Wild Cherry Resident's Letter to Chris Pelly

From:
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,

Are We Negative? Or Just Effective?

Last Sunday, Chris Pelly told me this blog is "very negative!"  We have since seen several dog park advocates use this word to describe the blog.

What does this word "negative" mean?  What are the advocates referring to?  What message are they trying to convey to readers?

At the risk of sounding like a UNC-TV spot, here's what the dictionary says for Negative:

• Definition 1.b. Indicating opposition or resistance.  I plead Guilty!
• Definition 2.d. Hostile or disparaging; malicious.    I plead Innocent!

The Friends all using this word is very clever, worthy of Karl Rove, even.  If pressed, they can cite examples of our opposition, or negative feeling toward the dog park proposal, as negativity.  They might innocently claim they intend nothing more than the simple meaning just cited.

But when they say "That blog is negative!"  Well, we all know what that means, don't we? Reminder: "Hostile or disparaging; malicious."  This is the meaning they intend to convey.

Of course, there's another definition they have for negative, but I haven't found it in the dictionary.  It might be too new. I only heard it myself for the first time last Sunday.  It's a synonym for Effective!

   

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.

emails, emails

Lots of emails going around about Chris Pelly's proposed meeting.  Check in this evening for more!

Chris Pelly called.  More about that tonight!

John

My Reply to Chris Pelly

From:
To: chrispelly@avlcouncil.com
Subject: RE: Our talk today
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:29:12 -0400

Thanks for the Post!  It's up now.  I made up a headline;  let me know if you'd like a different one.

I think you'll find that people are concerned for a number of reasons, but the common factor is rejection of a dog park at that location.  We are not convinced a dog park would be quiet, clean and well-maintained, and that traffic would be moderate.  We don't think users would keep dogs on a leash until inside the fence.  We don't want to doom the Killian House to being surrounded by a dog park.  Any solution to this impasse will need to give positive assurance that the idea of a dog park at this location is forever dead.  As for alternatives, I think everyone I know would be happy with any of the proposed alternatives.  And some residents would be willing to contribute significant funds for some alternatives.

Your idea of organizing sounds good to me.  There was talk of holding a Neighborhood Advisory Committee meeting in North Asheville.  If that involves notifying residents, we might coordinate that with notifying people about an "alternatives to dog park" meeting.  (We'll need to find a disinterested moderator for that meeting).  A police officer introduced us to nextdoor.com at the event on Sunday.  The same notice might include a pitch to get people to register at nextdoor.com.  Possibly the publishers of North Asheville Magazine might feature this effort.  Sounds like a good cover story!

About the blog:  They're actually pretty simple to do - just rather daunting to face the necessity of making frequent posts to maintain interest.  With Google Blogger, it's an extension of my gmail account, and as such, all posts are posted by me.  I've decided, at least for now, to accept any and all posts and comments, so long as they are decent and don't make ad hominem attacks.  Posts need to be emailed to me, but comments can be made through the blog interface.  Comments appear after I review them to assure they meet the guidelines.  I hope to use Responsible Asheville for other issues after this is over.

Chris Pelly: "Let's Get Organized!"

John,
Thank you to you and the others Beaverdam residents who reached out to me at the close of yesterday's Festival of Neighborhoods. Our conversation was certainly food for thought and I ask you share my message with the greater Beaverdam community.

 

Dear Neighbor,

In recent weeks and months your community has become embroiled in controversy over the proposed dog park. Although I am saddened the proposal has caused a rift in the Beaverdam community, this conflict also presents a growth opportunity.

Both sides present arguments worthy of merit that, taken together, outline a potential path to resolution.

 

Dog park advocates, the Friends of North Asheville Dog Park group, cite the fact the property owner is willing to make the land available at no cost and that they, the Friends group, is willing to raise $100k for design, build-out and maintenance of the facility. The Friends further say the park design will include amenities such as a greenway and picnic tables for use by all residents, not just dog owners.

