By Phyllis Taiano
If all goes according to plan, Middle Village canines will soon have a safe place to run freely, play and socialize at Juniper Valley Park.
The park is the result of growing interest in the Middle Village area for the creation of an area to let dogs run freely. There is obviously a demand for the dog park, and the public has really stepped up in order to help achieve this goal. There has been a large turnout in meetings and the unprecedented support for the Juniper Valley Park Dog Association. Members of nearby dog parks have been in attendance to provide feedback and consultation.
The fenced-in park proposal has been reviewed by the membership and the overwhelming support for the area currently being occupied far and away surpassed that of the other two or three areas under consideration. Now that the planned dog park has won the support of dog owners and non owners alike, there's still another hurdle: paying for the park.
Volunteers have stepped up to offer their contractor abilities for building benches that will surround the trees, while others are signing up for clean up days, or planting flowers. Local pet-related businesses have also jumped in to help plan local pet events together. In conjunction, The Juniper Valley Park Dog Association is currently planning fundraisers to help offset the costs for building and maintaining our park.
The JVPDA is working diligently in structuring the park appropriately. Our dog park will be a help, not a hindrance, to those who'd rather not be around dogs. Proper fencing and barriers will segregate the dogs from areas of the park being used for other activities like baseball games and children's recreational activities and heavy pedestrian traffic. The fenced-in park will be separated into two areas: one for dogs under 20 pounds and another for dogs of any size.
Dog parks share one common purpose; to provide an area where dogs can run free from restraint---legally and safely. A dog park may also provide their only chance to interact with other dogs and people. And because a well-socialized dog is less likely to develop behavior problems such as aggression and excessive barking, an outdoor club for canines may help reduce associated neighborhood conflicts. While dogs are busy socializing with each other, owners are doing the same, creating a sense of community and camaraderie. As one more bonus, our dog park filled with users and their dogs is a great crime deterrent within the city park system.
On Monday, April 20th at 7pm at Juniper Park - Brennan Field, the JVPDA and the Juniper Valley Parks Committee will be meeting to discuss the location for our park. Perhaps we will come to know our new dog park as the “pets and people park!” It’s another way we’ll keep that sense of “community” alive and well in Middle Village.
If you are interested in volunteering and being a part of the JVPDA, volunteers should be dog lovers who are willing to pitch in to keep our park fun and a healthy environment for our dogs and uprights! We have occasional meetings and will be hosting events at the park. Become a volunteer. It’s a great way to give back to the park that we enjoy with our four-legged friends.
For general information, e-mail Joe Pisano, President of JVPDA, at jp22jr@msn.com. For volunteer fundraising efforts: phyltaiano@aol.com or rich@flextrade.com. Information in regards to general dog park volunteering: KateBeirne@earthlink.net
Editor’s Note: Since there has been some opposition to creating a dog run in Juniper Valley Park and concerns over its proposed location, Community Board 5 will hold its Parks Committee meeting at Juniper Valley on Monday evening.
What do you think about the group’s efforts to create a dog park? Comment below or write to us at forumsouth@aol.com
49 comments:
I think this is a great idea. The dog run should be in an area of the park where neighboring homes are least affected by the noise and where there is a minimal amount of vegetation and trees. The current area is too fragile to continue to host the dogs.
The location for the dog run is obvious: right where the Designated Off-leash Area is currently held before 9am every day. For many years, dogs and owners have been legally congregating in this area of Juniper Valley Park to enjoy off-leash time before 9am. It's shown to have worked out very well and the trees are very healthy, even after many years of the land being as an off-leash area by dogs. So the red herring that an enclosed dog run in that area will damage trees is clearly nonsensical. What will change other than an enclosure put around where dogs and their owners have congregated every day for years?
To claim that the current area where off-leash has been held for years goes against all facts and experience in the matter. Anyone with two eyes can see the trees where off-leash is currently held are quite healthy and thriving. Additionally, most dog parks in the City have thriving and healthy trees.
It's a shame that the JPCA executive board fought the creation of a dog park tooth and nail in 2006--going so far as to bring a costly, frivolous and unsuccessful lawsuit against the Parks Department. Because at that time the DOPR offered to budget the entire dog park and the City and Parks Department had plenty of money to build the dog park.
Dear Dorothy...
