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.