 

Dog park opponents cite a fundamental problem with the proposal--mainly that no one asked if this was wanted by Beaverdam residents. Opponents believe the process has been flawed because the dog park idea was decided without adequate public input with no vote or other public process undertaken.

 

As a member of city council who is both a strong advocate for parks as well as neighborhoods, your situation has caused me to think about the best way forward.

On Sunday, October 27th UNC-Asheville hosted the inaugural Festival of Asheville Neighborhoods designed to celebrate our diverse community. One message repeated often at yesterday's event was the importance of community organization. We learned how successful neighborhood organizations have systems for communication with residents and how being organized can provide a platform for residents to articulate how they want to grow and evolve.

 

I say all this because at present the Beaverdam community, from my perspective, is essentially unorganized. There is not at present a system in place for disseminating vital information--such as the Friends dog park proposal, or any counter-proposal. There is not at present any democratically-elected community organization to help lead the discussion about how residents want Beaverdam to grow.

 

Without a process for addressing these important questions, I believe the Beaverdam community can expect more conflict. However, with an active community association, proposals can be vetted with and among neighbors in a way that ensures all voices have an opportunity to be heard. Building an organization, led by community leaders selected by their neighbors, opens opportunities not presently available. It allows the discussion to ask not only, "What are we against?" but also, "What are we for?" and "What do we need?" An active community association creates possibilities. It creates an opportunity to define how you want your community to grow.

 

I believe it is time for Beaverdam to get organized. It is time to come together to chart your future. Although the dog park proposal has created conflict, use this opportunity of heightened interest to build a cohesive community. Myself and the members of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee are prepared to assist in any way you find helpful.

Thank you,
Chris Pelly,
Asheville City Council
231-3704

Possible Progress at "Festival of Neighborhoods"

Beth & John , George , Diane , Tyler , Julie  and Kevin met with Chris Pelly this afternoon at the "Festival of Neighborhoods" held at UNC-Asheville.  We had a constructive talk and discussed:

• Lack of community notice, and the possibility of notification.
• Our view that the majority of the "Central Beaverdam Valley" community is opposed to the dog park.
• The crowding of the Killian House.  Mr. Pelly said that is under the control of Ark Development.  We said the City and Dog Park Friends had significant influence. 
• This site is deep within a neighborhood; as such, it should not be a citywide destination.
• Mr. Pelly suggested a community meeting be held, possibly at the Fire Station, to discuss what alternative use might be made of the property.
• Neighbors are asked to suggest alternate uses.  A few mentioned were:
• Greenway park, possibly with no parking, or with bike racks and minimal car parking.
• Community vegetable garden.
• Annex of Audubon Bird Sanctuary or Botanical Gardens, native plant nursery.
• One in attendance offered $5,000 for starting such a garden, and suggested gardens are of sufficient interest that fundraising might be possible.
• The Killian House should have at least an acre to assure its viability.

Neighborhoods are encouraged to poll their residents on their feelings about the dog park and alternatives

Notice of any meeting will be posted in this blog, and through all email addresses we have on file. 

Please comment or email with any more suggestions, and this post will be edited to include your ideas.

John

A Typical Quiet Dog Park

These videos illustrate why consultants advise that dog parks should be sited away from homes, preferably deep within a large park.  Dog parks can be noisy, and dog owners routinely unleash their dogs before entering the fenced area.  Just as dogs run into Azalea Pond, they will undoubtedly run into Beaverdam Creek.  How often will dogs need to be retrieved from neighboring yards?



Many other such videos can be found at http://www.closeshawneebarkparknow.org/The_Facts.html#Videos

And this video shows how well dog park visitors obey the rules in Berkeley, CA.  Check out the civil comments!  I have witnessed how well the rules are observed at Azalea Park. Many dogs are let free outside of the fence, against posted rules. They often visit Azalea Pond, where they drink or bathe.

Dog Park Friends Try to Prove We're Wrong!