You are right, the dog run should be where homes are least affected, but, if it is to be successful, it has to be located where most dog owners can use it.
The current spot IS the furtherest from all area homes and IS equally accessible to most surrounding neighborhoods (dog owners).
The current spot is not that fragile. Dogs have used it for years without a single tree lost or damaged. Now, imagine a fenced dog park (not run) with wood chips on the surface and benches circling the largest trees. Trees and dogs can coexist as they have for years.
The suggest spot by JPCA is closer to homes, next to sports venues where noise is generated (not good for dogs and likely to set them off barking), and too far from the eastern end of JVP and southern areas. It is also too narrow for it to be workable.
It is a scientific fact that dog urine damages trees over a period of years and the current location where the dogs run off the leash is not appropriate. The widest part of the park is near the hockey rink and that is a better location because there are no trees there. To say dog runs have not damaged trees and vegetation is ludicrous, defies science and Parks' own literature. This very website published a photo of the JVP dog area and it's apparent that it's stripped of grass because of the wear and tear brought on by the dogs. Go to Murray Playground in LIC and you will see stumps inside the run and the place is a smelly dustbowl. If you want to have a dog run, you need to have material to pad it with that needs to be changed frequently.
Too far to walk? That's just a nonsensical argument. There are many facilities at that end of the park and no one complains that they are too far away from their homes to use. And to say there is more noise coming from a running track and barely-used hockey rink than from heavily used ballfields and park paths, and that this will cause dogs to bark more is a stretch as well. Especially since there have been numerous denials by the Parks Dept and dog owners that the dogs bark loud enough to cause a problem.
They'll be no dog run unless you compromise. Case closed. There's no way the dog run will be placed where you want it.
Anon wrote, "They'll be no dog run unless you compromise. Case closed. There's no way the dog run will be placed where you want it."
Unless this writer owns the park, the case is not closed. Who are you to say that the dog park (not run) will not or cannot be placed where (they) want it?
A prior poster pointed to the Murray Playground in LIC. Yes, that dog run (does not qualify as a park) is in sorry shape. Like many ballfields throughout the city, without a group of users willing to help maintain it, the Murray Playground is in poor shape. Parks cannot afford to maintain every facility to optimum standards without the involvement of local users.
The Murray Playground lacks the wood chips that help protect ground surfaces. The dog owners at JVP will help maintain their proposed area by spreading chips and replenishing them seasonally.
Unfortunately this poster also chose to compare JVP to Murray Playground instead of Little Neck Park, Riverside Park, Hillside Park (Brooklyn), and other dog parks where trees within and abutting these dog parks are flourishing.
Perspective matters. One need only contrast the condition of the professional quality western ballfields with the average condition of the eastern ballfields at JVP. Of course, the eastern fields are open to all, including pick-up games, and are used much more than the western fields. So should we condemn the eastern field users because of this reality? Of course not.
Dog park users are different than ball field users. Ball games take several hours while dog park users may stay between 45 minutes and an hour on average. Ease of access (distance, proximity to all surrounding neighborhoods) is important because it is a more casual use facility than ballfields, tracks, hockey rinks, etc.
The dog owners at JVP have organized to create an organization of responsible citizens who will help maintain the proposed dog park. It will be clean, well lit, self-policed, and help contribute to the community.
Two years ago the subject of a dog park in JVP was raised in the Juniper Berry, the official publication of the civic association. One officer of the JPCA described dog parks as, “a stench-filled feces and urine-covered fenced in area.” This prejudice against dog parks has long prevented the construction of a dog park in JVP.
It is good that the civic association has eased its intransient position and now supports a dog park even if not at the proposed location. However, it is unfortunate that some people –not necessarily the civic- refuse to listen to the dog owners first and to consider the possibility that the proposed location could work. Open minds never result from closed ears.
The Juniper Park Dog Association (which I intend to join) has so far made a cogent argument for the present location. To accommodate dog owners, the Parks Department three years ago relocated from this spot the shipping containers had been used to store ball field equipment. Surely those containers were eyesores and were not good for the soil; compacting it and killing any grass beneath. So please do not cite playgrounds elsewhere without acknowledging the fact that the dog owners have successfully used this location for years without damaging the trees. Add woodchips, fencing, and regular care by dog owners and I can see that spot as a successful dog park.
