Chatham park approved for dog off-leash area, Council picking up remaining tab
By Aaron Hall – Daily Post Editor
Chatham-Kent Council approved recommendations during Monday nights meeting to turn John Waddell Park in Chatham into a Dog Off-Leash Recreation Area. Council also agreed to pick up the remaining tab to get the project started.
Chatham Counc. Anne Gilbert entered a successful motion to have the remaining $5,000 left to fundraise for the project to be picked up through the strategic reserve.
“There are more dogs than people that ride their bikes to work,” Gilbert said.
Cheers rang out in the audience of the Council Chambers after council carried Gilbert’s motion.
A staff report indicated that $7,200 needed to be raised in order to erect a fence around the area of the park where the dogs will be without their leash. The Dog Off-Leash Recreation Area Development Committee (DOLRA) had already raised $2,300 in pledges towards the project.
Council agreed that the DOLRA committee must bring a report back to Council in one years time to summarize any issues or concerns raised suring the approved one-year trial period for the project.
David Lebrocq
July 27, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“There are more dogs than people that ride their bikes to work,”
Excuse me if I’m missing something but I don’t know too many dogs that work and never seen one ride a bike.
Also where is John Waddell Park – I want to make sure I steer clear of there to avoid land mines.
Dan
July 28, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Pretty sure John Waddell is just another name for the Water st. park over between the black bridge and the old courthouse…LMAO i’ve never seen a dog that works or rides a bike but i think i saw one drivin a car once!!
Seems once again some councillors are seein fit to spend everyone’s money on special interests again…and in these tough times when restraint should be practiced!! But maybe they can get our money back and then some if they instruct the bylaw enforcement people to nab the off-leashers in other parks and those who don’t pick up the landmines in Waddell Park….at least until that fence is paid for. I’m assuming the river isn’t gonna count as one side of the fence seein as how dogs do swim…but what a shame to put up an ugly fence in a park with such a nice river view!
I.R.
July 28, 2009 at 3:46 pm
It’s a numerical comparison jeez. She’s not saying dogs work or dogs ride bikes, that would be ridiculous.
Gilbert meant, and the quote reads: there are more dogs in this city (as in number wise), than people who ride their bikes to work. It’s a comment on the proposed bike paths vs. the proposed off leash park.
She was stating they should be spending some reserve funds on dogs and dog owners, in comparison to bike paths. Get it. More people own dogs, than ride their bike to work.
I guess there should be a comma there or something “There are more dogs, than people who ride their bikes to work.”
Guess you had to be there, which I wasn’t, but the quote still makes sense if you think about it logically before writing a comment.
DougM
July 29, 2009 at 10:49 am
Dave’s a pretty smart guy I.R.
I think he understood, and was just joking around.
And you’re right it was a reference to the bike path.
I.R.
July 29, 2009 at 11:33 am
I’m sure Dave was joking around. I just wanted to clarify, because it seemed as though the next response wasn’t.
It did read confusing though, so I could see how anyone could make a mistake.
Dan
July 29, 2009 at 12:30 pm
The joke was understood…the issue of my response is that the general population shouldn’t have to fund a project for special interests because of people who have a dog too big for their small apartment or property. Either the dog owners group should have worked harder to raise the remaining cash if they have so much support or they should expect some sort of surcharge on their dog tags to pay for it rather than force it on everyone!
Or perhaps if councillor Gilbert believes in this project so much she should have donated the cash from her personal income. Not everyone owns a dog or wants to, and we shouldn’t be expected to pay for this. If we took all the special interest funding out, then maybe property taxes could remain stable for a while. And before you go off about “its only $5000″…I’m talking about the bigger picture here
Brenda
August 1, 2009 at 3:57 pm
With the same logic, people who don’t drive should get a discount on their taxes as should people who don’t have children…
We all pay towards things we don’t necessarily use.
I have no dog in this fight (I know, bad pun) but just thought I’d throw that out there.
Dan
August 2, 2009 at 9:50 am
Thanks for trying Brenda, but not much logic in that…with a little thought you will recognize that even people who don’t drive benefit from roads and infrastructure because of all the goods and services which are brought more efficiently at some kind of affordable price…and people who don’t have children have already benefitted from 1. being a child at one time themselves and 2. giving the kids at least a few things to do to keep them out of trouble and not breaking into someone’s home (as a simple example).
Yes, we do all pay towards things we don’t necessarily use, but there are special interests groups out there for just about anything you can think of, and there simply isn’t enough resources, especially here in C-K, to give free handouts for every little thing that comes up no matter how ‘good’ the idea might sound. I have no problem with an off-leash area…just that $5000 really isn’t too much money that the advocates couldn’t have raised the money amonst themselves…and what I find really bad decision making on councils part is approving and paying for this fence when they haven’t even established that this will be permanent. What happens if in a year they find they are getting too many complaints from neighbours or this group finds a better location….then of course the money spent on this fence will have been a total waste of money. If tax money is going to be spent on this, they could at least make the determination that this is going to be the place, discussion closed.
Matt
July 28, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Dog owners are so restricted by the bylaws that it’s pretty much a given that we atleast deserve a park where we can legally and freely play with them.
I also think it’s a fair investment of tax payers money, even though the recession is over, this will become a very inexpensive way for people to enjoy free time with their best friends.
Betty
July 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Dog owners are required to pay up to $55 a year for a dog tag. If the municipality offers no services to dog owners and their animals, why are they charging for owning a dog? Why not create safe areas for pet owners and their friends, garbage bin/bags in downtowns, etc
Dan
July 30, 2009 at 5:21 pm
they do offer a service for that fee….when ur dog gets loose they provide a dog catcher…and the tag lets them know who you are so they can return it to you…hopefully before it damages anyone’s property or bites someone!! Creating the safe area for u and ur pets is a great idea…im not against an offleash park….u just shouldn’t expect everyone else to pay for it!
Tammy
July 30, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I am very excited to here about the dog off leash park. I own a small dog and have a yard for her to run around in but it would be wonderful for her to run in a bigger area as well as being able to play with other dogs. As far as all the other politics, please!!!!! Alot of other cities have these parks and the dogs and the owners love it. Excerise is a wonderful thing – for everyone.
Kevin
August 1, 2009 at 10:27 am
The Idea of a off-leash dog park sound very good in theory. What about the practical aspects of it. As we all know, not all dog owners are responsible and they do not train nor properly socialize their dogs. Please take note of this. “An off-leash dog park is a disaster waiting to happen”.
I recommend to all those who own a targeted breed, Rottweiler, which I own, or the so called pit bull to not use this park no matter how well trained and behaved your dogs are. We don’t need the headlines I can see coming.