nyrgravey9 wrote:
At the very least, I want to be there when Batman/Vigilante gets his first ticket hahahahaha.

Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Yes, all those things will happen. HAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JerseyAveGirl wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Just saw this sad but true quote in an article:

"Peninsula Park is a great parcel of land that has unfortunately been deteriorating for years and acts solely as a local non-fenced dog park these days. "

Link: http://thejerseycitylife.com/?p=384

We have a glorified dog park in one of the best locations for a beautiful park imaginable that actual PEOPLE could be enjoying.

It's a park that no one would want to picnic or relax in because dogs would be racing by and over you and because you would be eating on top of a dog toilet.

And we have dog owners that would literally oppose development of the park if it meant that the construction of a fenced in dog run area.

This may sound weird...but I think there is another park close by with the same view??? LIBERTY STATE PARK which is HUGE.

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Just saw this sad but true quote in an article:

"Peninsula Park is a great parcel of land that has unfortunately been deteriorating for years and acts solely as a local non-fenced dog park these days. "

Link: http://thejerseycitylife.com/?p=384

We have a glorified dog park in one of the best locations for a beautiful park imaginable that actual PEOPLE could be enjoying.

It's a park that no one would want to picnic or relax in because dogs would be racing by and over you and because you would be eating on top of a dog toilet.

And we have dog owners that would literally oppose development of the park if it meant that the construction of a fenced in dog run area.

Vigilante wrote:
Yes, all those things will happen. HAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To just implement off leash hours without a plan, such as increased signage, outreach, etc., is just going to reinforce the idea that it's a dog park. Again, we're just going to disagree on this.

Given its size LSP would make a heck of a lot more sense for having off-leash hours. The policy is much less likely to bother people there.

Again, I understand you to be saying that you would SUPPORT development of the park even if it was determined with finality at the outset of development discussions that there would be a dog park and that leash laws would be enforced. Do you agree with this specific statement?

I don't think the issue is that dog owners don't have pride in the community. I think it's that they often put their dogs before other community members.

mdips wrote:
Quote:

Yes, I would definitely support development of the park either way.

I was getting the sense that dog owners would prefer not to have a developed park if it meant that their dogs would be confined to a dog run. I'm glad that you are not in that camp. Please clarify if I understood you incorrectly.

I would prefer a dog run to off-leash hours. That's what the parks in NYC and Brooklyn have and they work great. But, sure, I would prefer specified off-leash hours to no measures at all. I think it would make sense to have them be early morning and late night, when most dog owners walk their dogs anyway. Also, I doubt dogs care about the time of day they are out. If this is about the dogs, the owners can deal with that inconvenience.

Since you are making the proposal, would you be in favor of having off-leash hours now, even though the park has not been developed?

At least we can finally agree that it's possible for us to both want the park developed even if we both have different ideas of how we would want it done.

And since you brought up the fact that dog runs worked for NYC and brooklyn you should know that actually all 5 Bouroughs have numerous parks allowing for off leash hours. (And to be specific I'm not referring to dog runs here, but actual off leash hours within parks)
Bronx: 18 parks
Brooklyn: 22 parks
Manhattan: 4 parks
Queens: 18 parks
Staten Island: 14 parks
(taken from city of NY Parks & Recreation page)

We are only asking for 1 out of the nearly 60 parks in Jersey City to allow for off leash hours.

I would be ok with the institution of off leash hours now, especially given the alternative is the potential for a pricey ticket. And would make a transition easier on dog owners currently using the park.

And thank you for clarifying that you were only'getting the sense' that dog owners don't want development. Prior you were positioning that statement as if it were fact which was really my only contention. Continuously throughout this thread dog owners have been grouped together as an uncaring group that have no pride in their community or neighborhood. I can say that for a large part of the owners I deal with that is widely false.

mdips wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
DTJC, I am on the yahoo group too and have made my points there as well. I'm hitting all fronts on this issue.

However, I feel the idea of off leash hours is a terrible one...in the beginning. It's bad enough people treat the parking lot in front of the park as a parking lot (it's not, and you can and will eventually get towed for being there) to visit the park.

Lately we've had problems of people speeding into that lot to get to the "dog park" and have almost hit people (people with baby carriages mind you)...many times. It's only a matter of time until a fight breaks out. I'm not kidding.

That said, we're already having a hard enough time dispelling the notion that it's a dog park. That will change in time as we fight for increased enforcement with fines, as well as get increased signage.

Once the overall mentality has changed, signs have been put up and enforcement is assured (for clean up and leash laws), then yes, it might be a good idea to implement off leash hours.

Until those things have happened, I don't see that compromise even being considered.

