Homeowners Still Angry Over Cities Dog Park Decision
Kerry Arnold who lives on Newberry Lane near the dog park wrote a detailed comment to my post titled “Does Tega Cay Need 2 Dog Parks?” I thought her comment was worth a post rather than just a comment to another post. Here is what Kerry wrote.
Thank you Scott for your take on the meeting. I think we are all still in disbelief and shock from what came out of the meeting last night. It has always been everyones understanding that the Dog Park would be moved/relocated, never a second one added? Hopefully the residents of Tega Cay/Newberry Lane have been put off for the last time . (more info to come)
First some members of council said the current park couldn’t close bc there was no place to move the park-locations were researched and presented bringing on the “not in my backyard meeting”.
The next meeting was started with “there is no money to move the park” (do note that that was not ever mentioned before-just the opposite and I quote “you find a place and we’ll move it”.
Now after 14 months of talking about this, City Council is presented with a WIN WIN plan: a park in a non residential area, NO COST to the city to be moved/installed-road, parking and fenced in park, and we find ourself still w/o a closing date for the park on Newberry Ln. What happened here?
I expect an even stronger turn out at the next meeting and actions to take place long before before that date even arrives.
Big town politics just hit us in small town Tega Cay. What is left to believe in when the dogs are more important then the safety of our children and the quality of life of the city residents? Thanks for listening.
Kerry Arnold
Your comments are welcomed below.
| 
| 
| 
February 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Big town politics just hit us in small town Tega Cay. What is left to believe in when the dogs are more important then the safety of our children and the quality of life of the city residents?
Are we kidding here?
February 25th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
At the meeting The Mayor effectively demonstrated his ability to do what he thinks is best for our community irrespective of public input.
The 2-3 hours of discussion by about 50 residents at the special council meeting in January was shown to be a complete waste of the residents’ time. The underlying assumption of that meeting was clearly that once a suitable new location was found for the dog park, the existing park would be closed. Any assertion to the contrary is misleading at best (although there was also considerable discussion of the option to leave the park as it is). At no time was the need for two dog parks ever discussed. In fact, serious consideration was given at that time to closing the existing park at a set date to coincide with the report detailing the possibility for the new park location.
In spite of that, The Mayor led the discussion at the city council meeting in a way that attempted to preclud discussion on the real question at hand (when and how to close the existing park) and in fact moved on to the next agenda item in a hurried manner. Moreover, he had to be called upon to re-open the old business of the dog park to continue the discussion. He was reluctant to make what discussion did take place part of the public record in the form of a motion that reflected his actions.
By his actions, The Mayor effectively disenfranchised all the residents who had input into the previous special session and demonstrated a typical political maneuver: wait until the opposition to your plan is not present to act in your interests.
Anyone reading this should not be nearly as concerned about the specific issue of the dog park as they should be about the manner in which The Mayor proceeded to do what he wanted in spite of the substantial public input to the contrary.
Take a look around at any green space you may have near your home and realize that he could just as easily decide to put a city facility there. We do need more lighted tennis courts here, don’t we? Or maybe a basket ball park?
February 25th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
[...] Wallace wrote a detailed comment to the “Homeowners still angry over cities dog park decision” post. Here is George’s comment copied to a regular [...]