Citizens have no input

This is going to end up being a rant. It's one measily story -- about not one of the most important topics in Kansas City, but I think, in a nutshell, it emcompasses almost everything that is wrong with politics in this city.

If you're a normal taxpaying citizen of the community, your opinion doesn't matter. Even if you get on a citizens committee, your opinion doesn't matter.  The city doesn't have to -- and won't likely -- listen to you.  At some point the government in this town quit caring about its residents, and now takes a "Daddy knows best attitude" toward the people.  And we need to fix it.

The Dog Park Debate

I quit caring much about the dog park in Sunnyside Park awhile ago. I was never the biggest plan of the proposal but even less of a fan of how it's been handled by our city officials.

Two years ago a group of citizens approached the parks board with the idea of building a dog park in Sunnyside Park in Waldo. They had raised $20,000 of their own money to help pay. They had crafted a design.  In a back room deal that I'm pretty sure violated open meetings laws, the parks board unanimously agreed on a proposal that required a dog park to be a certain minimum size, and that no dog park could exceed 20% of the size of the overall park.  The proposal essentially eliminated 90% of all of the parks in Kansas City from being able to contain an off-leash dog park -- including Sunnyside Park. 

After much debate, the Parks Board decided to create a citizens committee to make recommendations on potential dog park sites in the city.

For the next nearly two years, this committee met.  They studied parks based on Walkability, vegetation, topography, distance from programmed areas, rainwater management, availability of parking (it wouldn't be a KC discussion if we didn't discuss parking), restrooms and availability of water for a drinking fountain.

The committee wasn't swift in its findings, but it was thorough. And even though I don't agree with all of their recommendations, it was tough to find fault in their effort for their 47 page report.

Unless of course, you are our parks board. Which once again came back with a unanimous decision to createits own set of rules for the requirements of dog parks - -including that all dog parks must be no less than 5 acres big (this ignores the reality that Kansas City's only current dog park - -one that by everyone's assessment is extremely successfull - is only 3 1/2 acres big).  The new criteria virtually assure anyone living in on of the city's many older neighborhoods that will never get a dog park in their community -- based on an arbitrary size made up by 6 parks board appointees.

So while the Citizen's Committee created recommendations for up to 22 parks in the city that could be used for varying sizes of dog parks, the Parks Board came back with 6. The one in the "South Region" (nearest Sunnyside Park) that is recommeded is at South Oak Park.  While very close to Sunnyside Park, it's terrain is very wooded and would require the removal of 5 acres of trees to create the dog park -- making it so costly that it likely will never get done. The Citizens Committee ranked this park 12th best out of 15 parks in this region for suitability for the dog park. Nice.

The Parks Board essentially ignored the citizen committee's recommendations - wasting 2 years of time for a committee of 14 people. Daddy knows best. And the idea of creating a second dog park in the city of 500,000 people is on year 3 with virtually no progress.

Dog Parks

There have been a lot of comments about dog parks being for dogs, and parks for people, and all kinds of things on the internets. I want to set the record straight here. Dog parks are for dog owners as a place to take their dogs in the same way that Tennis Courts are for people who play tennis - -not for tennis rackets.  I've never quite understood why people think it's ok to build tennis courts with taxpayer money, disc golf courses,skateboard parks, playground equipment for kids, softball fields, soccer fields, bike trails, running trails and the vast array of things we put in our parks, but for some reason, not for dog owners. We share our park space. I don't play tennis -- but I think it's great that we have tennis courts for these people. I don't have kids, but like that kids have a place to play. Shared park space makes for a better city for everyone. But I don't quite get how a larger percentage of people can own dogs than have kids under the age of 12, or participate in most of the specific activities we put in parks and yet people who own dogs don't get much respect when it comes to their own space.  It doesn't make much sense to me.

In the 2008 citizen satisfaction survey, 51% of people said they don't feel safe in our city parks during the day.  90% don't at night. In large part this is because our parks are terribly underutilized and it isn't an odd occurrence to be in a city park and be the only one there.  Putting dog parks in many of our city parks would increase usage (see what it's done for Penn Valley park?) and the increased usage would increase the feeling of safety.  We're missing a huge opportunity with our under-utilized parks system.