To "Too far to walk? That's just a nonsensical argument." Well, I say, let’s be realistic.
The spot the dog owners prefer and already use is 2,100 feet from the southeast corner of the park at Dry Harbor Road. It is centrally located and practical for dog owners coming from all surrounding neighborhoods. It is the most distant from area homes. And it is the most visible to all.
The spot the JPCA proposes is 3,100 feet away. That is 2,000 feet of more walking for elderly dog owners; almost 2/5 a mile farther.
The dog owners spot: 360 feet from closest home.
The JPCA site: 275 feet.
The dog owners spot: 40,000 square feet; a size appropriate for the hundreds of local dog owners. It spreads out wear’n’tear on the surface and allows dogs to run and play.
The JPCA site: 6,000 square feet. It is barely 45’ wide and would concentrate dogs and dog owners in an uncomfortable configuration. Benches for dog owners would further narrow the available space. Kids on the adjacent bleachers could taunt and toss things atop the dogs. There is no shade for dogs in hot weather.
There are hundreds of dog owners throughout Middle Village.
A well designed, properly sized dog park will be successful.
Better no dog park and continuation of off-leash throughout all of JVP than an undersized dog park, overcrowded and poor sited that will fail. The wrong size, location, design of a dog park would only give voice to those against dog owners altogether. They would scream, "We gave you a dog run but no one uses it and it is a mess."
It is good that the civic association has eased its intransient position and now supports a dog park even if not at the proposed location.Misinformation, lies, conspiracies.
JPCA supported a dog run at JVP back in 2006; it was rejected by the dog people. Call Dorothy Lewandowski if you have any doubts; she will explain.
Surely those containers were eyesores and were not good for the soil; compacting it and killing any grass beneath.And what do you think off-leash activity does? Compacts the soil and compresses the root zone. And the condition of the soil in the off leash area proves that it destroys grass.
Current area = bad idea for dog run. Since most people feel uncomfortable running their dogs off the leash and exposing them to diseases and attacks, locating a dog run in an area that is not full of trees makes the most sense.
The spot the dog owners prefer and already use is 2,100 feet from the southeast corner of the park at Dry Harbor Road.
The spot the JPCA proposes is 3,100 feet away. That is 2,000 feet of more walking for elderly dog owners; almost 2/5 a mile farther.How did you come to this conclusion? 3100ft - 2100ft = 1000 more feet, which is not a long distance to walk, especially if you walk a dog. Let's remember you'll be sitting on your posterior once you get there because you said there will be benches inside the run. Distance argument = lame.
"The spot the JPCA proposes is 3,100 feet away. That is 2,000 feet of more walking for elderly dog owners; almost 2/5 a mile farther.How did you come to this conclusion? 3100ft - 2100ft = 1000"
People walk TO the dog park and FROM the dog park: 1,000 feet extra TO and 1,000 feet extra FROM = 2,000 feet extra.
Simple math for simple minds
"JPCA supported a dog run at JVP back in 2006; it was rejected by the dog people. Call Dorothy Lewandowski if you have any doubts; she will explain."
The so-called proposal was next to the railroad tracks and track bleachers.
It's like proposing a children's playground on a superfund pollution site.
There are proposals and then there are phony proposals.
Anonymous claims the JPCA backed a dog run in JVP in 2006. That's a complete lie.
Here's a few newspaper articles from the time showing this claim to be a total lie:
NYT, April 2, 2006: http://tinyurl.com/cegzt4
The pertinent paragraphs quote Bob Holden, then and current president of the JPCA:
"Ms. Grant, as well as many dog owners, would like to see the park outfitted with a fenced-off dog run. In that way, the Parks Department could restrict all leash-free activities to the runs, as it does in a number of other parks. Warner Johnston, a department spokesman, said that such an arrangement "is something we are willing to explore."
But some residents, like Mr. Holden, strongly oppose the idea. "Tell me why our park has to be turned into a dog toilet," he said.
He said his association would welcome a dog run in a less heavily trafficked part of the neighborhood, and even recommended a few specific locations to the Parks Department, including several vacant properties near the Long Island Rail Road and a sloping abutment alongside the Long Island Expressway."
Another article from the QueensLedger: http://tinyurl.com/cpb7mg
And I can go on.
Bottom line, "Anonymous" has her facts (intentionally) wrong.