Friends of Beaverdam Valley Greenway have posted an environmental defense of dog parks on their facebook page:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Beaverdam-Valley-Greenway/276021862446710?hc_location=stream
The post begins with the assertion "The facts about the proposed Dog Park are not found on the Responsible Asheville Blog."  Thanks for the plug, Bob!
 
One post goes on to feature four studies that purport to show we are wrong.  The first three links deal with the issue of fecal coliform contamination of streams, and the fourth link doesn't work.

• In fact, we never suggested that the stream would be polluted by fecal coliform or other products of feces.  We did say that nitrogen from urine can feed blue-green algae, which can be toxic to fish, animals, and humans.  This is supported by Dr. Hauser's Preliminary Report.
• We also asserted that Giardia and other pathogens from feces can thrive in wet muddy ground within the dog park enclosure, and be transmitted to dogs and people.  This has already happened, this year, at Azalea Dog Park.
• Dog Park Friends like the Beaverdam site partly because of the trees and shade.  We posted an article from The Atlantic Monthly, generally considered a reliable source, stating that dog urine can kill trees.

The other post states "The FNADP (Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park) are committed to working out the details of a long term maintenance agreement with the city and Thoms Estate developer to assure the park will be a wonderful place to get out and move with and without dogs."

• Assistant Parks & Rec Director Debbie Ivester:
  gave an example of another City playground started by neighbors in the community. The group had raised funds for 5 years worth of maintenance, but after 5 years, many of those families' children had outgrown the park and the core group somewhat dissipated, leaving little funding for continued upkeep.
• Minutes of 9/10 Council Worksession:  "The City can only commit to the standards of development for maintenance of the existing dog parks."  That is, the new dog park will be maintained just like the others.  
• The FNADP "commitment" is unenforceable.  Once the city has the land, the city is responsible to maintain it.  There will be very little incentive for individuals to help once the park is established.

As I don't have a facebook account, would some readers please post a response on the facebook page?

Response to Councilman Pelly

From: Diane 
Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Subject: North Asheville Dog Park
To: Chris Pelly <chrispelly@avlcouncil.com>


Dear Councilman Pelly,

Thank you for your prompt response to my October 19th letter.  Contrary to your implications, I am quite well informed of the issues and controversies surrounding the proposed North Asheville Dog Park.  I first heard of the proposed site in May of this year.   I acquired this information from a neighbor and friend.  I did attend the June meeting at Jones Elementary School.  It was memorable to me for several reasons. I raised my hand numerous times but you chose not to call on me. I can only assume this was because I was sitting behind a group who were strongly opposing the chosen site.  I spoke to you after the meeting about Dr. Hauser's Preliminary Environmental Assessment and found your response to be both condescending and uninformed.  Your response (as well as I can remember it) was "Who is this Dr. Hauser?  I never heard of him." This response has been passed on to the Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society, who recently honored Dr. Hauser for his contributions to the environment at the Beaver Lake Bird Sanctuary. EMAS has already written a letter to council opposing the dog park site without a complete and independent environmental assessment.  I was told by president Tom Tribble that this represents a membership of close to 200 individuals.  I had the distinct impression that city employees attending the June meeting already had their minds made up.  This is why we are asking for an independent assessment.

I also attended the September 10th work session.  Dr. Hauser was asked to attend this meeting but council never asked him to speak. (I guess we already have enough Phds in environmental biology on city staff). The concerns expressed by citizens were either glossed over as being small inconveniences or ignored completely. I agree that all of those issues have been discussed many times but adequate answers have not been provided by you, Friends of the Dog Park or city staff.

I also agree with you that my neighbors and all residents of the surrounding community should be kept informed and I am doing my part to do so.  The Lakeview Park Association annual meeting was held on Monday, October 21st. I brought up my concerns about the dog park site and the water quality of Beaver Lake.  (As you must know, the Lakeview Park Commission has already expressed these  concerns to the city).  By a show of hands at the meeting, Lakeview Park residents overwhelmingly opposed developing the dog park without a complete and independent environmental assessment. Flyers have been circulated throughout some communities to "get the word out"  to those who are uninformed.

