Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser says he stands for these things. Yet last week, the parks board he appointed straddled those ideals and dropped a steaming load on them.
On August 28, Board of Parks and Recreation Department commissioners trashed a well-organized citizen effort to set aside part of Sunnyside Park in Waldo for use as a dog park.
Some quick background: Kansas City prizes its parks and boulevards, but the system functions better on paper than it does on the ground. Too many parks just aren't very useful or inviting. Earlier this summer, Funkhouser appointed a new parks board and told it to improve people's satisfaction with the parks. In its first real test, the new board has failed.
Of more than 200 city parks, only one, Penn Valley Park, has a place for dog owners to take their pets for off-leash exercise. Nine months ago, Deb Hipp (full disclosure: She's a former Pitch writer but she hasn't worked for the paper since 2003) began organizing the effort for Dog Park No. 2.
Waldo seemed a good place for it. Rectangular-shaped Sunnyside Park has tennis courts, ball diamonds and a spray ground. But dog owners say that they and their furry friends are the park's most frequent visitors. The day before last week's parks board meeting, midtowner Diane Bulan counted five canines and three humans at Sunnyside Park. "We're the ones who are using the park and we want to use it legally," Bulan tells me.
Hipp put in countless hours on behalf of the Sunnyside dog park. She enlisted volunteers, circulated petitions, found sponsors and held raffles. An architect, Jeremy Schlicher, came up with a design that strived for environmental friendliness as well as compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The plan looked appealing to me. In fact, a few months ago, my wife and I gave $10 to the cause (even though we live in Raytown).
On August 20, a parks official informed Hipp that the department was prepared to move forward with a public hearing on the Sunnyside dog park. Hipp and her supporters had reason to believe that the parks board valued their input. When the new commissioners took over on June 12, they made a point of moving the public-comment part of the agenda to the beginning of their meetings, so that, they said, citizens wouldn't have to sit through administrative minutiae and recognition ceremonies before having a chance to speak their minds. Now, the parks board claimed, the public would come first.
Last week, that turned out to be a lie.
A new dog-park policy, which effectively disqualifies Sunnyside Park from getting one, was slammed onto the agenda at the 11th hour. It wasn't posted online. Hipp says Mark McHenry, the parks director, wouldn't share the new resolution with her when she called the parks department for more information.
When Hipp and others arrived for the meeting, the board president, John Fierro, told them that the board would not accept any public comment on matters related to the new policy, which says dog parks belong in large "regional" parks such as Swope Park.
The 30 or so dog-park supporters who learned what was happening in time to attend the afternoon meeting were outraged. Hipp interrupted Fierro to express her frustration.
"You're totally changing the rules of government to put through an amendment that is going to totally cheat us out of our chance for a public hearing, and that is just wrong," Hipp said, sounding more shocked than belligerent.
Showing 1-12 of 12
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.
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.
The Commission is a public body and if they went into a closed door session, they may have violated the Sunshine Clause. As a former commissioner of a different commission, I strongly urge The Pitch to follow up on this. While it may not help out the doggie people, it can certainly put a pin in the tail of the piggie people.
The Commission is a public body and if they went into a closed door session, they may have violated the Sunshine Clause. As a former commissioner of a different commission, I strongly urge The Pitch to follow up on this. While it may not help out the doggie people, it can certainly put a pin in the tail of the piggie people.
I recently moved from Omaha, Neb. to Kansas City and have used the current dog park in Penn Valley.
I think a dog park in all four corners of town - South, Downtown, Midtown and North KC is a great idea.
In Omaha, one of our older park's baseball diamonds were made into two dog parks - one for small dogs, one for big dogs. I have never seen people work so well together to make this happen. I recently went on the park's 1 year anniversary and the dog park people were there taking donations for new landscaping, doggie poop bag dispensers, and more and there was a $100 bill in the jar! Volunteers regularly stock three-gallon water jugs tied to the fence with plastic bags for cleanup, and park users clean up after themselves.
From what I have seen with this park board in Kansas City, it's the same as it is everywhere else, people with more money, more influence, and a higher sense of being always trying to bring everyone else down.