Speaking of the parks system - -it should be noted that less than 50% of the population in the Citizen satisfaction survey were satisfied with every single element of the parks and recreation district (except the location of the parks). And only 18% of citizens are happy with our appointed boards, including the parks board.

But is anyone listening to the citizens?

Mark Funkhouser

Three years ago, mayor Mark Funkhouser announced his new parks board and it was with great satisfaction that he declared that this would be a non-elitest group (implying that the old board was). But since then, the board has been infested with the same old same old (or worse than the old group) problems. It started with the problems (and eventual stepping down) of Francis Semler who was a member of the minute men group and has manifested itself through an entire group of people who make snap, rash decisions, who put arbitrary limits in place with no rationale at all, and who seem more interested in using power to settle personal vendettas against other people than actually following any type of real public input and public service. It's been a real disgrace to this city in so many ways.

"Are we gong to disappoint people?" asked Parks Board President John Fierro.  "Of course.  We disappoint people every Tuesday when we meet here." 

It shouldn't be that way.

We must make the change

The citizens of this city need to take back their government. At some point over the past few decades we became a a group of people that fears their government -- when it should be the government that fears us. They work for us: the voters, the taxpayers. We need to demand better. We should no longer allow a few high-dollar campaign donors to raise enough money to keep electing THEIR candidates into office. We need to vote in OUR people. This may mean voting for the person with less money, without the snazzy ad campaign and signs. It may take going to forums, meeting the candidates, reading their websites and really getting to know them outside of the pages of the Kansas City Star. But the citizens need to do it.  The information is too readily available now online and in blogs for us to continue to make bad decisions on candidates who don't represent us -- or who think they can appoint a board that doesn't need to listen to its constituents -- or its own appointed citizen committees. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of living in a city where the citizens don't matter....and we somehow accept it. 

This story is only about dog parks....but the same thing happens daily in virtually every area of our governing body.

Shame on us.

Comments

[Kyle Rohde]

This is a microcosm of what happens in just about every government in this country, especially DC. It's sad that it happens on something that's seemingly so simple and driven by constituents. But it's hard to be optimistic about a city led by a guy who was supposedly so against the political norm, then spent $70,000 furnishing his new office when the city is in a severe budget shortfall. Business as usual here, and in Washington.

[InsideBub]

I like your rant, Brent! there is only one thing I would add...that City staff (in this case, Parks & Rec staff) often plays the role of "empire-builders" when "supporting" these citizen committees and task forces. They seem to work on the assumption that citizens are incapable of doing any research and analysis on their own, so they do it for them, thus steering these citizen committees and task forces toward staff's preferred options. Let the people lead...and the leaders will follow.

[KC KS Kills Dogs]

I don't know if I am happy or sad that KCMO city govt doesn't listen to it's citizens any better than KC KS. Ok I am sad.

Shame on citizens for not being in more of an uproar, because this is just another example of the people "taking it".

[Allie]

Brent,
Good rant. I think that, for whatever reason, Kansas City is especially bad about putting people in power who let power go to their heads and use their positions, as you said, to settle personal scores.

Several years ago, I did some research for WOOF, calling different parks departments to see what they had in the way of dog parks and what worked for them. I was struck by the open, friendly, non-hostile attitudes of many of the people I spoke with. The people in Fargo were especially nice and told me they created a dog park after one of their staffers attended a discussion about dog parks at a national conference. They said people liked it and used it so much, they decided to put in another.
I think that simple, straightforward, working-for-the-good-of-the-city attitude is something that is often missing in Kansas City. From city staff to city council to appointed boards such as the parks board, it is so much more common to hear that someone did something to reward such and such a crony or to get back at so-and-so. Very sad.

I believe that Aggie Stackhaus was responsible for much of the way this went down. Aggie is a perfect example of the above behavior - she is friends with a Sunnyside opponent, she has a grudge against Deb Hipp because Deb used to work at the Pitch and Aggie hates the Pitch and she, for some odd reason, seems to dislike dogs and disrespect people who have dogs - she has stated that children should be the priority. Instead of doing what was right, as they would if they were operating in good faith, the other members of the parks board caved in to Aggie's bullying and decdied to come up with some arbitrary guidelines that would kill the Sunnyside project once and for all - though not as blatantly as last time.

