Why the Times-News editorial board is wrong again

Just as they were with the soccer complex fiasco, the Times-News editorial board is wrong again--this time on the dog park issue:

People who thumb their noses at the rules and behave badly should not be rewarded, it’s true. But dog owners in and around Flat Rock should not be punished by the actions of a few scofflaws.

Dog parks are extremely popular, as evident by the hordes of people and pets using one that recently opened at the Mills River Park.. .

Henderson County has six county parks and only Jackson Park includes a dog park. The other parks allow dogs on leashes. These parks do not have lots of dogs running loose just because they don't have dog parks. The Jackson Park dog park is just three miles from Flat Rock, so there is more than enough space there for dogs to run in the immediate area. [ed. - I deleted info on the size of the dog park at Jackson Park because I have not confirmed that with the Parks Dept.]

This issue came up last September as well, before I was on the council. Here is an email I sent the council members at the time that still holds true:

At last Thursday’s village council meeting [held 9/12/13], at the Flat Rock Park Development Advisory Committee presentation, the idea of including a dog park was suggested by several people, including some council members. At yesterday’s park development advisory committee meeting, Ed Lastein showed his latest design of the park, which included an area designated for a dog park.

I am strongly opposed to including a dog park for several reasons:

1) The village council went to great effort to ensure transparency and accountability on the park issue.

• The Flat Rock Park Exploratory Committee provided a survey for residents to complete, held a public forum on the park, and encouraged all residents to participate in letting the village know what they wanted to see in a park.
• Based on that information, the exploratory committee created a list based on number of responses.
• The Flat Rock Park Development Advisory Committee then took that list and determined that they would include the top seven items in the park design.
• This allowed the process to be public, since the exploratory committee’s report was public, and all Flat Rock residents could understand why these particular seven items were to be included: they are the top seven rated features gathered from residents’ input.
• To now preempt that process negates the work of the Exploratory Committee and the decision by the Development Advisory Committee. It also makes unclear how park decisions will be made. All residents were informed of the survey and the public forum. The residents who took the time to come or respond to a survey could now consider that their input is being dismissed. Based on the initial input, they could well ask why these items are not being included:

      Community garden
      Tennis/pickleball/multi-use courts
      Community center
      Bocce court
      Horse shoes

All of these features rated ahead of a dog park in the survey/public forum.

I understand that the needs of residents will change over time and that at a future date, a dog park may be something the village decides to build, but to include it now—to even show a future site (because as soon as it’s on paper, people will assume it will happen)—brings into question the methodology for deciding park features.

2) One of the top concerns I heard from residents was the ongoing maintenance costs of a park. A dog park will require extensive maintenance, including clean-up, providing a water supply, and continuous replenishment of whatever ground surface is used inside the dog park. Some municipalities are also concerned about increased liability with a dog park.

3) While all parks have some of the same features, they do not need to duplicate each other. Jackson Park has a wonderful dog park—it’s where we take our dog. It is just a few miles away and very accessible. There is no need for Flat Rock to duplicate that facility.

4) While the homeowners nearest the park cannot dictate what goes into the park, I do think their wishes should get some weighted consideration. Their understanding was that there would be no dog park in the foreseeable future—that is one reason they welcomed the park. To make a switch to including a dog park at this date seems very counterproductive to maintaining good relations with those most affected.

Thank you.