I recently moved from Omaha, Neb. to Kansas City and have used the current dog park in Penn Valley. I think a dog park in all four corners of town - South, Downtown, Midtown and North KC is a great idea. In Omaha, one of our older park's baseball diamonds were made into two dog parks - one for small dogs, one for big dogs. I have never seen people work so well together to make this happen. I recently went on the park's 1 year anniversary and the dog park people were there taking donations for new landscaping, doggie poop bag dispensers, and more and there was a $100 bill in the jar! Volunteers regularly stock three-gallon water jugs tied to the fence with plastic bags for cleanup, and park users clean up after themselves. From what I have seen with this park board in Kansas City, it's the same as it is everywhere else, people with more money, more influence, and a higher sense of being always trying to bring everyone else down.
James, I have a "poop factory" in my "backyard" - never once have I had a problem with poop. As long as dog owners are responsible enough to pick up their dogs b.m.'s there should be no problem with it. One could even encourage said responsibility by leaving garbage bags at the site and have a trash can or two close by for that purpose (which is what we do). Oh, and yeah - that dog park is a little over an acre and a half in size, however it functions just fine because our city has dozens of them. If people put aside their crazed notions of dog owners and allow new dog parks to spring up over time then there will be less congestion at those dog parks, which would again limit the amount of poop left laying around like you think happens at dog parks.
James,
I think you hit the nail on the head. Some people (you?) view Sunnyside Park as their own personal backyard. (And, as David Martin so eloquently put it, a yard they don't have to mow.) Someone needs to send them a memo to let them know that the park actually belongs to everyone, and parks are for people to use. Again, as David Martin pointed out, asking for less than four acres of a 22-acre park for a very popular activity that hundreds of people near the park want is hardly unreasonable. But some people would just rather leave it empty.
As for the crowd that is constantly saying that Sunnyside is "too small," I wonder if they have ever traveled outside of Kansas City. Other cities have successful, popular dog parks in much smaller parks. Is 22 acres smaller in Kansas City than it is in St. Louis?
KC
P.S. - Just a note, too, to say that while most of the proponents of the plan told officials publicly that they use the park daily or regularly to walk their dogs, I never heard ONE of the opponents say that they use the park. I guess they'd like to keep it that way for other, too. Sad.
James, I have a "poop factory" in my "backyard" - never once have I had a problem with poop. As long as dog owners are responsible enough to pick up their dogs b.m.'s there should be no problem with it. One could even encourage said responsibility by leaving garbage bags at the site and have a trash can or two close by for that purpose (which is what we do). Oh, and yeah - that dog park is a little over an acre and a half in size, however it functions just fine because our city has dozens of them. If people put aside their crazed notions of dog owners and allow new dog parks to spring up over time then there will be less congestion at those dog parks, which would again limit the amount of poop left laying around like you think happens at dog parks.
James, I think you hit the nail on the head. Some people (you?) view Sunnyside Park as their own personal backyard. (And, as David Martin so eloquently put it, a yard they don't have to mow.) Someone needs to send them a memo to let them know that the park actually belongs to everyone, and parks are for people to use. Again, as David Martin pointed out, asking for less than four acres of a 22-acre park for a very popular activity that hundreds of people near the park want is hardly unreasonable. But some people would just rather leave it empty. As for the crowd that is constantly saying that Sunnyside is "too small," I wonder if they have ever traveled outside of Kansas City. Other cities have successful, popular dog parks in much smaller parks. Is 22 acres smaller in Kansas City than it is in St. Louis? KC P.S. - Just a note, too, to say that while most of the proponents of the plan told officials publicly that they use the park daily or regularly to walk their dogs, I never heard ONE of the opponents say that they use the park. I guess they'd like to keep it that way for other, too. Sad.
Midtown. Raytown. Brookside. Yes, perfect. How about we build a barking poop factory in your backyard?
Face it, the park is too small and the neighborhood didn't want you. Get over it. Funky's people handled it poorly, but there was no way a dog park would work at Sunnyside.
Game over.
Go cry elsewhere.
Midtown. Raytown. Brookside. Yes, perfect. How about we build a barking poop factory in your backyard? Face it, the park is too small and the neighborhood didn't want you. Get over it. Funky's people handled it poorly, but there was no way a dog park would work at Sunnyside. Game over. Go cry elsewhere.
like
dislike