I'm not sure electing so-called regular people is the answer. Many of us thought we were doing that with Funkhouser and look where it got us. he appointed the current parks board (including Aggie, even though he knew ahead of time that Aggie behaves abusively and screams at citizens etc.) and it seems the so-called "ordinary" or "non-arrogant" people he appointed were so excited to be appointed to a position of power that the power went to their heads even more than it would for the usual suspects (rich/influential people who traditionally get appointed to the parks board.)
Personally, I'm done with this city. there are cities out there who are not hostile to the people who pay taxes in the urban core and keep their cities afloat. IN the past few years, I've had friends move to Seattle, Portland, San Diego. These choices of cities are not a coincidence, I think.

[Joe Medley]

"They seem to work on the assumption that citizens are incapable of doing any research and analysis on their own, so they do it for them, thus steering these citizen committees and task forces toward staff's preferred options."

This is particularly daft on their part. I get the impression from talking to people and reading forums like this one that ordinary people know more about the state of the art of current urban thinking than the people making the decisions. Sad.

[Joe Medley]

Speaking of challenging the status quo, I have a thought on that. Conventional thinking says that anyone considering a run for City Council should wait until a seat becomes vacated through term limits, death, or retirement. This is because incumbents have a significant advantage in both money, support, and knowledge of the issues. That also means that more often than not, a challenger is running in a crowded primary in which most or all of the candidates have no legislative record. In such a race all of the things that citizens are passionate about tend to help or hurt the candidates in equal measure. This amplifies the value of name recognition, and hence of money.

On the other hand, a candidate who runs against an incumbent typically has the primary field to himself or herself and can use citizen dissatisfaction as a force against the incumbent.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to say that running against an incumbent would be easy. I am saying that the differing political forces are worth thinking about.

[MichelleD]

"When in doubt, vote them out" is my motto. Unless they've given me a compelling reason to vote FOR them I'll vote against an incumbent every time.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1511893977]

Nice misguided piece fraught with inaccuracies and outright disception. The so-called 'Community Task Force' was an inherrently biased group which included membership of the architect of the Sunnyside Dogpark plan. The group had Sunnyside as one of it's top choices from the start. Also, I believe that Woof had only collected a fraction of the $20,000 you report here (where is the money by the way?). Talking about 'backroom deals' why no mention of the numerous one on one meetings that Deb Hipp had with various officials including a former manager (sympathetic to the Sunnyside idea)in charge on the region in which Sunnyside was encompassed. Citizens have no input, what a bunch of baloney. Debb Hipp and the group Woof instead of taking a work with the neighborhood approach decided on a full frontal attack instead, threatening lawsuits, throwing temper tandrums in public, amd even going so far as to openly advocating harassment of the un-paid Parks Commissioners when they did not get their way. Perhaps if they had used a less militant means to hammer their ideas across, there would have been less opposition to the plan they had proposed. Last I checked, rediculing, demeaning and threatening those deciding on an idea (i.e., the Parks Board) by the group and individuals trying to propose that ideas acceptance, likely ends in disappointment, let us not even talk about the merits of such an idea which in this case were less than desirable. Sunnyside Park was the wrong choice for so very many reasons, it is too small, it is too close to a heavily travelled thoroughfare, it already contains too many activity areas to include a walking trail, basketball courts, several ballfields, a children’s playground and sprayground, several tennis courts as well as several picnic areas. Those neighbors surrounding the park and a majority of residents in the immediate area were not receptive to the idea, nor were businesses around the park onboard with it either.
Had Sunnyside been chosen, there would be no 'poor me' articles claiming injustice and corruption. I know, I lived right across the street from the proposed site, I worked for the Parks Department and I went to many of the same meetings, I also gained hundreds on signatures from neighbors and passed out thousands of flyers in the neighborhood. This whole Sunnyside issue started when proposers of the idea tried to pass it through without input from the community. Painting a deceptive picture does not mean that the truth won't emerge as many would like to think, especially those painting the picture (yeah, those with agendas). To those other with agendas always criticizing public officials as unknowing and inept, I would only say do not throw stones in glass houses.