The JPCA executive board in 2006 was against a dog park in JVP, which prompted their unsuccessful lawsuit against the DOPR.
It's a good thing to love your park but it's bad thing to think you OWN your park. Juniper Valley Park is a PUBLIC park. You cannot dictate who can and cannot utilize it. On any given day, you will see people in the park that do not necessarily live in the area or pay Middle Village taxes. But since it is a PUBLIC park, you cannot shut the gates on who you don't want in there.
Certain Middle Village residents are under the impression that the park is their backyard. It belongs to everyone; not just a certain few! If you chose to buy a house close to the park, you have to learn to deal with the good (trees, grass, flowers) and the bad (crowds on a nice day, Mister Softee's music, the crack of a bat, the roar of a crowd, the bounce of a ball, the bark of a dog). I live near a church and school. Years ago when I purchased my home, I resigned myself to the fact that the church bells were going to ring every hour on the hour. I knew I would be dealing with heavy foot and car traffic during both school and church days (seven days a week); empty juice box containers, goody bags, school literature, etc. being strewn on my front lawn & sidewalk from kids walking home from school; funerals, carnivals, parties, school events. I deal with them because I chose to buy a house a block from the church and school. They were there first. If and when I can't deal with any or all of it, I will sell my house and move to a block less traveled.
This whole dog debate is ridiculous. Whether or not, the JVPDA is granted a dog park, there will always be dogs barking both in and out of the park. We live in one of the most crowded cities in the country. You will never just hear crickets at night. Anyone looking for peace and quiet should sell their city home and buy one in the country. Enough already!
How can anyone compare Murray Park in LIC to Juniper Valley Park. Let's get real, people. There is no comparison. Everyone knows that every part of Juniper Park is meticulously maintained on a daily basis. The dog park would be too because it will be used mainly by Middle Village residents who care about their park!
To the Anonymous person who said there's not alot of noise coming from a running track and barely-used hockey rink, you are sadly mistaken. When was the last time you walked past the bleachers by the running track? Since the bleachers are steel, every noise is compounded, including the cleets of the players sitting on and walking across them. At any given time, there are multiple soccer games going on, fitness clinics being taught and a crowded walkway filled with bicyles, carriages and roller bladers. If you don't think all this noise would cause distraction to the dogs, you don't know anything about dogs.
Also, FYI, the fenced-in ballfields to the left of the current dog location are hardly ever used and the ballfields to the right of the dog area are quite a distance away. By fencing in the one area being requested, no walkways would be impeded. As far as dogs barking and causing problems, how about the spoiled foul-mouthed brats racing their BMWs,Audis and motorcycles around the park all night long. That noise is 10X louder than any dog barking. Please!
HOW IN THE WORLD CAN THE CB BE OBJECTIVE WHEN THREE MEMBERS OF THE CB PARKS COMMITTEE ARE ALSO OFFICERS OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND TWO OF THE THREE ARE ON RECORD AS OPPOSING ANY DOG PARK IN JUNIPER PARK? (They are Steve Fiedler, Lorraine Sciulli, Bob Holden)
And three other officers of the Civic are also on the CB. The same civic that waged the unsuccessful legal battle against off-leash, rejected the Parks Department to build a dog park in JVP (when money was readily available), and opposed any dog park in JVP.
These six members of the Civic should recuse themselves from any voting on the issue of a dog park in JVP.
"You talk about a dog run as if that would solve all the canine problems. If you believe a dog run would mean that all unleashed dogs would be romping in the run and all the owners participating in the romp would clean up after their dog then I have a question for you, "where are you on the Easter bunny?" In the real world dog runs create more problems than they solve for the very reason that many dog owners do not cooperate with the "rules" set up by the group. If we had cooperative dog owners we wouldn't have to spend our time writing articles like this, would we?" This is the response from Lorraine Sciulli, JPCA officer, CB member, CB Parks Committee member. To read her entire rant against dog owners: http://tinyurl.com/cxq6nw
Since Juniper is the "recipient" of 300 new trees which will be planted in the next 2-3 months, why no plant them along Juniper NORTH as a sound barrier, better yet.. why not take that 770K (for repairs to an already operable playground) and build a wall along Juniper NORTH that will help the noise. HEY I bet the Mayor would love to hear that 770K was going to a playground - we are in hard economical times, but I guess that doesnt matter, someone needs to bury their time and justify their employment I GUESS.
