|
Frank,
Your obsession with controlling and arresting people is useless in promoting neighborhood improvements and resolving community disputes, in Clark Park or anywhere else. I understand your impatience with messy democracy and your fascination with Hitlerian "leaders" as an alternative. But this method won't work in University City.
Your use of terms like "criminal" to disparage off-leash dog walkers is more than insulting -- it's mistaken. Such infractions of regulations do not lead to criminal charges. Today I drove home from work on I-95, and I can assure you that 100% of my fellow drivers exceeded 55 mph. That didn't make them criminals and they shouldn't lose their voting rights or their rights to help plan the city they pay taxes to and live in. Most people violate some regs at some point in their lives. Slinging slurs at everyone you disagree with doesn't make you right; it just makes you a prig. For sure, it does not allow you to rule the neighborhood by royal decree.
The Dept. of Recreation is set up to meet the recreational needs of ordinary city dwellers. Dogs are definitely part of the package. They don't trump children, but dog owners are citizens too. Their needs will be considered. Philadelphia is behind other major cities, such as New York, in developing dog-targeted rec areas. That means some needs go unmet, and that means less than perfect situations arise, to be managed until a brighter day dawns.
In your regulatory frenzy, you now seem to have muddled a volunteer park support group with Immigration and Naturalization Services as well as with the Philadelphia Police Dept. It's none of FoCP's business who is and who is not a citizen. My wife isn't a citizen either; she still uses the park. I don't know that YOU are a citizen, for that matter, and why should I care? Public services are for all the people in a city. In planning them, you work with the people that are going to use them.
Problems have been demonstrated. I do agree with you that a dog park is needed in the neighborhood. It has not yet been shown that it should be in Clark Park, however. I know you have strong feelings, but leadership takes thinking as well as emoting. A major capital project that would alter the balance of a heavily used public space requires careful thought and study. And we can't count on you to help, can we? So we'll have to proceed at our own pace.
As one example: I notice from your constant public vulgarity that you spend a lot of time thinking about dog feces, in the park at least. You're not alone in raising that point, however. So I thought the matter worth studying. On Nov. 27 I did a systematic field survey of the north end of the Bowl, where most off-leash dog walking takes place. In that area of ca. 2000 sq.yd., I found 4 fecal deposits. I then did a comparable survey of an equivalent square footage of *non-park public space* -- the tree lawns and front yards of the 4300-4400 blocks of Larchwood Ave., and the 300-400 blocks of S. 44th St. Here I found 21 fecal deposits! So it is not true that Clark Park is unusually fouled by animal waste; in fact, the opposite may be true. In this case you have leapt to conclusions, and missed. FoCP must concentrate on issues that turn out to hold water after study; and there are some. They are what we're working on.
You must know more than I do about the FoCP board's views! We haven't had a vote on this subject and we won't until we have all the facts at hand. My impression is that the board is pretty much like the community as a whole.
-- Tony West > Tony West does not want a dog park. Also, a majority of the FOCP board do > not want a dog
park. > The Clark park bowl should be
renamed, “Dog Shit Bowl.” > If the PPD has the problem low on their priorities – then something should be > done to change their
priorities.
> Frank Winkler |
- Re: [UC] FOCP board meeting -- dog committee recommendations ... Anthony West
