Diane email to Council

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Diane  wrote to Council:

I am opposed to the process under which the city of Asheville is attempting to develop a dog park off of Beaverdam Road in North Asheville.  Why have residents living nearby not been officially notified?

Is council afraid to tally the accurate numbers of those who oppose this location?  Why are as many as 5 city employees at a time attending meetings for site development of a parcel that is currently privately owned and will be developed and used by a private interest group?  Why has council suggested doubling the cost of dog licenses for all dog owners when the Friends of the Dog Park were to be responsible for raising funds necessary for building and maintaining the dog park.  I am one of many dog owners in the city who have no interest in bringing my dogs to a dog park.  Why not take a poll of licensed dog owners as part of your "research" into the need for another dog park?  Why are the Friends of the Dog Park and at least 2 council members opposed to obtaining a complete environmental assessment by an independent firm which is suggested by the preliminary assessment already done by Dr. Edward Hauser.  (I have a degree in landscape architecture and I do not believe that the city landscape architects have the depth of knowledge that a Phd in  environmental biology has to perform such an assessment.)  Why is so much of this project being planned behind closed doors?  Why would a developer donate land that some council members claim is "very valuable" and a "great opportunity for the city"? Developers routinely donate land that is considered low value floodplain or otherwise difficult or impossible to develop. Why do some council members have so little respect for their constituency that they think we haven't noticed what is going on?

I am also opposed for the following reasons:

- Risk of environmental damage.  Dog urine will kill trees, and could fill Beaver Lake with green algae and kill fish (as it has already done at the Azalea Park Dog Park).

- Too close to homes. Dog Parks can be noisy, unsightly and smelly.

- Loss of visual buffer and wildlife habitat.  Trees, shrubs and undergrowth provide a buffer around the Thoms Estate Development.

- Endangers Killian house at 284 Beaverdam.  No one will want to buy a house with a busy road in front and a busy dog park right behind and beside.  The Killian house, built 1842, may be the oldest house in Buncombe County, and should be preserved.

- Traffic congestion.  Based upon Azalea Dog Park usage, this dog park would average a car every two minutes.

- Likelihood of poor maintenance.  150 Azalea Dog Park users signed a petition concerning their pets and children getting sick after using the dog park. This one promises to be no better.

- Diversion of funds to maintain.  The Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park were to pay for maintenance (5/14 Council Minutes).  Now, it seems, the City is responsible. Why is this project now taking precedence above other projects already scheduled?

Do not suppose that supporting this dog park will please dog owners.  A very small fraction of dog owners desire this dog park.  I understand they are well organized.  But your job is to represent all citizens.

Neither the City, the Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park, nor anyone else has notified all the residents in the area of the location of this proposed dog park. I have no doubt further notification will yield an overwhelming response in opposition to this dog park.  Please do not upend established City projects to force this unsuitable dog park on our community.

Diane

Asheville