Shankland: Who the hell wants a bunch of dead grass where dogs poop on in their park?
I saw this news story on Facebook, WTOL reporting Groups foaming at mouth over dog park. They had a fun time with writing this one, part of:
TOLEDO, OH (WTOL) – Toledo could be weeks away from getting its first dog park, but at least one group is saying, “Take a walk!”
Toledo Unleashed is a private group working to bring the dog park to Toledo. The proposed site is at Ottawa Park, just off Kenwood, across from The Toledo Hospital.
The group says they’re working on leasing it from the City of Toledo. But the board representing Ottawa Park isn’t happy about it.
“Who the hell wants a bunch of dead grass where dogs poop on in their park? It’s ridiculous!” said Terry Shankland.
Kevin Mullan of Toledo Unleashed found himself on the defensive as the Ottawa-Jermain Parks Advisory Board spoke out against the dog park.“Once this dog park is in use, the area will become brown. The beautiful grass will deteriorate,” Diane Shankland, President of the Ottawa-Jermain Parks Advisory Board said. “It was kind of shoved down our throat as a board, we weren’t advised at all and all of a sudden we find in the paper the fence is going up March.”
No matter your position on the dog park, it does seem as the communication was dropped, the park advisory board should have been informed/asked and not learned through the newspaper…
Dog parks are a blast! Cities all over the country – again, except for ours -have had them for years and years, without any problems. I see no harm in setting aside a small fenced off area for this purpose. Yeah, there’s going be less grass, but in a park that size, no one’ll even notice. We’re only now becoming a community that doesn’t kill dogs willy nilly. Maybe we can, the (admin delete) Shanklands notwithstanding, finally advance to the point of having a dog park.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:19 amevery other city in the country considers dog parks and biking trails “amenities” that “enhance” the “quality of life” and that indicate signs of “healthy lifestyles”. thank god shankland is standing up for the lumpy sedentary class who want to leave ottawa park in its natural state, a golf course and skating rink surrounded by a swamp. his next task should be those pesky frisbee golfers who are probably showing up under the influence of hemp and red bull.
while he is at it, can he also get rid of the geese, and rabbits, deer, etc – they have been pooping all over the place as well. finally, we can rebuild all the roads that use to wind their way thru the park so man can enjoy nature as it was meant to be – from the comfort of a minivan at 25 mph – but leave the windows up, you know how that creek can smell god awful.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:39 amI agree with Lisa, seems like the communication ball was dropped… unless the advisory board has no real power and is inconsequential to the decision making process, at which point it might as well be disbanded.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:55 amWell said, Zimmy. Hilarious!
March 5th, 2010 at 8:31 amI knew some of you would enjoy Terry Shankland’s comment since he typically says exactly is what is on his mind and as I pointed out, despite the comment, there is a clear lack of communication or process.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:09 amThe communications ball wasn’t dropped. If you believe The Blade The city administration has been working with Toledo Unleashed to make the dog park a reality, according to Jen Sorgenfrei, Mayor Mike Bell’s spokesman.
Neither Mike Bell’s office nor the officers of Toledo Unleashed saw fit to inform the Ottawa-Jermain Parks Advisory Board of what was happening, and with good reason.
The dog park will be a real asset for Toledo, and won’t cost the city any money. In fact, since Toledo Unleashed will be covering the maintenance for the dog park, the city will actually save money.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:14 amThen the question becomes, why have an advisory group if they are not advised?
March 5th, 2010 at 9:19 amI think this is all moot. With the closing of the parks, http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100305/NEWS16/3050324 , less people will be going to the parks. The only problems I can foresee are the shorter dogs getting lost in the waist high grass, and kids hiding in the tall grass to hunt dogs with pellet guns to keep themselves occupied (no swimming pools to go to).
March 5th, 2010 at 10:41 amMaybe we should be allowed to keep goats or cows in the parks, they could eat the grass, we could sell the milk and help end the deficit.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:00 amWhy can’t we have a cat park? My cats like to be out and Ottawa Park would be a nice place for them too.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:33 pmGood point Lisa. The city could go into the milk business. LOL! As for Shankland, it’s no wonder he’s never been elected to Council or anything else he’s run for.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:57 pmLisa – I’ve always enjoyed your forward thinking, and out-of-the-box solutions for complex problems. E.
March 5th, 2010 at 2:55 pmLisa, people could also gather “smart pills”. You may have heard the old joke: A tenderfoot was out West when he was offered some “nanna berry” tea by the cook. The newcomer took a swig, and said, “That tastes like sheep’s dung”. The cook replied, “Now you’re gettin’ smart.”
I especially like the idea of a cat park. Though I think I’d station a “cherry picker” to get the cats down from the trees (unless we put a top over the corral).
By the way, has anyone here ever walked a cat on a leash. I tried that 25 years ago at Swan Creek Park. Never got very far. The cat was more interested in fighting the leash than walking in front of me.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:20 pmTerrible idea Lisa, terrible.
How can we become green if we bring in giant polluters like cows. We won’t have the carbon credits to afford them.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:33 pmGrrreenrax, I’ve only had one cat that successfully was a leash walker, though the concept of a dog park is so they can run free, mixing cats and dogs together could be quite an exercise adventure…
Doug, I’m sorry, in my zest for finding revenue enhancement ideas I lost sight of the impact on the ozone by using cows. We’ll have to stick to goats…or maybe sheep! Then we could shear them!
March 5th, 2010 at 3:48 pmMaybe we could lease the land for more than $1.00? Other cities, like Indy, have city run dog parks that generate sufficient revenues to be self-sustaining and provide surplus funds used in support of other park programs, like programs for the kids!
Seems interesting that after years of study and relative inaction, Bell now has Commissioner Garvin et al rushing to get this completed in a one month span.