The so-called proposal was next to the railroad tracks and track bleachers. It's like proposing a children's playground on a superfund pollution site. There are proposals and then there are phony proposals.This, quite frankly, is one of the dumbest analogies I have ever heard. You were offered a dog run. You rejected it. It was in the park, no? Not "next to" the railroad tracks, it was across the street within Juniper. I am sure it would have been fenced off from the bleachers. Not sure what your major problem is with bleachers, anyway. They are a necessary part of the landscape. I would accept any location within the park. It's for your dogs, not you, and I can guarantee your dog doesn't care where it is so long as he gets exercise.
The former president of the JVPDA, Terri Sullivan, was in favor of a dog park in 2005, then she was in favor of off leash in 2006, now she is in favor of a dog park again. Make up your mind, one or the other. Or is the plan really to have both?
That is an absolute lie. Terri Sullivan supported a dog park in 2005 and supported the one in 2006 that was offered by the City in an effort to forestall the civic lawsuit. When the civic refused to accept Parks offer for the dog park,and JPCA sued the to stop off-leash through the entire city, she helped lead the effort for off-leash.
So the civic lost and there is codified off-leash in JVP.
And you, anonymous one, are a liar.
I was at the CB Parks meeting in the pouring rain on Tuesday in support of a dog park. And I heard Ms. Sciulli, one of the biggest opponents of off-leash and any dog park in JVP, say directly to Terri Sullivan "you are a responsible dog owner."
So don't try to personalize the issue by denigrating Ms. Sullivan.
And I heard Ms. Sciulli, one of the biggest opponents of off-leash and any dog park in JVP, say directly to Terri Sullivan "you are a responsible dog owner."
And in the same long winded un-ending breathe she said, 'You picked the most beautiful spot in the park'...'Your grandiose demands...you'll never have a dog park there'. You Ms. Sciulli do not OWN the park, you merely made the mistake many many years ago of living across the street from it. Deal with it, just like people that live near railroad tracks deal with train noise, or people near the highway or busy street deal with traffic and traffic noise. This is not 1970, move into 2009 things they are a changing and even you the Queen of Queens cannot stop it. So just deal with it!
To Marge Crimmins (wasn't your husband on the CB in 2005?). You wrote "This, quite frankly, is one of the dumbest analogies I have ever heard."
No it is not and you clearly fail to understand dogs or this issue.
1. The location is about dog owners. The location the dog owners requested is centrally located within JVP; not shoved off to some distant corner; inconvenient to a majority of dog owners. Elderly and handicapped dog owners in most of the surrounding neighborhoods cannot readily get there.
Some can only give a quick early morning walk before rushing off to work; making evenings the time when they can bring their dogs to the park. The dog park is not just for the dogs. It is a place where owners converse and build community.
Dog owners who work from home pr are retired often use dog parks or off-leash twice daily. The dog park must be located in a spot convenient to most. To use your harsh comments as a basis of comparison- we could have only one neighborhood playground and expect parents to be walk great distances and to be satisfied with that. We could make similar analogies about other park features.
Those against dog owners like to accuse them of “sitting on their asses” while at dog parks, but is this any different than those attending other activities in the park? This is not only about dogs, it’s about people.
Dog owners are also family members. They walk their dogs when they escort their children to the park and successful dog parks are a family activity center as kids watch dogs play, interact with dogs, etc.
2. The location is also about dogs. Dogs, like children, are highly susceptible to surrounding noises and distractions. The bleachers hold loud crowds above the dogs. That is a dominant position and can/will make dogs more aggressive towards one another (you have to understand dog behavior to fully understand this- I am not trying to insult you or anyone, but it can be complicated).
3. Size matters. With hundreds (if not thousands) of area dogs and dog owners, a successful park has to be properly sized. The area near the tracks cannot accommodate a dog park of at least 30,000 square feet (still far smaller than a single ball field that is used by far fewer people over the course of a year).
From your statement, it seems you want dog owners to accept anything “given to them” as if they are not taxpayers too? They have to act like starving people offered a slice of bread- “take it and be grateful.” And they have to be shoved into a distant, hidden corner of the park and “sit down and shut up.”