[Brent Toellner]

Chris,

The interesting part of this is that the way the task force was created was by the design of the park's board. There were 14 people assigned to the task force -- one by each of the city council members to represent their district, and 2 by the parks board - -INCLUDING THE ARCHITECT OF THE SUNNYSIDE PARK YOU CRITICIZE FOR THE PARK"S BOARD BEING RIGGED. So they purposefully assigned someone from WOOF to the citizen's task force that they didn't listen to.

There is no disception in my post. I've never been the biggest fan of the dog park at Sunnyside -- and certainly not of the size that was designed by the WOOF folks (which was done due to size requirements the parks board wanted them to meet). I think Sunnyside could easily support a small neighborhood dog park once several other large regional parks were set up, but is not a place for a destination dog park -- which it would have to be under the current status of the city only having one dog park.

However, that aside, this still doesn't excuse the Park's Board from their negligence in assigning a task force (who's one WOOF member -- you're example of the inherant bias -- was assigned by the board)to spend two years studying the different parks, and then, within a month, have their proposal thrown out, with arbitrary rules established for the mininimum size of a dog park that not only excludes Sunnyside, but even the EXISTING, SUCCESSFUL dog park. And their dog park location to "appease" the Sunnyside crowd will require tearing down 5 acres of trees in order to accomodate it. Good luck with that ever happening. It's assinine.

I could care less if Sunnyside gets a dog park. I really could. But I have a huge problem with public officials assigning committees they don't intend to listen to. That is not how government is supposed to work. The government should speak for the people....not ignore them.

If there is enough opposition to the Sunnyside park on its own rights -- FINE. Don't do the park their. But this is the second time to board has created arbitrary rules that affect dozens of other neighborhood parks with no reason for it other than a veiled attempt to keep the Sunnyside Park from happening.

And while Debb Hipp has the right, as a citizen, to meet with officials in private -- the officials themselves are forbidden by state open meetings laws from doing so...and yet they clearly did in both cases.

I'm way more concerned about it from a public citizen point of view. At this point, the Sunnyside project is doomed for a variety of reasons. But dooming public input, making a mockery of citizen tasks forces, and not abiding by state open meetings laws is a much larger concernn beyond the dog park issue...

[citizen for rights]

Chris B. If you weren't so busy sounding off you would know that there WAS a meeting held exclusively for all the neighbors adjacent to Sunnyside Park. They were allowed to give any input they wanted and they chose to do it by cursing and screaming. They didn't have any problem, however, eating the free food BBQ dinner that was provided by one of the businesses you claim is not in favor of the dog park. That part of your report is also wrong. I checked with many businesses and they were supportive or neutral to the idea.

And the money W.O.O.F. has raised (even before a park goes in at Sunnyside) is gathering interest. If you would like to contribute you may make your check payable to The Greater Kansas City Foundation. We will continue fundraising efforts soon as we know the Sunnyside plan is NOT DEAD as you would like people to think.

Checking facts should be an intricate and important part of your job. If your neighborhood leader did not have a personal grudge against a Sunnyside supporter, we could have had our park long ago, following the recommendations of Marci Jones of the Park Dept. who did not meet in secret but in the openness of the park itself to guide supporters in the processes and procedures we were to follow. The only secret meeting I know about (not so secret, is it?) was the one between Haggie Stackhaus and Eula Inloes.

All of this is accurate information. Having the facts, however, doesn't seem to matter to the park board; they feel it's okay to pursue their own agenda, use their power to squash the citizens. Well, W.O.O.F. is fighting back; your twist on it is that their is screaming and yelling when the truth is that we are standing up against the board's brash behavior and dismissive and disrespectful attitudes. They should not be allowed to continue acting in such a way. Thank heavens there are people like Deb Hipp and her supporters who dare stand up to the park board abuse. Hipp Hipp Horray!!