 We are currently discussing whether we should distribute flyers to the approximately 485 residences in the Lakeview Park community.  It would seem prudent since not all residents attended Monday's meeting and those who did were very concerned about Beaver Lake.  You should know that residents have strong emotions concerning the lake.  It is maintained and protected by homeowners dues with no help from the City of Asheville and yet generously opened to the public.  Any damage to the lake may result in a dramatic increase in dues. A few residents even brought up the option of fencing off the area and making it available only to LVP residents.  This would be a last resort which I hope never occurs.

For the reasons discussed above, I believe a meeting with you at this time would be completely unproductive but I would like to thank you for your offer.

Diane 

Sometimes It's Hard to Separate Myth from Truth

City Mgr Asked about Staff Salaries

From: B H
Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Subject: "Out-of-pocket" Dog Park Expense Clarification on Dog Park
To: gjackson@ashevillenc.gov
Cc: "mcoates@ashevillenc.gov" <mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com>, Esther Manheimer <emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com>, Cecil Bothwell <cecil@braveulysses.com>, jandavis@avlcouncil.com, Marc Hunt <marchunt@avlcouncil.com>, Chris Pelly <chrispelly@avlcouncil.com>, gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com

We would like to clarifiy what you meant in your October 22nd email response to Brad 's question about

city funds that have been spent to date on meetings with Bob Roepnak and the Friends of North Asheville Dog Park.

You answered that "To the best of my knowledge, there have not been any out of pocket expenses recorded to date."

Obviously, your fund accounting has not allocated any staff salaries to "out of pocket expenses."

As accountants and taxpayers, we feel the public--in particular Brad -- at least should be told that taxpayer dollars have paid the salaries of staff who spent hours in meetings with and advising the Friends of the North Asheville Dog Park.  Just last Thursday, October 17th, five staff members spent an hour meeting with three Friends.  Surely, our city would want the public to know that these five staff members were being paid salaries for that hour.

By 11 am today we have had 500 visitors to our blog rasheville.blogspot.com.  We want to post your response for our visitors.

Letter to City Staff, Council and others

Tyler

6:53 PM

To: mcoates@ashevillenc.gov, Shannon Tuch, jmoore@ashevillenc.gov, jmoore@ashevillenc.gov, dfoster@ashevillenc.gov, akopf@ashevillenc.gov, Debbie (divester@ashevillenc.gov) Ivester, rsimmons@ashevillenc.gov, cball@ashevillenc.gov, gjackson@ashevillenc.gov

Cc: councilgroup, Wisler,  Caitlyn Byrd, Mark Barrett, Kevin Reese,  johnle@wlos.com

 (Photos of the two "guerrilla" signs are included in the email, and in earlier posts on this blog..  Also included: Minutes from the Friends meeting with City officials on Oct 17, posted here:http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/10/dog-park-meeting-october-17-2013.html

Greetings, McCray, David, Al, Jeff and Shannon - 

I appreciate your meeting on October 17 with Bob Roepnack, Joe Lawrence and me, along with Chris Pelly, representing City Council.  Afterwards, I wrote the attached notes, that specifically commend your excellent contributions.  Thank you! 

Please now focus on my final sentence of those notes:  "No discussion of environmental issues, a car every 2 minutes or the M.O.U."   You need to know that many citizens, such as I, believe that along Beaverdam Creek is NOT a good location for the North Asheville Dog Park.  You need to realize that all is not 'sweetness and light,' with no voices of dissent, no controversy.  To see reports, comments by citizens and City Council members, topo maps, and links to newspaper and TV coverage, please go to Responsible Asheville  http://rasheville.blogspot.com/.  [This site has over 200 daily visits.]  I hope to clarify any doubts that you may have:    About this location, many of us have expressed objections and asked questions at all meetings, both public and private.  We have written numerous letters of concern to City Council.  We continue to be placated, humored and, even worse, IGNORED !

