In terms of essential infrastructure, it is fair to say that a dog park is purely extraneous and superfluous at least in comparison to the number of other local towns that do not have them.
TOWN POPULATION DOG PARK?
Bellevue 2,349 No
Monticello 4,040 No
Dyersville 4,477 Yes
Farley 1,766 No
Epworth 2,023 Yes
Peosta 1,908 No
A park of any sort, whether designed for kids or quiet contemplation with trees and flowers for adults, should be geographically accessible to all residents, which made the previous location designated for the dog park—the old sewer plant—perfect. Pluperfect! It is in the center of the city, equidistant for residents both on the east and the west sides of Cascade, and the city already owned the land.
I am not sure when this was switched to a neighborhood on the far east edge of town because I recall no discussion of it at city council. The only thing I recall is a discussion of a playground for kids, but the land was donated by the developer and the residents were raising their own money to buy the equipment. (No city money involved; no objection from me.) Maybe I missed something.Suddenly, we have a dog park being constructed with public money, in a neighborhood of brand-new, highly valued houses where nobody is more than 3 minutes from open space to walk their dog. While the other half of town has to travel a long way to get to it. One wag wanted to know if this is for the people there to show off their designer doggies? Dog parks are a questionable expenditure to begin with because non-dog owners (cat lovers and non-animal fanciers) get no benefit from them. Not to mention that Cascade has plenty of other infrastructure woes and should not be squandering $ money on dogs, who don't pay taxes anyway!D
No comments:
Post a Comment