The Dog-gone Facts about a Dog Park, revisited

Betsy Mowry wrote a piece for the Twin Cities Daily Planet yesterday [St. (sic) Paul dog owners straining at the leash] about dog parks, noting the overuse of Arlington/Arkwright.

While I think she neglected to point out some of the history of Arlington/Arkwright Dog Park, especially missing the contribution of Payne/Phalen District Five Planning Council in mediating and mitigating problems between users and immediate neighbors, Ms. Mowry seems to have diagnosed much of the situation correctly. It continues to be true that the basic problem at Arlington/Arkwright is overuse, overuse which is caused because the city has never followed up on a promise which it made to Arlington/Arkwright neighbors and the dog using community last century, that if the one there worked well, that more would be forthcoming, and that Arlington/Arkwright would not be the only one.

Even if we can get all the improvements that were agreed upon last year for Arlington/Arkwright funded and implemented, there will still be problems until we get more dog parks in our city.

At one time there was discussion that David Thune was considering allowing one at the site of the NSP High Bridge Plant. I suggested here earlier that Lilydale Park might work. Both seem acceptable to somebody from my side time of town, and especially since there aren’t a lot of immediate neighbors to play NIMBY as there are in Mac-Groveland and other western neighborhoods, those sites might have a chance of happening.

But until we get more parks, preferably in western neighborhoods, Arlington/Arkwright will continue to be overused.

Earlier posts: The Dog-gone Facts About a Dog Park [11/27/07]; Thinking Outside the Box? [1/6/08]