There's enough room for every purpose, it seems. On less than 5 acres total, without disturbing the neighbors. Actually, if the Killian house is left with a tiny lot, the remaining land is 4.84 acres. If the Killian house is allocated one acre, the remainder is 4.2 acres. If a 25 foot buffer is allowed along Beaverdam Creek, 3.75 acres is left. Fitting a 15 space parking lot into the irregularly-shaped lot consumes another acre, leaving 2.75 acres. Dog Park Friends want at least 2 acres for the dog runs. So the rest of us get ¾ acre! Oops, there's parts that can't be used that are too steep or out of the way.
150 dog lovers signed a petition to have Azalea Dog Park cleaned up, as it was sickening their dogs and children. Sounds like an ideal spot for a playground or picnic area, doesn't it?
Maybe if you don't follow the issue very closely, "multipurpose park" "greenway" "hiking" "playground" "picnic" and "compromise" are nice enough sounding words to make you feel comfortable about a dog park in our community. That's what the Dog Park Friends seem to think. But our community doesn't want a dog park. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. And a dog park by any other name is still a dog park.
Mr. Heafield,
ReplyDeleteAs one of your neighbors I feel I must bring something to your attention. You might remember the Q&A distributed via email to all of the HOB residents on June 4th, 2013 addressing the concerns of our neighborhood. The idea of making the park multi-use seems not to be a "new marketing plan" as you suggest. It appears to have been discussed as an option from the beginning. Please read the excerpt taken from the Q&A:
"Ø What about a ‘people park’?
It is expected that in addition to the dog park and parking area, there will be additional acreage that may be suitable for multi-use purposes, such as hiking and/or bike trails. While there are no specifications on the uses of the park in the Conditional Use Permit (zoning approval), the developer has made the dog park a condition of the donation."
If you question the validity of this statement I will be more than happy to forward to you the original email that we both received over 5 months ago.
You might also recall that the site was described as being 8 acres. Actually, the full site before subtracting the part on the other side of the creek and a small piece for the Killian House was 6 acres, according to Buncombe County records. Now, of course, it is less than that. I'll concede the other uses may have been cited earlier, but given the small size of the lot even before reduction, I think it's unrealistic to have a multiuse park there that includes a dog park. Perhaps the Friends are sincere in believing it's possible, but I think it's getting more mentions lately, and the reason is marketing.
DeleteI am going to be up front and honest as some of the things that I have read and proposed...and said and proposed are noted above and repeated elsewhere. I want to be clear about something. I was the person who first suggested and noted the idea of a "people park". I was critical of the proposal of a dog park as soon as I noticed it...that was months and months ago...and I would like to say publicly that I did so far sooner than many of you. I don't want to come across as arrogant...I mean no harm. I love my neighborhood so very much. I walk it...I run it. I enjoy the trees, the sounds, and now even those horses on Gibson across the creek. I am not at all excited by a dog park and like many of you, I think it was planned without our input. Input only occurred after many of us hear about it and objected. No wonder so many are angry. I feel you.
ReplyDeleteI dont want a dog park on that land. I want the Killian House preserved. And I advocated for that in emails to the council and city manager...many many months ago. In fact, the meeting that was held at Ira B. Jones was suggested after I communicated this to council and our city manager. Maybe Ill dig them up.
Even though I do not support the dog park...Yes. I have proposed...me...one person...a compromise solution that might attract more support. I did this because I see an enormous amount of development in our beautiful valley coming and, frankly, I have huge concerns about what Beaverdam is going to look like 10-20 years from now. The former Thoms estate is the tip of the iceberg. Have you hiked up into the hills off of Crabapple or Carter cove and seen the marked trees donating what might one day be houses? Do any of you believe that the land there wont be developed or that the land owned across from the graveyard won't one day be developed also?
My interest is in a park/greenway that might preserve some of this land before its gone...a real park. I think the city owes this valley more. Especially as it is being subdivided for development and members of council rely on development to fill voids in property tax revenue base.
My interests are clear. I will oppose a dog park unless it preserves the house and it incorporates a design that respects the environment, includes the beginning of a greenway, and is multiuse so our children and our entire valley can enjoy a park..and a greenway...as the rest of Beaverdam becomes suburban developments and one day little is left to preserve.
Last, lets all consider something else. The developer owns that land. What is your BATNA..."best alternative to a negotiated agreement"? If this land does not go to the city it remains owned by the developer. What will happen to that house then? What will happen to the family? What will happen to the land? Will it be sold? Built upon anyway in places where they are able? They have already raised the Thoms mansion and torn down the most beautiful historic silo that I have ever seen. I know that land well. And I'd much rather see something wonderful and positive than what it will be if it stays in the hands of the developer.
This is one person's opinion. I respect so much those who are angered by the lack of consultation with our neighorhood. You are dead on right. I will own up to be one person who believes that we might be able to work something wonderful out...if we can mediate this ...with a neutral mediator...and work together.
Best to you all.
Roger Hartley