,000 square feet larger than the current park.
>
> \-> The park expansion will eat four parking places. To replace these, 
> five spaces will be built on the west side of the shelter's driveway.
>
> \-> The estimated cost for this project is $25,000\-$26,200. The 
> Salisburys will pay this by foregoing the city's contribution (approx. 
> $25,000) for upgrading the sewer main from 8 inches to 12.
>
> \-> The city will try to do the work in stages so the park can remain 
> open.
>
> At this time, the drawbacks appear to be:
>
> \-> The Humane Society has raised funds and purchased materials to 
> build two outdoor dog runs where people can meet prospective pets. 
> Their plan was to put these runs on the west side of the shelter; the 
> city engineer feels there will be enough space south of the new 
> parking spaces for these runs; the Humane Society isn't sure whether 
> that is true. The city and Humane Society are still looking into that.
>
> \-> The school district's driveway will take the best\-drained area of 
> the park. The users are concerned over the park becoming a mud\-hole 
> during the rainy seasons. That issue is being evaluated.
>
> \-> The suggested solution will make it impossible to expand the 
> already at\-capacity animal shelter. As a result, when the shelter 
> must expand, it will have to be relocated to a new site.
>
> The city is working with all involved parties, including the Humane 
> Society, so it doesn't appear that there will be any major losers.
>
> That's all for now.
>
> Kit Craine
  
     
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6927 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040811/d5939133/attachment.bin