I got involved in this issue while observing the District council meeting (last
August) about using the athletic fields at Edgecumb and Groveland on a
part-time basis for off-leash dogs. The Parks Dept (through Eric Thompson) had
proposed a trial run of this use, but it was voted down.
I initially supported the proposal, but after investigating the matter further,
I decided it was not a good idea. There might be some, but I could not find a
single case among the 700 dog parks in the country where dogs shared a park
with people (i.e. using athletic fields). Even if owners are fastidious about
poop pick up, there are still legitimate health concerns about fecal residue.
Moreover, dogs and grass don't mix well, and that's why most dog parks with
heavy traffic (in a limited area) use either wood chips or something like
decomposed granite.
I thought Eric Thompson was knowledgeable and articulate, so after the meeting
I wrote him to volunteer my efforts. Over the past month he has kept me busy
researching a host of issues -- the Mpls system, other parks across the
country, permits, etc.
I didn't have to dig very far to realize that a citizen advocacy group is a
crucial part of the process, and stands behind the establishment of every park
I have examined.
In some cases (Burnsville's Alimagnet, Iowa City's Thornberry) the advocacy
group raised all monies to pay for the park. In most others (Mpls, NYC) the
city picked up all or most of the tab.
As a corollary to my efforts for Eric, I decided to see if I could find other
people who were interested, and we are slowly building a mailing list. So far,
I have found about 10 people who are actually willing to do the grunt work
involved to hand out flyers, soliciting their friends, neighbors, and dog
walkers they encounter to sign them up for a mailing list. We need more grunts,
though.
From what I can gather, ROMP was both crucial and effective in establishing the
dog parks we now have in the metro area, particularly Arkwright/Arlington.
Unfortunately, this organization is defunct, and so far, I have been unable to
track down any of the folks who were active in this group, since the expertise
they developed would be very helpful in our present efforts.
Right now, we most need a dog person who understands the politics of St. Paul
and has some experience in advocating for a cause. I signed up for SPIF with
the hope I could find such a person.
Personally, my goal is to see a series of neighborhood dog parks scattered
about the city, ideally, one in each council ward. And they don't have to be as
large as Arkwright (4-5 acres). In Mpls for instance, with the exception of
Minnehaha (by the river), the other four parks area actually quite small (an
acre or two), yet they are both functional and pleasant. That said, bigger is
always better.
Also, these Off-Leash Areas do not have to be on prime park land. The dogs
don't care (nor do their owners) if the OLA is carved from some unused, scruffy
piece of property that is either part of the Parks system or simply owned by
the city. It is desirable though that the OLA not abut residential properties
and that there be adequate parking (preferably off-street, since many residents
seem to regard the public street in front of their house as their personal
parking space).
As far as the Excel property is concerned, I don't know if they intend to cede
or sell this land to the city. If the city will not accept responsibility for
an OLA here, that means a volunteer group would have to handle maintenance,
poop removal and the like. This would be doable, but it would take a
bigger/better organization than we have right now.
TO DAVE THUNE:
I very much appreciate your efforts on this issue. I actually found the SPIF
because I was googling recently, which led me to the post you wrote about it
last summer.
If you can offer this beginner some guidance on who needs to be contacted, I
will muster our little group and give it a go.