Last month the City Council approved a dog park for Oso Viejo Park, adjacent to the Community Center, on a 3-2 vote. It appears that decision will be reversed at next Monday’s meeting, following a legal threat to the City and an outpouring of opposition by neighbors.
Councilwoman Trish Kelley, who supported Lance MacLean’s proposed Oso Viejo location on October 5, has re-agendized the issue with the following written statement:
I recommend that we rescind the October 5 decision to locate the dog park at Oso Viejo Park, and explore several locations which have ben suggested. In addition, I recommend that we preserve funding in the amount of $258,060 plus design costs, which were approved on October 5 for construction of a dog park, and we apply these funds to an alternate location.
John Paul Ledesma and Cathy Schlicht originally opposed the location because it was not consistent with criteria previously established by the Council for a dog park. Those criteria recommended a dog park not be located near schools, homes or sports parks, and Oso Viejo Park is near all three.
Neighbors challenged the rationale for the location, noting a dog park would interfer with many current public functions and usage in and around the Community Center. One resident sent the City a formal letter to ‘cure and correct’ an alleged violation of the Brown Act during its process, demanding the decision be rescinded.
Following an October 19 statement by DAWG President Sharon Cody opposing the approved location, a Dispatch article suggested the Council might attempt to save face by 1) rescinding the location, 2) denying the Brown Act violation, and 3) preserving the $268,000 in the budget for an alternate location.
Councilman MacLean pre-empted a Commission hearing and staff report on the Oso Viejo location when he hastily agendized the issue on October 5. The move might become viewed as a botched political attempt to enlist dog park supporters against his upcoming recall election. It is unclear how MacLean and Ury will react to Kelley’s motion to rescind, but their votes could be irrelevant to the outcome.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
It appears that Councilman MacLean’s little machination of the dog park issue in an attempt to buy favor and votes in the ballot to recall him from the city council has fallen through . . . Or one might say, ‘Gone to the dogs’.
Once again I would suggest that if any dog park is to be built that the best available site is Lower Curtis Park. From a number of standpoints it is certainly more viable than the Oso Creek site.
I would also suggest that if 300 plus sponsors/supporters of such a park pledge $1,000.00 each that the park could be built with private funds–not with our dwindling city reserves.
As I pledged before, if this process was followed and the private funds were “in the bank,” I would make a significant contribution also–even though I do not at the present time own a dog.
Dogs are great! So are all pets. Glad to see the council reverse this vote.
Seriously, can we find a better use for taxpayers hard earned $268K money than another dog park – more police, road improvement, assisting folks hard hit by recession, more library books – just to name a few.
This is a perfect example of a council member trying to help another fighting off a recall while failing to engage in “due diligence” prior to voting. Much could be said about the “games being played,” including an Oct. 20th Community Services Commission meeting on the proposed dog park that was “to be publicized” when Lance moved this item up to Oct 5th to win support from the pro dog park attendees in his fight to save his council seat.
The backlash of the adjacent neighbors should have been taken into consideration by Trish before she voted to add a dog park so close to their homes, an active sports field, Newhart school and the expanded Norman P Murray Senior and Community Center.
PS: I would cast my vote for lower Curtis Park as a location for the proposed dog park.
Will Ms. Kelley now play the heroine, pretending to save the day? Her vote on Oct. 5 caused the problem! Oso Viejo Park neighbors have endured outrageous behavior from MacLean, Ury and Kelley (M-U-K) to save MacLean’s council seat in the recall.
The MUKs should apologize for hoodwinking dog park advocates into thinking MacLean supports a dog park. He used them! The MUKs should apologize to Oso Viejo Park neighbors for trampling their rights. Then they should apologize to the entire city for the insult and wasting tax dollars in this politically motivated and legally challenged hoax.
I am fed up with the MUKs for lining up their three votes and shutting out public debate.