You do not own the park. The 55 acres has ballfields, playgrounds, etc. – all amenities created to meet community need and desire. Well, the hundreds of dog owners are demanding the same respect and consideration. We want the chance to help create the cleanest, most beautiful, most efficient, most convenient dog park in NYC. Barring that, we will continue with off-leash throughout JVP.
I was told my name was mentioned here & I want to clarify: I have always favored a dog park in Juniper Park as long as it is a properly sized and convenient for all dog owners to utilize. However in the absence of a dog park I support & utilize the off leash priviliges of NYC.
FYI to Marge Crimmins:
The JVPDA will consider areas that are comparative to the area they now exercise their dogs in. The area near the bleachers is not comparative in any way, shape or size. Firstoff, there is an exorbitant amount of both foot and car traffic there -- happens to be right alongside a very busy street and entrance to the soccer field); secondly, the property is extremely narrow (fencing it in and installing double gates will take away valuable space; the dogs won't even be able to turn around in there; never mind exercising in there; thirdly, it is only 70 feet away from the last house on 71st St. (Don't those residents/taxpayers matter when the opposing argument is that the dog park needs to be the furthest away from homes???) Add to the mix that the bleachers are just 10 feet away from the proposed area. The area was rejected by the JVPDA because it is a ridiculous proposal. As far as our problem with the bleachers, have you ever been near the bleachers when soccer players are walking across them with cleets on or when loud, cheering crowds are sitting on them. That proposed area is a "lose-lose" situation (and the Juniper Civic knows it). A dog park will never succeed there because of all the above valid reasons. It's a sure fire way of setting us up for failure. We are not desperate for a dog park and we are not looking for a bone to be thrown our way (pardon the pun). We want an area that will be appreciated by both dog and non-dog owners and that is not the place.
I am neither a dog owner or dog advocate but this whole dog park debate piqued my curiousity and I attended the Parks Committee Meeting on Monday night. From what I saw and heard, it was nothing but a bunch of long-winded, narrow-minded, archaic people fighting a group of well-mannered, well-meaning, responsible, dog-loving owners who just want a piece of the park to enjoy with their dogs. It is truly a sad day when a park offers every possible activity and amenity known to man but balks at the prospect of giving an area to people with dogs. Dog parks are everywhere in this great city of ours. Yet a park the size of Juniper, is not willing to part with a piece of property for the benefit and enjoyment of some of its taxpayers and residents. SHAME ON YOU, PARKS COMMITTEE, JUNIPER CIVIC AND CB 5!!!!!!!!
Seems like your issue it with the DPR manager and not the civic group. He gave valid reasons for rejecting your current location. Time to deal with it. Also time to accept the fact that you don't always get exactly what you want and have to settle for less.
P.S. I never had a husband on CB5.
"With hundreds (if not thousands) of area dogs and dog owners, a successful park has to be properly sized."
1) You assume that thousands of people will come to Juniper to use a dog run. First of all, if they do come, it will be throughout the day, not all at once.
2) Second of all, most people DO NOT unleash their dogs outdoors at any time. Most dog owners are afraid of diseases, bites, etc, and will not use the run at all. Most people in Middle Village who own dogs also own backyards where they exercise their dogs.
"The JVPDA will consider areas that are comparative to the area they now exercise their dogs in. The area near the bleachers is not comparative in any way, shape or size."
so you will not get a dog run then. next topic?
"And they have to be shoved into a distant, hidden corner of the park and “sit down and shut up.” "
No, you are being offered your choice of several locations accessible to Lutheran Ave, JV Rd No & So and which is a short walk from 80th Street and Dry Harbor Road. Let's not forget a lot of people drive to the park as well.
If you don't want any of those locations, I am sure there are other amenities that can be worked in.
Maybe you should start showing more concern about the vegetation that your animals destroy instead of whining that you don't like the alternate spots being offered. You will never be satisfied because you want what you want and that's the end of the discussion for you. Time to grow up.
"You do not own the park."
And neither do you. Therefore you have to live with whatever the community board and parks department decides. And it sounds like they don't like your proposal. Sorry.
This is very interesting:
“We should just bury the past and what went wrong,” said dog run advocate Rich McGraw. “There’s probably three or four sites we could all live with. ... If we know some of the potential pitfalls, we can start looking at resolutions.”Sounds like there are cooler heads advocating for the dog run than are posting here. Or are you folks saying one thing in public and another when you can post anonymously?
FYI: Marge Crimmins.......I called Tompkins Park. No trees have recently been removed due to being destroyed by dog urine. Two trees were removed several years ago when the park was first being renovated because they were infested with beetles. So apparently, it's just another story conjured up by the JPCA and recited by their puppet , Jeff Karl(a Parks employee).
"time to accept the fact that you don't always get exactly what you want"
This from the JPCA?
Physician heal thyself!
ANON WROTE:
"1) You assume that thousands of people will come to Juniper to use a dog run. First of all, if they do come, it will be throughout the day, not all at once.
2) Second of all, most people DO NOT unleash their dogs outdoors at any time. Most dog owners are afraid of diseases, bites, etc, and will not use the run at all. Most people in Middle Village who own dogs also own backyards where they exercise their dogs."
Wow how contradictory.
No one - NO ONE - said thousands of dogs would converge on Juniper Park. The commenter wrote that there are thousands of dogs in the neighborhoods surrounding the park and that their owners (taxpayers) deserve ready access to a properly sized dog park at Juniper.
Do not try to paint a picture of a park overrun with dogs or people. Saying "hundreds of children play ball in Juniper" does not mean they are there at once.
Then you twist again and acknowledge that dog owners would spread out their use during the day; the very argument made by the dog owners in response to claims that a dog park would create a noise problem.
Again, the commenter noted that a "properly sized" dog park would enable dogs to play, run, etc. It would have room for dog owners.
The size proposed by those dog owners is meant to accommodate the dog owning population within the community.
Your second comment reveals an ignorance about dogs and dog ownership(this does not imply that you are stupid, it does mean that you know not of what you wrote).
During the off leash fight it was proven through the testimony and statements of professional behaviorists, government scientists, and our own Health Department, that responsible and healthy dog ownership includes socialization with other dogs- not isolation in backyards (grassy prison cells if no socialization is offered).
Your statement that a majority of MV dog owners do not avail themselves of off-leash (not proven, by the way) because fears of biting, disease, etc. is ridiculous. It's a false argument, again disproved during the 2006 lawsuit.
But let's pretend you're right. Perhaps, then, those dog owners do not use off-leash because there is no dog park in Juniper. Now if there is a properly sized and located dog park, they will use it. So you have, by your mistaken logic, proven the dog owners' arguments.
As to your other, multiple posts in rapid succession:
Again, neither you nor the civic owns the park, but the civic might own the CB. A majority of local residents do not belong to the civic.
By your statements, you reveal knowledge of the decision by both Parks and the CB about the dog owners' proposal. This before any further discussion before or by the CB. Either you presume or as another poster wrote "the fix is in."
When some dog owners stated to ‘if a poor location and inadequate size for a dog park is approved that they would reject it and continue to enjoy off-leash throughout much of Juniper Park’ you cavalierly concluded “case closed.” What you fail to recognize is that these dog owners will continue to congregate in the area where the dog park has been proposed. They will continue to enjoy off leash elsewhere in Juniper Park. If that is what you consider victory, then so be it.
Finally, please remember that community boards are advisory. The final decision has and still remains with elected officials and the people they appoint to run Parks. The last time a disagreement on this matter erupted (the infamous lawsuit) the City and Parks Department were on opposite sides against the civic and CB. We all know who won. Dog owners.
So apparently, it's just another story conjured up by the JPCA and recited by their puppet , Jeff Karl(a Parks employee).He is a puppet of the JPCA because he is objecting to a fenced in dog run in your proposed location? Heh. That's funny. I guess Dorothy Lewandowski and Adrian Benepe were, too, when they agreed to the dog park at the western end of the park and you said no and demanded the middle of the park which they rejected.
The final decision has and still remains with elected officials and the people they appoint to run Parks. Well then, it sounds like the losers this time won't be the civic group.
If you are going to continue to maintain that dog urine does not damage trees, you are going to look very foolish. It's a scientific fact that it does.
From the NYC Parks Department guide to dogs in parks:
Remember: Urine damages the grass and trees, and people use the park for picnicking and sunbathing.Trees do great when dogs pee on them = losing argument.
