« Kansas City Leads in Housing Vacancies | Main | Why are we making it harder for locally owned businesses? »

August 27, 2009

Comments

Brent

And at this point Chris, you have posted 7 different comments here and none of them have done anything to address the arbitrary rules other than "there were reasons", address that the Citizens committee was ignored other than "well, they didn't have to listen to the committee they established" or anything other than reinforce my opinion that this was a play by political insiders like yourself to get what they wanted. Heck, at this point you've even admitted that the task force was nothing more than a 'political band aid" that the parks board had no intention on really listening to -- which was my primary point all along. They set up a committee of citizens for no other reason than to save face politically, and then decided to do their own plan anyway. THAT WAS THE POINT OF MY POST.

All the while, pretending people who want the government to work for the actual citizens are "childish" and "need to grow up". If you plan on commenting again, it should try to make a point to actually address the topics and the criticisms beyond just making verbal jabs.

Chris Bouchard

Yeah, you're right Joe, there are Communists hiding behind every door and in every closet.

Please do tell me about your public service Brent, I am very interested.

Before you begin your misplaced negative accusation(s) of my motive in this issue, I would suggest you check yourself at the door. It should go without saying that I will never get rich working for the tax-payer and my efforts will likely not be much appreciated by those I serve, nor will I be recognized for my efforts in the military service where I was subject to defending with MY LIFE something that I hold very dear (the Democratic society in which we live), but even after all that, I continue to promote that age old belief of improving my community. Why would I do that? To what personal gain? Putting in the dogpark at Sunnyside benefits me for I am a property owner in the area and many to include Debb Hipp will tell you that my home’s value will increase as a result. I have already told you that I agree with and I truly believe that the number of said dogparks will increase in KC in the future.

I believe the concept of well planned out dogparks is a good one and I would promote the idea, I own two dogs, I believe in community and I have taken an active role in engaging in the democratic process. Do you kind of see where I am going with this?

As to my friends on the Board, please do tell me who those folks might be, for my departure from Parks has most certainly not had great effects on my public career. I will tell you or anyone that besides a passing in the hall or a brief conversational exchange at some of the dogpark related meetings, I am not on any personal level with any current or past Board member. Anyone who says otherwise is an outright liar!

Your continual and inciting query regarding some arbitrary number included within the dogpark guidelines could easily be answered by your friend Debb Hipp as far as I know, for I believe said number was devised by a former Parks Manager who was sympathetic to Debb and her plight, again I was not involved at that level. On this subject, where did the 3 ½ acre (isn’t that Penn Valley’s dogpark size) number come from and who is the definitive authority on the subject?

Brent

Comment #8 from you Chris. You've been great about calling everyone (and me) immature, and lacking knowledge, but at this point you've yet to even come close to addressing what my issues are.

I agree in the concept of a well-planned set of dog parks. But at this point you've even AGREED with my biggest point in that they set up a Citizens Task Force because they created a politically sticky situation that they had little interest in listening to.

It was an utter waste of everyone's time and they went off and did what they wanted to do from the start.

Thus the point, that the citizens committee had no real input. They ignored the entire recommendation.

Here's the thing about dog park size -- there isn't a right or wrong answer. Small dog parks that serve neighborhoods work really well in many cities in small neighborhood parks. Large dog parks seem to do well in KC as evidenced by Penn Valley and Shawnee Mission. That's the thing, there isn't a "designated size" that works, because they all can -- and yet, the parks board created one that essentially eliminates dog park possibilities in MOST of the city's parks. And based on what? Certainly not a single bit of input from citizens, the citizens task force, or the success of the current park in their own city.

THATS the problem. In 8 comments, you've only called me names and said I'm wrong, but haven't validated that in the slightest. It's starting to get old.

As for your public service, I would like to say thank you for serving in the military. It's honorable work and I admire those who serve. As far as my public service, it really doesn't matter for the purpose of this topic. It doesn't change whether or not the Parks Board ignored the Citizens committee. That said, I feel very confident in my public service. I don't feel a lot of reason to list out what I do...because it is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. And honestly, it's another bullshit attempt on your end to try to belittle others who do things in their community as if you are somehow more superior, more knowlegdeable, and that your opinion carries more weight than other people in the community.

I have little tolerance for that type of attitude, and it's that lack of respect that I think tainted this whole process.

