One has to wonder where The Dickinson Press Editorial Board came up with this argument against the proposed dog park.
One of the points of a dog park is to get the dogs off the sidewalks and into a safe and controlled environment. There are a multitude of other groups engaged in various activities that are accommodated in parks, but dog owners are supposed to get together in a pasture somewhere? Where is the equity in that?
In this case the park supporters are willing to pay most of the cost. How many other groups have done the same for the areas or facilities they have? The city would be getting a bargain. Parks aren't just for the immediate neighborhood. They are supported by everyone's taxes and everyone should have access to any public park. Dickinson wants to be a progressive city? Well, the old not in my backyard and we don't need to try anything new, attitude is not progressive.
Finally, to say that those who support the park probably haven't thought about the inhumane conditions at the pound is downright offensive. Oreo's Animal Rescue which supports the park works tirelessly every day to get the animals out of that miserable place and into good caring homes and they do it without a dime of public funding. They will continue to do so whether a dog park is built or not. A number of the rescued dogs would be using the park. They have rescued hundreds of animals, how many animals has the editorial board rescued?
These comments are mine; they are not Oreo's.
ADVERTISEMENT
Howard Gordon, Dickinson
