From:
To: "chrispelly@avlcouncil.com" <chrispelly@avlcouncil.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:03 PM
To: "chrispelly@avlcouncil.com" <chrispelly@avlcouncil.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:03 PM
Dear Councilman Pelly,
In your Letter to the Beaverdam Community on the Responsible Asheville blog you misrepresent the opposition to this park on several fronts.
First the Beaverdam Community is not embroiled in controversy and there is no rift. That is your characterization. The Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park is a private non-profit entity and some members live in Beaverdam. However it is not a community group, it is an outside entity that has an agenda that will impact our community.
The idea for a dog park was not generated from inside the Beaverdam community and there are those of us in the Beaverdam Community who think the dog park will negatively affect the safety and quality of life of our community. These concerns were more specifically addressed in the letters I, my husband and several other members of our neighborhood sent to council before the work session and to Jeff Moore.
The fact that the land is free does not by itself make this an appropriate location for a dog park. In fact some of the best practices for dog parks directly contradict this as an appropriate location, such as they should not be located in a residential neighborhood and should be located within the boundaries of an existing larger park.
We do not think the maintenance and security of a city park should be at the mercy of fundraising. If FNADP raises the money it will still be for an ill conceived addition to our community. No one in the dog park organization or the city staff has adequately explained how the dog park will enhance the quality of life for the residents of the Beaverdam Community or shown an urgent need for such a park.
Beaverdam is a collection of many smaller neighborhoods, some totally in the county, some totally in the city and like ours part in the county and part in the city. There is general agreement there is a need for organization, but it would be most effective if it is done thoughtfully and in a time frame to get it right and should be initiated by members of the community.
The communication problem is not within our community and with our neighbors. We are actually communicating pretty well right now. The communication should have been done by the city and the group that began the planning for this park. The planning had been going on for 18 months before there was any public discussion. It went before city council in May and most of us found out about it in the paper. The city claims no responsibility for public notification because it is a passive park - how would we have found out even if we had a neighborhood association?
Our opposition has been characterized as negative. Well a bad idea is a bad idea. We will be glad to work with city staff or other concerned citizens to see something that enhances the community for all its residents is completed there. We still think a greenway where the community can walk its dogs on leashes and will give bikers, walkers, runners a respite from the craziness of Beaverdam Road would be great. A greenway is part of the Conditional Use permit for that property. A greenway is not controversial and would be much more straightforward and less expensive for the city than maintaining a dog park.
Thank you for your time,
Dear all,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Roger Hartley, I am a professor at WCU and live on Crabapple Lane. I am essentially .2 miles from the site of the proposed new dog park. I have been a little involved with respect to contacting council members that I know and the city manager. I teach public administration and oddly, for our purposes...conflict management.
I would like to do a full post on this blog but I do not know how. Here are my interests. I would like to see a compromise that could make this site a fantastic addition to the Beaverdam Community. I don't believe a dog park alone is a good fit and its not enough for our gorgeous valley of 1000s of residents. There is traffic concerns and a whole lot more.
If it is going to be something at all (and this is what I have communicated to council and the manager) it should be a park that is crafted in such a way that we can be proud of for generations. This idea and site would have broader support (not complete support) if the site contained an off leash dog park, coupled with a playground for our children and the beginnings of what could be a greenway. It could attract more residents, more donations, and likely city or county support. Even grants.
I feel like many of you that a dog park has been dumped on our laps without much, if any, community input. I want much much more for all of us. Much more and because of the development behind it and so many like it planned, I feel that the city and county owe us that. If this is to be something it should be great and something all of our community can enjoy. Not just dog owners.
I will hold my thoughts on a dog park in our neighborhood. I am opposed to it alone for many reasons, but this could be an opportunity for more if we work together and consider how our interests might dovetail.
Best,
Dr. Roger Hartley
Crabapple Lane
There are some land uses that are not appropriate for a residential area. If someone wanted to put a gas station at Beaverdam and Wild Cherry, the neighbors would not be appeased if the oil company agreed to add a playground. We believe a dog park, like a gas station, does not belong amidst homes, and our view is shared by professionals in the park development community see Trust for Public Land "Creating Dog Parks - Without Rancor" http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_Dog_Park_Report.pdf
DeleteI believe 90% of the community are happy with the land the way it is. Make it part of a greenway, and that number won't budge, although 70% may be even happier. Add a dog park, and I believe at least 85% will be very unhappy, regardless of what else is added. Of course, 10% may be delighted.
John Heafield (blog admin)
I fail to understand how a compromise means giving the Friends of the Dog Park what they want.
DeleteIn this case putting a dog park in 284 Beaverdam will lead to "fantastic subtractions" not to "fantastic additions." Here is why:
Does anyone seriously want to pollute Beaver Lake and have the public lose access to Beaver Lake just so there can be a dog park at 284 Beaverdam? http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/10/response-to-councilman-pelly.html
Why jeopardize the vitality of the Killian house? (http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/10/friends-now-trying-to-strangle-killian.html)
Why have traffic increases similar to a car every two minutes as cited by Assistant City Manager Cathy Ball for Azalea Dog Park? (http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/10/dog-park-traffic-would-car-every-two.html).
Beth Heafield
I would welcome a guest post. Please email it to me at jrh0@outlook.com (jrhzero also works), and indicate that you would like it to be a post. That address is also used for other reasons, and I don't want to post a citizen's comment without permission. As blog Moderator, I will post at my discretion, which is based upon usual standards of decency, not whether I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteJohn
Thanks John. Very nice of you. I appreciate the opportunity.
DeleteIn response, there are lots of issues about dog park that I do not like but I do believe the land could be of use to our community in the ways I have noted above. There is great interest for a dog park, I can respect that interest and I also feel like you that this was coming our way without much input at all until some of us raised concern. I completely agree about the Killian House. It must be preserved. If there is going to be a park, I would like it to actually be one. A mixed use one. Everyone gets a little perhaps and again I think it could be designed in such a way that it could be an impressive addition to our community. But only if a park for all of us and not just dogs. And a greenway...wow...
Ms. Carter's land along the creek along Gibson is practically a park. And today I saw off leash dogs roaming the land further out Beaverdam in the field across from the church and graveyard.
There is an opportunity for something here that might be great. I appreciate that the developer might donate the land and that the city is interested. Like you I didn't at all appreciate that plans were being made without us. There is a lot of evidence that may have been in works awhile. The modification to the development behind it exempted (very fishy) the require sidewalk in favor of a trail. Once the bridge was constructed on Wild Cherry, there was a turnout to the area of the woods built out as the constructed the sidewalk.
I know lots of us are angry. The past and how things have been handled have eroded trust, but the idea of working on a common solution that might consider the interests of all parties could lead to some wonderful outcomes.
Again, to me, the dog park alone...no way. The other two in the city are high maintenance operations, not in neighborhoods, and look like rutted fields. Not something I want in our neighborhood unless its smaller and part of a real park with greenway.
Roger