Chris Bouchard

Brent, real easy to create some mythical beast citing some citizen task with the implication that said group was made up of ordinary citizens with an unbiased point of view (it was not) and then you keep saying "they" did this and "they" didn't do this referring to the Parks Board as if they are some cabal out to get you and the other dog owners all in order to ruin their dreams of their own dog park.

Pretty typical writing trying to incite the group to do what? March on City Hall and demand a recount of votes, please!

Then you start putting words in my mouth, although I do believe that it’s inception was the result of a mis-step on the part of the Parks Board, I have no idea who put together the Citizen Task Force [sic], I actually believe that it was put together by Council. Please do not paraphrase me incorrectly again in order that you can try to prove some point of yours. I said

“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.”


As to a lack of knowledge on the subject, I have no idea what level of knowledge you possess, but it seems pretty clear to me that you have talked quite a bit about public servants (painting them all to be some ill-experienced, all politically motivated and without the public's interest in mind) in mostly a pretty negative light, but know very little of the actual operation of public governance. Please save your crud for some other idiot. I personally find it quite offensive.

It saddens me that I actually try to create a better place for us all to live while the thankless self-centered types do nothing but complain. If it is so bad, and we public servants are doing such a terrible job, please feel free to enroll yourself in an accredited school and study the science of governance for years (so that you are properly prepared), following which you feel free to pick up the baton and support the citizenry in good public servant fashion.

Your argument is all based on assumption which is pretty weak to say the least. The Parks Board did what they did, because they thought it was in the best interest of the City, not because they are out to get you or anyone else and teach you some jaded lesson. Just because they made decisions that was not in line with the Dog Park Task Force recommendations (I am not sure that this is the case) does not mean that they were ignored or the time spent on such was wasted, I am sure that did not occur; but if this ASSUMPTION of yours makes you sleep at night, keep assuming.

So, no public service and no idea as to the “Arbitrary

Chris Bouchard

dog park size? That is what I thought. No real argument, just blustery talk.

Brent

10 comments. You've still not addressed ANYTHING. And you accuse me of blustey talk.

The idea for a task force was that of the Park's Board -- and you were correct in that it was established to difuse a volatile political situation. There were 14 people on the task force, 1 representative from DIG, 1 From the Sunnyside group -- who were both appointed by the Parks Board, and then 12 with one each being appointed by a city council person.

If the committee was biased in any way because they had 1 member of the WOOF group on it, the Parks Board only has itself to blame for that too -- as they appointed them there.

If you read the two proposals (which it appears you haven't), there is essentially nothing from the Citizen's task force proposal that was carried over into the Park's board proposal. They ignored the Task Force that they created and did what they tried to do from the start. That's not a weak assumption, it is very clear if you actually read all the documents.

As for the dog park size, let me be even more clear than I was the last time -- THERE SHOULD BE NO ACROSS THE BOARD SIZE RESTRICTIONS ON DOG PARKS. I've read a TON on this subject, and there is nothing out there that points to one size being better than others...it's just important that the dog park doesn't dwarf the overall park experience (in most cases). But to put a 5 acre restriction in a city that is mostly urban with few parks that support such a large-sized park isn't practical for the majority of the residents of this city.
So with nothing credible in any research on dog parks, and evidence that smaller sizes can work -- including the ONE dog park in their own city, without any reason given for it (and you've had 10 chances now to give a valid reason) the size restriction can only be seen as an arbitrary number.

And please -- enough with the matyr BS. Because no one could possibly care as much as YOU about this city whil YOU work so thanklessly for the public good. Geez. And you called ME self centered?

Once again, you found it necessary to take personal shots at me AGAIN. You clearly know nothing about me, but you feel that by belittling other people it will help prop up your opinion. It doesn't. It just makes you seem arrogant and dismissive of dissenting view points. Why not at least start with the assumption that I'm involved in my community, that I'm pretty knowledgable about how it operates and that I work hard to make it better? I do, but from your initial comment here, you have treated everyone here as if they couldn't possibly be as smart as YOU. Please.

SO at this point, if you want to continue to have your comments seen, you'll at least be a little bit respectful, and if you could at least address any of the issues I've raised -- which center around a group of public servants that created a citizens task force to difuse a politically volitile situation that they created and then ignored their input that they spent 2 years assembling.

As for the cheap, baseless jabs, enough is enough.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad