Comments on: Parks Group Explores New Dog Park Site

By: Tom Fricke

Tom Fricke — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:31:33 +0000

Just a clarification: there is no formally organized “group” of West Park residents organized to protest the possible location of the dog park. There has been information shared among neighbors, but everybody is to this point acting as an individual. So no coordinated campaign. I suspect that a number of folks will be attending the PAC meeting out of interest. No idea how many. Thanks for the link to the Facebook page — most of us weren’t aware of it.

By: Mary Morgan

Mary Morgan — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:35:38 +0000

I just received word that some residents living near West Park have formed a group to protest the proposed new dog park location. They've formed a Facebook page – NoA2DogPark – and plan to attend PAC's March 19 meeting to speak about the issue. [link to NoA2DogPark Facebook page]

By: Lauren

Lauren — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:42:10 +0000

Planning a dog park without addressing the problem of off-leashed dogs in all the Ann Arbor Natural Areas (Barton Hills, Barton Pond Nature Ares for instance) and the Ann Arbor public Schools (Slauson, Haisley)is simply pointless. I don’t know any dog owner who would pay for a dog park several miles away when the local parks and schools are available for free, and off-leash laws absolutely never enforced.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:19:55 +0000

I’ve been wondering why the city-owned properties at First & William or 415 W. Washington have not been considered as test locations. True, they are both being used for parking right now, and are also under consideration for other future uses. But this might be excellent locations simply to test out the response and issues with a near-downtown location.

(First & William does have a train schedule to consider.)

By: M Davis

M Davis — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:21:20 +0000

There are a lot of great points made so far about a proposed Dog Park and why West Park is not a good place to consider. I think the City of A2 and Parks department needs to start thinking of “centrally located” as someplace other than a park in a residential area.

The dog parks are open from dawn to dusk. During the year this ranges from 9 hours each day to more than 15 hours a day in June and July (currently 12 hours).

There is also a city ordinance about barking:
“Q. What is a noise nuisance?
If it is barking, howling, meowing, squawking or making other sounds, frequently or for a continued duration, which annoys, endangers, injures or disturbs a person of normal sensitivities on premises other than that occupied by the owner of the animal.”

Perhaps the library lot or one of William St Corridor sites is better if the main goal is to be centrally located. This way the park could be designed and built with all the amenities, instead of trying to make any of the choices shown in this article work.

Thank you to all who are trying to make this work. I just think it’s time to broaden the search.

By: cosmonıcan

cosmonıcan — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 15:45:54 +0000

The southeast portion of Kuebler Langford Nature Area would seem to fit the needs, it already has fence along one side. If there was a safe way to cross Huron River Drive, it combines with a nice on-leash walk through Barton Nature Area to ample parking. It may not be ‘centrally’ located, but it does the job.

I would take my dogs there, but probably not to West Park .

By: Tom Fricke

Tom Fricke — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 15:27:41 +0000

I’m in agreement with the reservations on a West Park dog run expressed by others above. It just seems like a bad idea all the way around. Seems to me that the dog park, especially at the proposed location, (1) violates the planning and design considerations put into the 2-3 year long renovation and update, including really nice attention to the aesthetics of unobstructed views leading up through the knoll; (2) takes a general use area shared by multiple users for a range of activities and gives it over to single use, thus destroying the overall balance of the parks use areas and excluding a large group of users; (3) introduces a range of logistical and practical tensions into the park and neighborhood from parking problems, to noise, to sanitation. The West park location seems an obvious non-starter. I think, if such a facility is truly necessary, it really has to be put away from neighborhoods and in a context that doesn’t detract from existing park features. The space by Broadway Bridge, for example?

By: Suswhit

Suswhit — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:50:38 +0000

I remember seeing a dog park in NYC in a fairly small park. One quite small area for small dogs and a larger area for other dogs. Not even close to the size of the field at Slauson that people let their dogs run loose in. Perhaps it’s the expectation that people will have a giant field area with dogs running wild is a problem. The space doesn’t need to be huge for people and their dogs to socialize. I think there is city owned property on Crest across from the Slauson field that could easily be fenced for dogs.

By: Donna Estabrook

Donna Estabrook — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:24:26 +0000

I think that “centrally located” is the main problem with locating a dog park. No matter how much you like dogs I don’t think many people want to hear dogs barking. If a dog park is centrally located there will be quite a few residents who will be within earshot of that park. Any plan for a “centrally located” dog park will have opposition from near-by residents.

By: Karla Taylor

Karla Taylor — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 23:49:55 +0000

I heard from a neighbor that the city and the parks department were bewildered that they hadn’t heard anything about the possibility of a West Park dog park on the knoll west of the softball field. The reason you all didn’t get much feedback is that you didn’t tell anyone. I found out from a flyer put in my mailbox by a neighbor, after the 26 Feb and the 5 March meetings. This despite the fact that I am on an e-mail list to be informed about developments in re: dog park. Great communication!

I am very much in favor of a centrally located dog park. My house backs onto the contemplated area, and our dog would just love it. I am in favor it it. I also see that a number of my neighbors are not.

I think all of us would need a commitment from the city to maintain it. Other centrally located dog park locations would also be great, provided that you all consider the fact that the primary population you would be serving is: central city residents, many of whom (as per current city planning encouragement) do not have cars. It really needs to be centrally located. (Thus the South Maple/Liberty location is not great.) And Ann Arbor really needs it.

What happened to 721 N. Main?

Karla Taylor