[Mr. Edwards]

Chris Bouchard:
I hope the truth does imerge and then the whole city will know that you are (I'm not going to call you a liar, but..)very misinformed on many facts. Your karma will catch up with you.

[mediasavvy]

Knowing that any story can be SPUN in favor of the one telling it, facts can also be checked to get to the heart of any matter. I actually witnessed a few park board meetings and I can say that the commissioners' entire persona changes when the dog park issue comes up. They were not only smug and dismissive, but their comments were very elitist....Ms. Stackhaus proclaiming that she lives in an HISTORIC home and district and would not welcome any type of change in her elite area (especially a chain link fenced dog park). P-L-E-A-S-E!!

[Sid]

To Chris B.
Why are you so hateful? You are acting like somebody who is backed into a corner, feeling threatened, and nowhere to turn except try to talk your way out. While talking your way out may sometimes work, it only works if you know what you are talking about. Working at city hall has rubbed off on you....in a bad way!

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1511893977]

Brent, I appreciate your point of view and I agree with the concept of citizen input, in fact I believe in it so much that I committed a portion of my life to serve those citizens of this great community in the best way I know how; no just at the municipal level but at the Federal level as well as a former member of the military.

All that know me personally, know that I take personal pride in being fair when looking at issues I always try to do so with an objective point of view.

This issue of which I have been personally involved with (from the start) has been one where many of the news stories have been very one-sided for whatever reason (of course those in the press often have their own agendas). I started out in this debate wondering what my neighbors thought of the idea which at that time was about to be quietly pushed through the system and I found out that many things had been left out of the story that Deb Hipp was telling people (when she was getting neighborhood signatures) and trying to paint a very inaccurate picture of what the neighborhood thought of the idea. I know because I talked to them.

Yes, I was at the meeting at Jake's BBQ (I think that is what it was called - by the way, it is no longer there, at least by that name), the one that Deb Hipp put together and the one that only invited certain neighbors of the park offering them free bbq to attend and listen to Deb put on a presentation. It did not work so well.

Yes, I know that Deb met on a number of occasions with public Officials behind closed doors to promote her idea. Yes, the same Deb Hipp who cried foul against a Parks Board, accusing them of something similar - this sounds a little hypocritical to me, and I do not agree with this type of behavior.

I have read and seen some of the personal attacks and discourteious behavior exhibited by Deb Hipp and some of the members of the group WOOF while promoting their idea.

I have seen the various tacts taken by this group to promote the idea even going so far as to espouse the theory that only non-dog owners are against this idea, this is completely false, in fact many of those that I have been involved with in this issue, are dog-owners, dog-lovers and they embrace the idea of dogparks as do I. I won't go into the number of examples that I have seen where those advocating the Sunnyside Dogpark idea have turned mean and hateful when their idea was challenged, the responses to my original post here is an example of this.

As to the Task Force, just because such a group is formed and produces recommendations, does not mean that these recommendations should become gospel. Just because some appointed public group proposes to have liquor stores or dancehalls on every corner means that it is a good idea. This is where many seem to lose sight of(or just don't know), what it is to make public decisions. Many more issues are involved and many more points of view must be considered when making a decision of this nature. Just because many neighbors think that an idea is a good idea for them, does not mean that it is a good idea for all.

Deciding on issues of public concern are not easy and often they are downright un-popular, but ultimetly, they are made with the overall public good in mind. This I know, because I have studied the subject in depth and have practical knowledge of such and in this case I am an affected citizen with a choice and a say and I have made the choice to provide input on the subject.

I own two beautiful dogs, I live near both Sunnyside and South Oak Parks, I love the concept of dogparks, I have been to the meetings, I am thoroughly versed at all levels of the issue (not just a segment thereof), I have considered the inputs and have arrived at the conclusion, that putting a dogpark at Sunnyside is a bad idea from a public point of view for so many reasons.

For those that would criticize public officials merely because they disagree with them on a public issue or for those that would just 'bash' public officials for some vague reasoning, I say that this point of view is flawed to say the least.

For those that criticize my point of view because it does not match theirs, I would just say that I am entitled to such an opinion as we all are, as a metter of fact, I would also gladly render my qualifications on the subject anytime, given the circumstances, I feel that I am uniquely qualified to comment on such.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1511893977]

Oh I almost forgot, to state that citizen input was prohibited in this case is downright false. Each side had and exercised their right to public input on the subject. Unfortunately, most decisions do not satisfy everyone's wants. To cry foul because your side was not chosen, smells like 'spoiled child syndrome' to me.

[Brent]

Chris,

Here's my beef with the whole process.

When the original Sunnyside Dog Park proposal was submitted, the Parks Board came up with a set of VERY arbitrary recommendations for dog parks that basically excluded 90% of the parks in the city from getting dog parks with no public input on those other parks. Their opinion was arbitrary, and knee jerk.

Admitting that they were afoul, they then set up a Citizens Committee that spent TWO YEARS studying each individual park. They came back with what was a really well thought-out recommendation.

Within a month, the parks board scrapped it, and came back with their own set of again-arbitrary criteria.

My problem is not with Sunnyside Park not getting a dog park. I actually hate their proposed plan (I think it might be workable if it were half the size -- but it is completely unworkable in its current form). Even if the citizens committee recommends it does not make it gospel -- especially if the majoriy of residents that live there don't want one there. My problem is with the arbitrary and knee-jerk decisions that are affecting dozens of parks throughout the city THAT AREN"T EVEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION. But taking the task force's recommendation and just throwing it out without any discussion about any of the other parks other than Sunnyside is just poor government management IMO.

I'm not criticizing the Parks Board because I disagree with them (I didn't agree with everything in the Citizen's Task Force Recommendation), I'm criticizing them for continually making arbitrary and knee-jerk reactions and COMPLETELY ignorning the task force recommendation -- not about just about Sunnyside -- but about dozens of other parks that were affected by their decision.

If they had taken the recommendation, and then gone out to the community and said "there is just too much opposition to the park being there" -- then I actually would have been fine with that. But to decide that the recommendation had not merit, to create their own standards (again, on dozens of parks in the metro) and just throwing it all out is painful governance.

[Brent]

BTW, on the arbitrary nature of the Parks Board decision -- they made the decision that all dog parks in the city must be a minimum of 5 acres big. Now, let's keep in mind, that the city's only current dog park has been operating VERY well at about 1/2 that size. There is no reason for the arbitrary size limit. None. They just made the recommendation to eliminate Sunnyside Park -- and meanwhile, the elminated the possiblility of putting a dog park in almost every urban park. It's just dumb.

[Chris]

Brent, I would disagree with you on the arbitrary nature of the decision-making process which has been followed by the Parks Board, I worked for the Parks Department for about 5 years and am very aware of their decision-making process, and it most certainly is not arbitrary. I will not say that I have always agreed with their decisions, but said decisions are without a doubt systematic.

Although, many decisions made in history seem arbitrary by some (usually by those with a less comprehensive view of the issue), they are made based on a finite set of knowledge and experience and within the framework of some systematic measure, the Parks Board decisions are no different. Again, I will not say that I have always agreed with theirs or with those decisions made by other political bodies, I will say only it is what it is. I do know that political bodies in this system we call a democracy, have rules that they must follow and abide by. I know that they are provided certain information by their staffs and are afforded certain inputs from the communities in which they serve (I am sure we do not disagree on the fact that certain informational inputs can and are skewed for various reasons on occasion).

In listening to your points it seems to me that you are highlighting the fact that a recent and perhaps past developed set of guidelines seemingly contradict the establishment of a current dog-park configuration (i.e., Penn Valley), in this I would say you are right. I would also go onto say that the park in question was the first such park formally developed within KC, all prior to the development of the idea of having and/or establishing numerous such parks within the city and I would also go onto say that I do think that Penn Valley dog-park will in the future increase in size and it’s configuration will fall more in line with said guidelines. Given the changing environment and the popular support of developing additional such parks, it stands to reason that the Parks Department would begin to develop a uniformed set of guidelines to regulate future such developments (this makes perfect sense and is organizationally, politically and correctly a proper move by such a governing entity).

