Two village leaders would delay new park entrance (and add a dog park)

This was the lead story in the Hendersonville Lightning a few weeks ago, but it was put online just a few days ago. By now you know how I feel about adding a dog park (ranked 14 out of 16 in amenities by village residents):

The Village Council is also looking at a new project, adding a fenced dog park, which had not up to now been a high priority. But dog owners have been letting their dogs run loose, which has set off complaints from non-dog walkers and opened a debate over what amenity to add first.

"If you go out to the park now the biggest problem we have are dogs," [Nick Weedman, council member] said. "A former council member stated it perfectly. If you don't have a dog park the whole park becomes a dog park. That's what's happening right now."

The Village Council last week authorized new signs that remind park visitors to leash their dogs. "Not everyone is comfortable with dogs," it adds.

Given the size and sparse use of the park now, "People's common reaction is that doesn't apply to me," Weedman said. . .

All I can say is, Henderson County has six parks--all allow dogs on leashes and only one, Jackson Park, also includes a dog park. When you visit the county parks, you will see visitors walking their dogs on leashes, not letting them run loose. It is factually incorrect to say that "If you don't have a dog park, the whole park  becomes a dog park." I think it's a short-term problem that has been decreasing as people have become more used to the rules and more aware that the park will not stay an open field, but will include amenities throughout.

The village council last year approved the master design plan unanimously. I'm not sure how the idea of a dog park became a priority over every thing else when it is not part of the master plan and ranks so low on what residents indicated they wanted in a park.   

Read it all.