Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Of 2 minds here
First off I would like to say I am happy that Jerry presented the petition to council. What I am not all that thrilled with is the spin he put on our request. I understand that for the sake of political expediency sometimes we need to "spin" an issue, however I am annoyed that Blumenthal chose the "lets protect other park users from those frolicking dogs" angel. Instead he could have taken the high road, and said, there are dog owners from all districts in HRM who contribute significantly to HRM's economy, who are requesting a fenced in area for the enjoyment of all. However he chose to use the words..frolicking dogs, and safety issue. Frankly that annoys both Chandler & I. We have worked very hard to present the issue as inclusive of all HRM residents, and by his choice of presentation, Jerry has made the issue potentially divisive. That's my opinion. Feel free to comment-agree or disagree? In the next few days I am going to post a poll here, about how much money we spend on our dogs and dog related items. Once its up, please take a moment to answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I agree that the way the Chronicle Herald reported it may be unfortunate, the reality is we don't know for sure how Jerry presented it and in teh end I guess it doesn't really matter. The fence is in fact for others (Non dog - people) as we as dog owners would have no problems with our dogs running anywhere in the park if it didn't bother others. The reality is that it can be a safety issue if small children are playing in the on leash part of the park outside of the playground fence. I think I speak for a few wners when I say that my dog is by no means agressive...just the opposite she loves people and wants to jump up to kiss them, this however can be a problem if the kid is only 1 afoot tall that she is trying to kiss! So in the end if Jerry said that the petition was brought forth by responsible dog owners in an effort to make the park usable to all and reducing a possible safety issue, then I'm fine with that. in fact if he presented it as this is being done by dog owners who use the park to shut up all the complainers, thenI don't think it would have a good chance of getting the fence built. The fact alone that we took the time to bring this petition forward in order to benefit all users of the park I think shows that we are responsible and that were working with everyone including the city to make halifax a more dog friendly and useable space. Let's not alienate ourselves from Jerry, who I think is a great ally for us on a go forward basis because of something printed in the hearald. Instead I think we should thank Jerry for tabling our petition at the meeting and fighting for what it is we want.
ReplyDeleteJeff(Chloe)
Well, the article did say that Mr. Blumenthal, "... said it’s a safety issue." Unless the Herald reporter is putting words in his mouth, I would say that that quote does indicate the slant he's taking towards this issue, which is the dogs need to be confined as they're potentially dangerous. I suppose it's better than the initial slant he had, which was to close the park altogether to dog owners, but still...
ReplyDeleteI think what this means is we have to continue to be vigilant in our message to both Mr. Blumenthal and the city in general. We need to continue to communicate that we are a community of peaceful, responsible dog owners who want a place to take our dogs and that we are respectful of others who want to enjoy the park (prostitutes excluded).
I agree with Both Jeffs. Safety is a big issue for everyone, Dogs, Dog Owners and other park Users. So if a fence keeps everyone safe then its a great thing.
ReplyDeletePaige (maddys Mom)
Its not totally Jerry's fault, I stood up at the meeting and brought up spinning the fence as a safety issue to perhaps make it more palatable to council. Afterwards I had regrets about it since the playground part of Seaview is already fenced.
ReplyDelete