Why are the opposers of the dog run so hung up on not having the dog park in the "middle of the park?" That area IS the furthest from ANY & ALL houses both on Juniper Blvd. North & Juniper Blvd. South as well as
71st St. It is off the beaten path. No one walking in the park has to pass it if they don't want to. It is not near either playground. It is barely visible from the street. Aside from the dog owners, it is used mostly as a "cut-through" by people looking for a shortcut through the park and that's about the only thing it's used for! So why the debate? It's just a classic example of certain people given too much power in the neighborhood. The last time I looked, taxes were not based on how many committees you belonged to but rather by the size of your property.
Aside from the dog owners, it is used mostly as a "cut-through" by people looking for a shortcut through the park and that's about the only thing it's used for! So why the debate?Because that's where large, mature shade trees are, which need to be protected; it's also where people picnic, read and enjoy passive recreation. You must be blind if you don't see this going on there.
Maybe if the nice grass was still there and the soil wasn't crapped and peed on by dogs every morning, you would see more people using the spot for other things. That area would make a beautiful garden that could be enjoyed by everyone, but instead it's become a dustbowl.
You contribute more directly to your community by volunteering your time, not by paying taxes.
If you are going to continue to maintain that dog urine does not damage trees, you are going to look very foolish. It's a scientific fact that it does.
See now...this is the problem. Either you can't read or you see what you want to see or you don't comprehend what you read. What was said was,"there were NO trees RECENTLY removed from Tompkins Park because they were killed by dog urine, they were killed by BEETLES". And what we said was,"he did not tell the truth, made it up" which is so par for the course for the JPCA. They've caught sooo many times...people almost expect it.
You also continue to say " We want what we want...no compromise". Why is it that we can't want or get what WE want but you can? I do not understand that. Who are you and why are YOU better than me? Where is the compromise? We want area 1 you say NO!...you can take this or forget it? Thats a compromise? Good thing they are building that High School...maybe you can volunteer there and learn a thing or two about life.
What was said was,"there were NO trees RECENTLY removed from Tompkins Park because they were killed by dog urine, they were killed by BEETLES".I can read fine, thanks. Dog urine damages trees over a period of years. It doesn't take a genius to understand this concept. So what if the trees at Tompkins were removed recently because of the beetle? Later on down the road they will die from the dog damage. And when you lose a mature tree, replacing it with a sapling won't make up for that.
Funny how you assume I am a JPCA member, though I am not. I actually belong to MVPORA, which was also against the off-leash at Juniper. I guess all the civic groups who understand the problems this may cause are assumed to be brainwashed by the JPCA. If you're going to enter a dialog with a chip on your shoulder, you are not going to get anywhere.
Isn't it funny how in our great forests trees flourish despite all types of wildlife urinating and defacating on and near them!!!!! Is dog urine that much more lethal than bear, deer, raccoon or skunk urine????????? I think not!
As far as the JVPDA being unreasonable and only wanting the current dog area, that is highly untrue. They are willing to look at other areas....just not areas that constantly flood or are in the middle of a sports complex. How hard is that to comprehend????
You wrote "Dog urine damages trees over a period of years. It doesn't take a genius to understand this concept. So what if the trees at Tompkins were removed recently because of the beetle? Later on down the road they will die from the dog damage. And when you lose a mature tree, replacing it with a sapling won't make up for that."
The dog park has been in Tompkins over 20 years. The trees are extremely old and are doing well.
Over time, sidewalks and roads do hurt trees cutting off water, root area, etc.
Over time, salt runoff, car fluids, etc. definitely hurt trees.
Trees are living things and do die, so "over time" is extremely subjective. This is not snarky.
There are trees flourishing is long established dog parks throughout New York City.
With proper care and planning, these truly beautiful trees will live decades more in full splendor.
Some ideas:
* Circular benches around larger trees.
* Woodchips or decomposed granite surfacing to allow water to soak down and to keep the ground from hardening.
* Fencing around some trees
* Wood decking around others
* Low cost tree rings beneath any surface material (they retain water and slowly release it to feed trees).
* Pruning and care by Parks.
* Feeding
* Regular watering
These things are possible. Not all cost much.
A well designed dog park can contribute to our park's beauty.
"You do not own the park."
"And neither do you. Therefore you have to live with whatever the community board and parks department decides. And it sounds like they don't like your proposal. Sorry."
I'd like to know how you know what the parks department has decided re: the dog park!!!!!!!
Post a Comment