City Council is not "balanced" on this issue.  They pooh-pooh us.  They refuse to notify downstream neighbors.  Thus, we will distribute flyers, that are not "balanced." 

Thank you for listening.  

Tyler

Looks like that signmaker's been at it again....‏

Thanks to photographer !

City Manager Jackson's Response to Brad

From: Gary Jackson <GJackson@ashevillenc.gov>
Date: October 22, 2013 at 3:04:02 PM EDT
To: Brad 

Cc: Dawa Hitch <DHitch@ashevillenc.gov>
Subject: Re: From Brad , Wild Cherry Road

Mr. B:

Thank you for your inquiry. We are happy to provide you with any public documents, including financial reporting documents. To the best of my knowledge, there have not been any out of pocket expenses recorded to date. Council has allocated matching funds of $5000 to complement private funds that may be raised to perform a feasibility study and conceptual plan. However, before the feasibility study is authorized, we are expecting the property owner to confirm their commitment to make the property available for public park development.

Your public document request will be processed by Public Information Officer Dawa Hitch consistent with the freedom of information act.

Gary Jackson

Sent from my iPhone

Brad's inquiry is posted here: http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/10/brad-brock-asks-city-manager-how-much.html

Ken's Response to Councilman Pelly

From: Ken 
Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed North Asheville Dog Park
To: Chris Pelly <chrispelly@avlcouncil.com>

Not a smart deal for those residents who live in the area bordering the park or for the traffic problems and environmental damage that would result.   Reasonable objections have not been adequately addressed.  In fact, those opposed to the park have not been invited to or included in the discussions.  That donated land could be made a green area without the dog park.  Do you really think the "Friends" would maintain the park over the long term in an environmentally acceptable manner?  Look at what has happened to other dog parks in our community that have been maintained by so called "Friends."

Your support is misguided.  Would you support a dog park in your neighborhood?

Our statement stands.

Ken & I letter to Chris Pelly, and Pelly's response

From: Chris Pelly <chrispelly@avlcouncil.com>
Date: October 22, 2013, 11:08:27 AM EDT
To: ken
Cc: Erika Germer <EGermer@ashevillenc.gov>, councilgroup <AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov>
Subject: Re: Proposed North Asheville Dog Park

Dear Mr. and Mrs. ,

I am in full agreement our city has many pressing social needs, including the KAYLA program, for which taxpayer support is warranted. For this reason I hope you will be pleased to learn the proposed dog park will be located on land donated to the city with improvements funded from a private $100,000 fundraising commitment by the Friends of North Asheville Dog Park.

This means that other than a $5,000 contribution towards design work, no other taxpayer contributions are expected. With the donated land valued at upwards of $200,000 and the Friends support another $100,000, I hope you will agree this is a smart deal for taxpayers. 

And although you may be opposed to the dog park at this location, there are many residents in support of a dog park in north Asheville. It should also be noted that dog park advocates spent several months searching for a suitable site in the north area of Asheville. This location was the only site found both suited for the intended use and with an owner willing to make it available.

As an elected official, attempting to meet the recreational needs of our growing city, I believe this proposal is worthy of further consideration. As long as reasonable objections are adequately addressed, I will be hard-pressed to oppose this initiative.

Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.

Chris Pelly,

Asheville City Council

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:11 AM, ken  wrote:

Erica

If the City persists in ramming through a dog park in a residential area against the wishes of the residents while ignoring all environmental concerns, we will withdraw our support of the CAYLA Program.  We will not partner with a City that engages in the misuse of taxpayer funds for a dog park when we have so many pressing social needs in our community.

ken and i

Brad asks City Manager: How much has city spent already?

