It is nice knowing that once in a while an idea suggested here actually gets some consideration.
In a post dated 1/6/08 I suggested that the city might wish to “think outside the box” to alleviate some of its dog park shortage. [While I cannot agree with what some of the most rabid dog park enthusiasts say, that dogs deserve equal consideration with children in determining park policy, it is clear that there is a shortage of such facilities.] Arlington/Arkwright is a nice place, I guess, for dog lovers who want to use it [and I am well aware that some dog lovers do not cotton to the idea of dog parks – that’s why we in the neighborhood had to negotiate between the two factions when that park was established], but Arlington/Arkwright is dying from too much love.
Noting that Stillwater was considering using a location it owned in Wisconsin, I suggested that extra-container cogitation might suggest such a use for Lilydale Park.
An article by Dave Orrick in yesterday’s paper that consideration is being given to a dog park in Lilydale [The map the DPP used yesterday is vague about whether the site is indeed in Lilydale. It also does mislabels the river running by the park. It is a shame when the local rag does not even know what the Mississippi River is.] The Parks Commission has approved it and that the City Council will be considering the matter Wednesday.
It kind of makes me feel good, not only because I can say the idea started here, but because we really need another dog park available to our city’s dog-owning residents.
In a post dated 1/6/08 I suggested that the city might wish to “think outside the box” to alleviate some of its dog park shortage. [While I cannot agree with what some of the most rabid dog park enthusiasts say, that dogs deserve equal consideration with children in determining park policy, it is clear that there is a shortage of such facilities.] Arlington/Arkwright is a nice place, I guess, for dog lovers who want to use it [and I am well aware that some dog lovers do not cotton to the idea of dog parks – that’s why we in the neighborhood had to negotiate between the two factions when that park was established], but Arlington/Arkwright is dying from too much love.
Noting that Stillwater was considering using a location it owned in Wisconsin, I suggested that extra-container cogitation might suggest such a use for Lilydale Park.
An article by Dave Orrick in yesterday’s paper that consideration is being given to a dog park in Lilydale [The map the DPP used yesterday is vague about whether the site is indeed in Lilydale. It also does mislabels the river running by the park. It is a shame when the local rag does not even know what the Mississippi River is.] The Parks Commission has approved it and that the City Council will be considering the matter Wednesday.
It kind of makes me feel good, not only because I can say the idea started here, but because we really need another dog park available to our city’s dog-owning residents.
Posts
2 comments:
IRV is as simple as 1-2-3. Perhaps if they cant figger that out, maybe they shouldn’t be voting anyway.
On the other hand, do we want the Ruby Hunt, George Lattimer intelectuals running the show in this town.
Well, Megan, you put your comment on the wrong post since this post was about dog park locations, not IRV. The IRV post was the one below.
I knew that Latimer was supporting IRV. I guess I didn't know about Ruby Hunt, but it does seem in character with some of her other positions.
Maybe people who cannot figure out IRV should not be voting, but as a community, should we be creating obstacles to civic participation?
Ray Sammons
Post a Comment