To: 'John ' (in response to letter http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/09/group-to-set-up-new-dog-park-old-parks.html , also in response to others' letters)
Thanks
for contacting me regarding the proposed North Asheville Dog Park. As
you know, there are advocates in the community working to see the park
become a reality.
There are also citizens who have specific concerns. City staff has been
studying the project, and City Council is set to receive a staff
presentation and discuss the matter in a public work session on Tuesday,
September 10th, at 4:00PM in the First Floor Conference
Room in City Hall.
Part
of my career was spent administering grants for open space protection
and parks development, and I spent several years as member and chairman
of Asheville’s Greenway
Commission. I have a keen interest in a positive outcome here.
As
for my own take on the matter, I am eager to hear the reports and have
discussion next Tuesday, but here are some key principles for me at this
stage:
- Dog Parks are proving very popular in communities across the country, and in general, having a dog park somewhere in North Asheville would be a positive for the community.
- I do not disagree with those who say other locations might be more ideal than the one under consideration. Acquiring and developing better sites might not be feasible, however.
- In this case, the donation of land for the park is a significant incentive to consider taking this step now. If we are to move forward, the city receiving that land must occur under acceptable terms and deed restrictions. I have been assertive as to that point in my engagement so far.
- The site and ingress/egress must be reasonable from a traffic safety standpoint. Our staff has proven highly reliable in assessing traffic safety in various projects over the years, and I will be inclined to trust whatever findings they arrive at here. If staff finds that traffic safety is unacceptably impaired, I would not support the project.
- Ensuring protection of water quality in Beaverdam Creek is critical. I am not convinced that achieving that requires a third-party contracted environmental assessment. The City has qualified landscape architects and civil engineers on staff, and I would yield to their judgment about feasibility and/or need for an outside assessment.
- Capital costs must be sufficient to construct a quality park to best-practice standards. That funding would have to come in this case entirely from the private sector, a point I publicly voiced commitment to in a Council discussion several months ago.
- The incremental annual operating and maintenance costs must be reliably scoped, and be acceptable regarding the city’s budget. I can see the city absorbing some amount of annual cost burden, but depending on scale, it might require creation of an endowment to fund some of it. I am very hesitant to see us rely on promises of annual fundraising coming from the public or on volunteer groups promising to maintain or operate the site. I encourage such efforts and think they are critical to supplement operations of our parks, but I have learned that relying on such efforts for baseline stewardship is often a mistake.
I
apologize for the delay in my response to you. Please know that I am
engaged in this issue, and appreciate your participation.
Marc Hunt
No comments:
Post a Comment