From:	Brad @gmail.com) This sender is in your safe list.
Sent:	Tue 10/22/13 2:03 PM
To:	gjackson@ashevillenc.gov (gjackson@ashevillenc.gov)
Cc:	To: mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com ; emanheimer@vwlawfirm.com ; cecil@braveulysses.com ; jandavis@avlcouncil.com ; marchunt@avlcouncil.com ; chrispelly@avlcouncil.com ; gordonsmith@avlcouncil.com (mayorbellamy@avlcouncil.com); John

Mr. Jackson:
As a concerned Asheville resident, can your office please provide me with a detailed financial accounting of city funds that have been spent to date on meetings with Bob Roepnak and the Friends of North Asheville Dog Park? This would include all meetings with any and all city staff, money spent on the Council work session, emails, time spent reviewing materials, gasoline used, and Chris Pelly's time if that's quantifiable. I know the city committed to no more than $5000 to conduct a feasibility study, and I'd like to know where we stand on that amount. With so many budget cuts and money being in the forefront at all times, it seems interesting that the city would be devoting resources to a piece of land it doesn't own and a group that has not canvassed the area in which they wish to place an unsupervised, privately-maintained "public" park.

Sincerely,

Brad 

Sent from my iPhone

Natalie Petition at MoveOn.org

Now you can take a stand on the dog park at MoveOn!  Natalie  resides in the historic "Killian" house.



http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-north-asheville.fb40?source=s.fb&r_by=9343267

Wow! Sign Appears on Beaverdam Rd!

Don't know how it got here, but I like it!  I'd like to nominate it for the Folk Art Center!

George Letter to Council

Robert Roepnack's plans for the Killian property will force the F family from their home in spite of the wishes of the Dog Park Advocates!
 

As President of the Hills of Beaverdam Homeowners Association, Inc., I had remained neutral regarding the proposed Dog Park on the Killian property.  Mr. Roepnack has been meeting singularly and almost secretly with five Asheville City staffers.  His plan for the property decreases the one acre lot around the Killian house to one third acre and places dog parks on both sides.  This will force the Flores family to move and make it impossible for the Preservation Society to do anything with the home (built in 1842 and believed to be the oldest home in Asheville).  The F family has preserved the interior immaculately and wishes to buy the property.  Loss in revenue to the City of Asheville in 20 years would be almost $100,000.00!  cost to the City of a dog park in 20 years would be at least $200,000.00!

A dog park should not be placed in a residential zone.  A dog park should not be placed where nitrogen from the urine would go into a lake or pond as experienced at the Azalea dog park which has polluted the pond and killed the fish.  (The increased nitrogen causes blue algae blooms which remove oxygen from water so the fish die from lack of oxygen).

Dr. Hauser has written a preliminary environmental assessment and recommends a detailed assessment be performed as well as an evaluation by the U.S. Corp of Engineers before proceeding.  Their reports should be also be used to determine if a dog park should be placed on this property at  284 Beaverdam Road between Killian Road and Wild Cherry Road.

Would you like to have a dog park in your back yard?

            George

Commentary on Chris Pelly Reply

Chris Pelly generously offers to hold a meeting, the result of which would likely be to add to "Many of the other issues you raise including traffic safety, the future of the Killian House and water quality concerns, have been discussed numerous times" as if these tedious public discussions alone fulfill a Councilman's duty to address the issues.  No need to act upon them.

The July 18 public meeting consisted of a presentation by dog park advocates, followed by a question and answer session with Councilman Pelly choosing the questioners rather than following the fairer public Council meeting rules allowing everyone who wishes three minutes to speak.

Councilman Pelly only had the June 7 meeting with the Hills of Beaverdam because Elizabeth  wrote to council and asked why our HOA was never informed or asked in the planning stages what we thought about a dog park being plopped into our neighborhood. With only two days notice, 24 residents from a community of 39 homes attended.

