Sunnyside Park was the wrong choice for so very many reasons, it is too small, it is too close to a heavily travelled thoroughfare, it already contains too many activity areas to include a walking trail, basketball courts, several ballfields, a children's playground and sprayground, several tennis courts as well as several picnic areas. Those neighbors surrounding the park and a majority of residents in the immediate area were not receptive to the idea, nor were businesses around the park onboard with it either. Let us not forget the bad behavior exhibited by those in favor of the idea namely many WOOF members and their leader Deb Hipp, who advocated harassment of the Boardmembers and also used a deceptive campaign for the idea and often used downright untrue and/or derogatory language about those opposed to her and her group's ideas about the park.
I applaud the Parks Board for making a wise choice in the selection of several of the City's parks to add dogpark areas to, but more specifically I say they deserve a well earned pat on the back for not choosing the controversial Sunnyside Park. The Board by not selecting one of the Dog Park Task Force's(which it should be said was a very non-objective and heavily biased group)top choice for a dogpark, Sunnyside Park, showed the City and it's citizens that it could not and would not be bullied into a poor decision. You have made the right decision!!!
Sunnyside Park was the wrong choice for so very many reasons, it is too small, it is too close to a heavily travelled thoroughfare, it already contains too many activity areas to include a walking trail, basketball courts, several ballfields, a children's playground and sprayground, several tennis courts as well as several picnic areas. Those neighbors surrounding the park and a majority of residents in the immediate area were not receptive to the idea, nor were businesses around the park onboard with it either. Let us not forget the bad behavior exhibited by those in favor of the idea namely many WOOF members and their leader Deb Hipp, who advocated harassment of the Boardmembers and also used a deceptive campaign for the idea and often used downright untrue and/or derogatory language about those opposed to her and her group's ideas about the park.
I believe in the concept of dogparks (well thought out and objectively planned out with the whole community in mind) and am a multi dog owner. I have worked for the Parks Department (and they are the Pros at what they do), I am a nearby resident of both Sunnyside and South Oak parks. All that to say, I with all sincerity, say that each and every Board member as well as those on the Parks Department's Planning and Executive staffs deserve a hearty congratulations for making what might be condsidered by some a controversial decision. It was the right choice!
Again, what happen to reporting all sides of a story why the focus on the 'poor me' types like Deb Hipp and her 'spoiled kid' mentality. What happen to the main crux of the story (i.e., the City moving towards developing new dogparks throughout its borders and why the story's emphasis on criticizing those public servants that are making it happen) or what about the other side to the 'Sunnyside Saga', namely the significant effort made by a group of dog owners opposed to a misguided plan to place a dogpark right in the middle of a small neighborhood park already overweight with activity areas? What about the story about an inherently biased Dogpark Task Force whose site recommendations were already made prior to the group's inception? What, no mention of the public call made by a certain someone inciting citizens to harass these public servants (who I might remind people are not paid positions) at their workplaces, at their homes? This story is about what exactly? How about Money!!!
Re: “Kansas City’s urban parks: Where leadership fails”
Nice Bait and Switch on the article oh friend of fellow Pitch writer Debb Hipp.
No applause for moving forward with the concept of more dogparks in the city. Nice opposition piece.
well the truth of the matter Sunnyside Park was the wrong choice for so very many reasons, it is too small, it is too close to a heavily travelled thoroughfare, it already contains too many activity areas to include a walking trail, basketball courts, several ballfields, a children�s playground and sprayground, several tennis courts as well as several picnic areas. Those neighbors surrounding the park and a majority of residents in the immediate area were not receptive to the idea, nor were businesses around the park onboard with it either.
Again, what happen to reporting all sides of a story why the focus on the 'poor me' types like Deb Hipp and her 'spoiled kid' mentality. What happen to the main crux of the story (i.e., the City moving towards developing new dogparks throughout its borders and why the story's emphasis on criticizing those public servants that are making it happen) or what about the other side to the 'Sunnyside Saga', namely the significant effort made by a group of dog owners opposed to a misguided plan to place a dogpark right in the middle of a small neighborhood park already overweight with activity areas? What about the story about an inherently biased Dogpark Task Force whose site recommendations were already made prior to the group's inception? What, no mention of the public call made by a certain someone inciting citizens to harass these public servants (who I might remind people are not paid positions) at their workplaces, at their homes? This story is about what exactly? How about Money!!!
So much for the objective point of view. Time to move forward.