As to the Citizen Task Force, this entity was a political band-aid to a sticky political subject and was set up to look at the issue through a different set of eyes so-to-speak, ultimately, it was not set up to be the final arbiter on the subject, but just to provide some additional views (that it did). At no point in time, was the Parks Board subordinated to the Dog Park Task Force, nor was it obligated to accept one or all recommendations from such a group. To those that argue about objectiveness within said Task Force, I would only say that it’s make-up could in no way be considered objective when several members of the WOOF group were made members thereof (to include the Sunnyside Dog-park plan Architect). If that is to be considered an objective make-up, then I guess my definition of objective is severely lacking.

Back to decision-making by entities like the Parks Board, again I would reiterate that they are obligated to make parks related decisions that are in the best interest of the City as a whole, not just one park’s neighborhood area, not just one group’s agenda and not just one person’s personal vision. I have studied government for the better part of my life, I have worked for the community at various levels and I have participated in the democratic process, and this I say with a clear conscience and from an objective point of view - the decision to place a dog-park in Sunnyside Park is a mistake for so many reasons and the idea of developing a uniformed set of guidelines for such a dog-park in the Kansas City area is a logical one (by a governing body such as the Parks Board) despite the players and egos involved.

I will not say that exceptions should never by considered given certain circumstances, but any such exception should not easily be made.

chris

[Brent]

Chris,

There is currently one dog park in town. It is about 3 - 3 1/2 acres. By pretty much any measure of success, that dog park has been wildly successful. It's one of the better used parks in the city, in spite of still being in a fairly remote location away from most residental. It's one flaw may be over-use because it is the only dog park in the city.

To make a rule that mandates that dog parks have to be 5 acres ignores the success of the only existing dog park, and ignores the demand for city-dwellers to have access to the parks. One of the highest demand areas for dog parks are in the downtown/rivermarket area. In fact there are several areas in the River Market that people use for off-leash dogs all the time now even though it is technically illegal. These people need the area for their dogs to run because most live in apartments and don't have yards. However, the new arbitrary qualifications ensure that these areas NEVER get a dog park.

Virtually every city in the country has had great success with smaller neighborhood off-leash dog areas. Again, this is ignored.

So they have ignored success stories from other cities. They have ignored demand in urban areas. They ignored recommendations from the Citizens committee. They have ignored the success of the only other dog park in the city and set a size designation that ignores all of that.

By all appearances, the size designation was designed solely to keep a park out of Sunnyside and for no other reason. Again, I don't care about the park in Sunnyside -- I care that they set up arbitrary size requirement that ignores all of the information available to them.

[Chris Bouchard]

Hey Brent, the term ‘success’ is relative a person(s) point of view, I know of at least two individuals whose pooches were killed while visiting the dog-park at Penn Valley, I do not suspect that they consider the park a resounding success. I have been there and I have seen many failings of the park from a public planner’s point of view as well as from a dog owner’s point of view. I am not saying it is not popular, for many it is. The point is, that we make assumptions that we believe should apply to everyone, they should not.

Again, exceptions to any rule should be made available in certain circumstances, but not because a few want this or that. In public governance, there are more issues at hand than just some residents asking to have an amenity put into place.

The Rivermarket area may represent one of those exceptions, it may not, I would only say that in an instance such as this, that significant consideration, thought and a due process be followed if such an exception is to be granted.

I guarantee that the Penn Valley dog-park will be expanded in the future, while I was at Parks I heard of discussions regarding such being engaged in. I believe that a parking lot was partially if not fully funded by tax dollars and put in there. The Parks Department is also working on developing other dog-parks throughout the City, this will happen I have little doubt, but they need to be placed strategically in every sense of the word and a set of guidelines (that not everyone will agree with) will serve as the parameters for the said design, planning and development of such amenities. A process like this represents good governance any way you cut it. You cannot satisfy everyone all the time.

What I am hearing from you and others discussing the Sunnyside plan, is that their point of view is not being recognized, and guess what, for them it may not be. Not everyone will be happy with every public decision and that is just a cold and hard fact. Again all those arguing for their point of view do not see all the issues at hand and/or many of these folks simply will not consider other points of view, it has been my experience that Debb Hipp in her cause is doing exactly that, ignoring other points of view.