Councilman Pelly and the Friends knew they could plop a dog park in our neighborhood without the need for a variance hearing, under City rules.  The dog park was to be a done deal before neighbors knew what hit them. We ask Mr. Pelly to act not only for a small group, but to represent all the citizens of Asheville. He was elected not to dictate, but to represent.  He apparently doesn’t care to gauge opinion; few in the community have even been notified. His promotional meetings are merely a fig leaf, sounding nice, but neither accomplishing wide notice, nor leading to solutions.  He needs to explain how this shaded flood plain dog park will be healthier than the sunlit, yet disease-ridden Azalea Dog Park, as noted in the Citizen-Times. He needs to explain how the foul-smelling Azalea Dog Park conditions will not be replicated here, as noted in the dog fan blog bringfido.com. He needs to explain why warnings from professional ecologists need not be heeded. He needs to explain why adding a car every two minutes to Beaverdam and Wild Cherry need not concern us. And he needs to explain how the Killian house of 1842 can be preserved when most of its lot is taken to surround it with filth. 

Although many area residents remain without notification, Mr. Pelly is correct that the "issues . . . have been discussed numerous times."  We are still waiting for answers to our concerns, answers that go beyond statements that our concerns have been heard. Clearly, Mr. Pelly and Friends, having heard, intend to continue, unconcerned.

Lakeview Park (Beaver Lake) Commission on Dog Park

Click to Enlarge, Back to Original Size

Councilman Pelly Reply to D.

From: Chris Pelly <chrispelly@avlcouncil.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: North Asheville Dog Park
To: Diane
Cc: councilgroup <AshevilleNCCouncil@ashevillenc.gov>

Dear Ms.

Thank you for writing City Council about concerns related to the proposed north Asheville dog park. As your letter contains many questions, I first would like to offer to make myself available to meet with you and anyone else to answer your questions. As you appear to be the leader of the Lakeview Park "DogWatch" group, I think it is important you are able to share up to date information with your neighbors.

Your first question asks, "why have residents living nearby not been officially notified?"  Actually there have been three public meetings dedicated to this issue. I personally met with about two dozen residents of the Hills of Beaverdam, the subdivision across the street from the proposed site, on June 7th. On July 18th a public meeting at Jones Elementary School, solely dedicated to this issue, was attended by 130 residents. And on September 10th Asheville City Council devoted a full work session to the dog park proposal.

There have also been on-going meetings at North Asheville Animal Hospital to which the public is welcome. The Friends group supporting the proposal has led an inclusive process welcoming to anyone interested in participating. 

Many of the other issues you raise including traffic safety, the future of the Killian House and water quality concerns, have been discussed numerous times. However, if you as a Lakeview Park neighborhood leader are still unaware of this, it is clear our work is incomplete. This is why I ask you schedule a meeting of concerned neighbors and let me and a Friends representative answer your questions first-hand.

I am hopeful you will take me up on this offer.

Thank you,

Chris Pelly,

Asheville City Council

231-3704

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

Beaver Lake Urine Danger

Friends Now Trying to Strangle Killian House after Failing to Kill It

to: mayorbellamy, Esther, Cecil, jandavis, Marc, gordonsmith, dfoster, jmoore, stuch, cball, mcoates, divester

The Killian House at 284 Beaverdam Road likely is the oldest home in Buncombe County.
After the Flores family totally embarrassed the Friends of the North Dog Park by having in 24 hours 277 Change.org votes against tearing their home down to build a dog park, the Friends denied that they would ever consider tearing down their home, the Killian house. Apparently the Friends were suggesting the Flores just made up the story themselves because the Friends were only kidding the day before when the Friends marched onto their property unannounced to film a TV spot and told them a dog park was going to be at this location.

Now the very same Friends have a new tactic.  They will squeeze the life out of the Killian house.  They want the property to only have a third of an acre, even though Buncombe County records show an acre of the six acres should be allocated to the house.  (Refer to http://rasheville.blogspot.com/2013/10/friends-dog-park-plan-draft-to-city.html).  The map of property also shows by a broken line an acre allocation around the house.