I thought the O-J Advisory Board had some reasonable requirements (a list originally generated in 2008?) that should be addressed and documented before leasing public land in the middle of a park to a private organization with no history of managing such an endeavor. If they’ve got their plans in order and funds secured, there’s no reason to fear disclosure to the Advisory Board and citizens alike.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:25 pmtjankow1 Says:
“Why can’t we have a cat park? My cats like to be out and Ottawa Park would be a nice place for them too.”
We do and always have had so many “wild cats” running all over the city leaving
their “poop and diareaha” all over the city in homeowners yards, sidewalks, etc.
Dogs need a park and able to walk and run around.
Tell the complaining homeowners to move and live on a riverboat or a boat on Lake Erie!
March 5th, 2010 at 7:26 pmIf we were going to be serious about the cat park instead of humor…
Feral cats are different than cats that people own as pets, that’d be like saying we shouldn’t have a dog park because so many dog owners let their dogs run the neighborhoods or poop in people’s yards.
Suggesting that people just move instead of voicing their opinion is not what this blog or our community is supposed to be about.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:35 pm#18 – Lisa Renee Says
“Suggesting that people just move instead of voicing their opinion is not what this blog or our community is supposed to be about.”
Believe me, suggesting that people just move is what people who are supposedly Professionals do that to people who live in apartments or rental homes: “If you don’t like it, MOVE!”
March 5th, 2010 at 7:46 pmWhich has nothing to do with a thread that was posted part in humor. I’ve never heard a professional tell someone if they didn’t like something to move and I’ve lived in rental housing a good majority of my life as well as helped people with a good number of landlord/tenant issues.
People, renters and homeowners alike have the right to express what they want or don’t want in their neighborhoods. They also do here, as long as they stay on topic…
March 5th, 2010 at 7:53 pmI have lived in rental housing for a good part of my years and have known
my people that rented in the past and do rent now, so believe what I stated or not!
My comments #17 & #19 are not understood, so I will drop it in further comments.
Questions:
How many homeowners live in the neighborhood where they want the dog
park that actually own dogs themselves?
Are those voicing their opinions dog owners themselves??
March 5th, 2010 at 8:31 pmIf you read the full article, it is the park advisory board members that are raising concerns, since they were not included as part of the discussion with the City and those who want the dog park.
In 2008 when Mayor Finkbeiner proposed using city dollars to have the dog park be at Highland Park, many opposed it because the City was going to be spending tax dollars and many residents in this neighborhood felt if tax dollars were going to be spent on the park, it should benefit the children of the area not the dogs.
Now they are proposing it at a different park and are stating they are not going to use tax dollars.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:38 pmI have seen and heard several different broadcasts and written on another message board regarding this issue and several homeowners that live in the area were expessing their opinions against the dog park and that is why I asked the questions.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:17 pmMaybe after this initial coverage, but the complaints prior to this were related to some of the other locations suggested.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:20 pmMy understanding is that the users of the dog park will pay a membership fee, and there will be requirements for the dogs to have current license & current vaccinations.
Something tells me that the type of people who would become paying members of the dog park are probably less likely to cause trouble in the neighborhood than miscellaneous loiterers. Just a hunch!
I’ve been to dog parks in other cities – I suspect the man who is voicing those strong objections has never actually been to a dog park. First of all, I’m quite certain that part of the membership fee will go towards supplies/receptacles for waste disposal, and that part of the membership agreement would be to clean up after your dog. That’s the way it works at other dog parks, and I’ve never seen a problem.
You’d think that drawing responsible dog owners from around the city to that neighborhood would be a GOOD thing. Might even make the neighborhood more attractive for potential new residents, eventually.
March 5th, 2010 at 10:12 pmLisa said, “Then the question becomes, why have an advisory group if they are not advised?”
Might I further add that inherent in the purpose of an advisory board is to advise. Now how can they advise if they are not asked in advance for their advice?
March 5th, 2010 at 11:58 pmThen the question becomes, why have an advisory group if they are not advised?
It doesn’t. The advisory board can continue to perform as usual, which is to say that the members can feel important, have meetings and pass along their carefully considered opinions that no one cares about. I’m guessing the advisory board will quietly expire and disband.
The dog park is a good idea and should have been constructed years ago. Since the city doesn’t have to pay to maintain the property, which it would have to do otherwise, the city is actually saving money by permitting the park.
March 6th, 2010 at 9:33 amThe whole purpose of creating these advisory boards was so that there would be communication within the neighborhoods and a process. They should have been included in the discussions, whether some of you want to target some of the individuals in the board or not…The easiest way to alienate people is to ignore them.
March 7th, 2010 at 9:29 amThe whole purpose of creating these advisory boards was so that there would be communication within the neighborhoods and a process.
Ostensibly, yes. I tried looking up the Ottawa-Jermain Parks Advisory Board and couldn’t find much. It doesn’t seem to have a presence on the Internet. I wonder who created it and appointed the members. I think it’s likely that the ‘advisory’ board was created to keep a few people occupied (pacified?) so they won’t get into mischief.
Certainly Mike Bell and the city council don’t take the OJPAB too seriously, as the Mayor’s office bypassed it without a second thought and the council didn’t so much as yawn.
Although I missed the confrontation between OJPAB and Toledo Unleashed, what little I saw demonstrated that Kevin Mullan is well spoken and much faster on his feet than Terry Shankland or Harry Ward. Maybe Mr. Mullan is considering a run for office in he future.
March 7th, 2010 at 5:44 pmToledo City Council approves the appointments to the various park boards. Depending on the board, the appointments come from the Mayor then they approve, at times Council appoints a representative.
March 7th, 2010 at 6:58 pm