To Meet or Not To Meet

Many emails and a phone call today.  The question is whether the dog park opponents will meet with the dog park advocates, City staff, and Councilman Pelly.

Seems simple enough.  Why not meet?

Curiously, the purpose of the proposed meeting is to plan a community association, not to discuss the fate of the dog park.  The dog park would not even be on the agenda.

Mr. Pelly wants to have a "balanced" representation at the meeting.  So he's insisting that 3 dog park advocates attend, 3 opponents, and 3 "neutrals" chosen by the City somehow, for a total of 9, plus him.  He did agree that someone other than he could be moderator.

So why are dog park advocates and opponents tasked with this duty?  Mr. Pelly says it's because these people are the currently active residents.  But there are already several homeowner associations that have officers.  Why not include them?  Won't this group be seen as unrepresentative?

I and others who informally met Chris Pelly at the Festival of Neighborhoods event last Sunday feel the meeting should be open to all who are interested.  Mr. Pelly and City staff could expound on the desirability and basic mechanism of such an association, and all present could elect a task force to implement it, assuming it is found desirable.  I think the whole idea is sufficiently boring that not many will show up, and the meeting should be manageable.  There's a decent likelihood the participants will be close to what Mr. Pelly wants, but the selection will be seen as fairer, because it will be fairer when open to all. The establishment of an association, in and of itself, does not seem to be something susceptible to detrimental effects of malign intent by dog park combatants.  So long as the entire community is ultimately able to participate in selecting officers and expressing their preference on issues like the dog park, I can see no reason to balance the creation effort with dog park advocates and opponents, and I can see no reason to restrict the creation effort to those currently involved in the dog park issue.

Whoa!  What happened to deciding about the dog park?

At the aforementioned Sunday meeting, Mr. Pelly suggested polling the community to decide the dog park issue.  The association is supposed to facilitate this poll and future polls. Not sure how this works.
Mr. Pelly also needs to show Council that he and the Dog Park Friends have made a good faith effort to notify the community about the dog park, and to assess community sentiment.  If they are unable to demonstrate such notification and assessment, Council may vote down the dog park.  Of course, we have no doubt that the sentiment of the notified community will be against the dog park.

I am still trying to decide if I would be willing to attend this meeting.  But it looks as if the whole enterprise is designed to fail.  I will only attend if I think it can be re-born as a successful venture.  If done right, I think a Beaverdam Valley Association is a good idea.  It could address development issues, the possible greenway, traffic, and city services.  I would like to hear neighbors' opinions.