Reducing from an acre to a third of an acre will kill the Killian house.  Imagine the Killian house being advertised as the only home in Asheville with close-up scenic views of three dog parks and with fish bowl living in a home closely surrounded by public easement sidewalks.

Why would anyone invest in improving the Killian house when its economic value has been killed by the Friends of the Dog Park?  Hmmm---I wonder if their plans are still to tear down the Killian house for a parking lot.

By the way, Responsible Asheville had 110 hits two days ago and has had 65 hits so far today.  The Friends portray us as only a few individuals opposed to locating the dog park at 284 Beaverdam.  The correct description is a multitude opposed to locating the dog park at 284 Beaverdam.

Friends Dog Park Plan Draft to City

Click to Enlarge, Back to Original

Notable aspects of Plan:

• Entrance/Exit off Wild Cherry
• Parking lot for 15 cars at right, outlined in red
• 3 dog enclosures, outlined in red, very close to Killian House
• Rerouted paths, in red
• Proposed dog park parcel is outlined in yellow. Note land north of Beaverdam Creek is no longer included
• Yellow outline leaves 1/3 acre around Killian House, shaded deeper blue.  We believe this property, close to Beaverdam Rd and hemmed in by the dog park, will not remain viable.
• Light blue shading enclosed by broken line shows 1 acre lot allocated to Killian House per County records.  (See Below). Broken lines appear on older drawings as well.  This may be large enough to be viable.

 Click to Enlarge, Back to Original

Dog Park Friends Meet with City Staff

DOG PARK MEETING  -  OCTOBER 17, 2013

City Hall, 5^th Floor Conference Room, 1:30-2:30 PM

PRESENT

Staff:

          McCray Coates, Stormwater Services, Manager

          David Foster - Administration, Deputy Director

          Al Kopf, Park Maintenance,  Superintendent (Interim)

Jeff Moore, City Traffic Engineer          Shannon Tuch – Building Department, Interim Director

Council:  Chris Pelly

Others:

          Bob Roepnack

          Joe  Lawrence

          Tyler Martin

BOB ROEPNACK, who will provide meeting notes, has written this:

          “…met with city staff and nothing was presented by staff that would prevent a dog park at the site.”

TYLER MARTIN provides these meeting notes

Bob Roepnack, on behalf of FNADP, presented a ‘rough draft’ proposal by Brooks Engineering (attached) and led the discussion of it.   Staff gave valuable responses to all questions asked about the proposal.   Most of the meeting time was centered around Ingress/Egress.

          Positive - Traffic on Wild Cherry and not Beaverdam Road.                Parking (15 spaces) can be unpaved, except handicap                        parking.   Paved sidewalks. 

 Concerns -  Wild Cherry congestion, tight Ingress/Egress,           power pole.  Legal location of flood plain at Wild Cherry.    

Some discussion of set-back rules, sidewalk locations, sites of 20”+  trees, water lines, etc.    No discussion of environmental issues, a car every 2 minutes or the M.O.U.   

==================================================

Ed. note: the M.O.U. is a Memorandum Of Understanding anticipated to formalize an offer of land for the proposed dog park by Ark Development (developer of the Thoms Estate), and outlining some terms and conditions.  The M.O.U. was expected to be finalized in October.

Here's email addresses of City staff present at the meeting: (copy entire group to address field)

McCray Coates mcoates@ashevillenc.gov,

David Foster  dfoster@ashevillenc.gov,
Al Kopf akopf@ashevillenc.gov,

Jeff Moore  jmoore@ashevillenc.gov,

Shannon Tuch  stuch@ashevillenc.gov,
Council: Chris Pelly   chrispelly@avlcouncil.com 
 or use this address for Mayor and all of Council:   AshevilleNCCouncil@AshevilleNC.gov

Follow this link for more Staff email addresses  (Link also under "Featured" at right)