I guess we must just agree to disagree.

chris

[Brent]

We could have a completely different conversations on the pluses and minused of dog parks as a place for dogs. They are generally great, but there are people who don't understand how to manage their dog in dog parks and problems do, unfortunately happen. If THAT is the concern, then they shouldn't talk about dog parks anywhere.

But that's not really the concern is it? Or else we wouldn't (rightfully) be discussing more dog parks.

And I don't care if tax dollars pay for dog parks. As a community, we routinely pay for things like tennis courts, baseball fields, soccer fields, swimming pools, running paths and all kinds of things that cater to different segments of the population -- why would dog owners be any different?

But you CONTINUE to not listen to me or my point. I'm not advocating for a park at Sunnyside Park. I've said REPEATEDLY I don't like the Sunnyside plan.

Here's my beef. If the parks board was going to use their own set of criteria -- that you think is somehow very well thought-out -- then why go through a two year charade of assembling a "citizens task force" that they had no intention on listening to?

The reality is that they made a knee jerk decision 2 1/2 years ago to put in a 5 acre minimum size of dog parks with the sole rationale being to keep a park out of Sunnyside.

Then, when there was such backlash, they set up a feaux committee to provide input -- allowed them to prolong the exercise for two years -- and then re-instituted their original plan.

There is nothing in their "plan" that reflects anything from the input from the majority of people that attended the hearings, nor the input from the citizens committee they created.

So they ignored the people at the meetings.

They ignored the committe.

They ignored the success of the current dog park.

They ignored the success of other cities.

It seems as if the only reason you are defending them is because they didn't put in the dog park you didn't want.

[Chris Bouchard]

Calm down Brent, I know you are not pushing for the Sunnyside plan. You are pointing out that you think the Parks Department is not listening, you are pointing out that you think that Penn Valley is a success in terms of dogparks, you are pointing out that you have no idea why they came up with the guidelines that they did, you are pointing out that you think that the Parks Department is the moving force behind the Dog Park Task Force and that you could care less that tax dollars are used for whatever so long as you got yours.

I got you Brent.

Sounds like you and Depp Hipp are the same type of dogpark advocates, well, I am not. I believe community first, dogpark second.

You take care!

[Brent]

Aren't you cute with your little jabs.

As a society, we agree to pay taxes to fund things the community as a whole benefits from and that there is demand for. This is the whole idea behind park space. Within the park space, we put things that cater to different types of people. In parks we put tennis courts, playground equipment, running tracks, bike trails, softball fields, etc.

I participate in some of these activities, but not others. Either way I'm supportive of parks with a variety of uses that everyone can enjoy.

And yet, our community of 500,000 people, about 40% of whom have dogs (about 33% have kids), has only one dog park and yet hundreds of pieces of playground equipment.

Clearly there is demand for more dog parks -- which is why the whole conversation has taken place. And so far the parks board has only ignored input, put in a 2-year delay process with the task force they established and ignored, and then set up a set of criteria that have no actual rational for existing.

You defend it because they are friends of yours and you got what you wanted....which is one of the biggest reasons why I have a problem with the process...because they established arbitrary criteria to be sure their friends got what they wanted.

You benefit. You win. But joe citizen ends up losing...which is the reason for this post.

[Chris Bouchard]

It is hard to understand things when you do not see the whole picture.

When in the military I remember the complaints raised by the Privates about the policies enacted on the Generals behalf.

I remember as a kid thinking my parents arbitrary in their rule making, that was a long time ago when I was a juvenile.

Your assumptions make for lousy points of discussion.

I as a citizen and dog owner am a winner and will be more so in the future knowing that additional dogparks are on the drawing board for KC.

I guess at that point, all the name calling and finger-pointing will have been for naught.

Time to grow up Brent!

[Brent]

Again Chris. It's nice for you to have friends on the parks board so you got what you wanted (or kept others from getting what they wanted). That doesn't change the process of how that happened and the decision-making process not being the most democratic process.

In a city that is often criticized by only catering to insiders, your constant defending of a broken process by nearly calling people childish only reinforces that the process does indeed cater to people like you, and not the average citizen.