I think your logic is actually reversed in this thought. In my opinion it would be much easier to transition from the parks current state to limiting it to off leash hours. Telling people they can use the park on a limited basis seems like it could be much better received than asking them to cut out completely.

Also, be careful again with the generalizations. Not all the people that park in that area are dog owners. A number of people park there for various reasons. There are a couple that park there every morning to work in the towers. Some people park there to fish and a number are also there to bring their children to come play at the park. Not to mention the ones that park their late at night and hang out in the park and their cars after hours. Or the occasional car/bike meetup groups that like use it as a meeting place to show off their cars on the weekends.

Again, I'm not saying dog owners don't do it but it's not the group solely responsible for the problem.

And lets not forget that the only reported incident I can recall at the park of a fight was a non-dog owner attacking and beating a woman because her dog was off leash.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
DTJC, I am on the yahoo group too and have made my points there as well. I'm hitting all fronts on this issue.

However, I feel the idea of off leash hours is a terrible one...in the beginning. It's bad enough people treat the parking lot in front of the park as a parking lot (it's not, and you can and will eventually get towed for being there) to visit the park.

Lately we've had problems of people speeding into that lot to get to the "dog park" and have almost hit people (people with baby carriages mind you)...many times. It's only a matter of time until a fight breaks out. I'm not kidding.

That said, we're already having a hard enough time dispelling the notion that it's a dog park. That will change in time as we fight for increased enforcement with fines, as well as get increased signage.

Once the overall mentality has changed, signs have been put up and enforcement is assured (for clean up and leash laws), then yes, it might be a good idea to implement off leash hours.

Until those things have happened, I don't see that compromise even being considered.

Yes, I would definitely support development of the park either way.

I was getting the sense that dog owners would prefer not to have a developed park if it meant that their dogs would be confined to a dog run. I'm glad that you are not in that camp. Please clarify if I understood you incorrectly.

I would prefer a dog run to off-leash hours. That's what the parks in NYC and Brooklyn have and they work great. But, sure, I would prefer specified off-leash hours to no measures at all. I think it would make sense to have them be early morning and late night, when most dog owners walk their dogs anyway. Also, I doubt dogs care about the time of day they are out. If this is about the dogs, the owners can deal with that inconvenience.

Since you are making the proposal, would you be in favor of having off-leash hours now, even though the park has not been developed?

nyrgravey9 wrote:

That said, we're already having a hard enough time dispelling the notion that it's a dog park. That will change in time as we fight for increased enforcement with fines, as well as get increased signage.

mdips wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

mdips wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:

Exactly.

MDips, I previously asked you how big the dog run would need to be for you to be okay with it and you did not respond to the question. So, how big is big enough?

And let me ask you about the issue we are now discussing directly: Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Can you please give straight answers to these questions? If you dodge them I think it will be clear to everyone why you are doing so.

It seems like you are getting aggravated because I am not agreeing with your opinion.

I have not dodged any questions. You asked my opinion of a dog run. I told you I would not support the building of a dog run, mainly because my dog likes to swim in the river. Unless a dog run can somehow encompass or allow my dog access to swim it wouldn't really be a solution for me.

Again, I have not dodged anything. Since the beginning of the debate I have stated that I would support the institution of off leash hours, however you seem to have ignored that. Maybe because it doesn't fit with the solution you would want, I don't know. Please let me know your thoughts.

I am completely in support of developing and improving the park, however it is my opinion that the best solution for both parties would be developing the park without a dog run and allowing for off leash hours.

It is your opinion that the development of the park needs to include a dog run.

Both opinions can be allowed to exist in a debate. Just because I don't agree with your opinion for what should be part of the development does not mean I oppose the development of the park.

mdips, you have yet to answer my second question:

Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Are you unwilling to answer this?

Have you read any of my responses? I said I am in support of the development of the park. It may not end up the way I would prefer but that's why I would make sure to be involved in the actual debate over what the planning would be.

And you have yet to answer my question. Would you support development of the park if it meant the institution of legal off leash hours for dog owners instead of a dog run? Stop avoiding my question in preference of your own.

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

mdips wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:

Exactly.

MDips, I previously asked you how big the dog run would need to be for you to be okay with it and you did not respond to the question. So, how big is big enough?

And let me ask you about the issue we are now discussing directly: Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Can you please give straight answers to these questions? If you dodge them I think it will be clear to everyone why you are doing so.

It seems like you are getting aggravated because I am not agreeing with your opinion.

I have not dodged any questions. You asked my opinion of a dog run. I told you I would not support the building of a dog run, mainly because my dog likes to swim in the river. Unless a dog run can somehow encompass or allow my dog access to swim it wouldn't really be a solution for me.

Again, I have not dodged anything. Since the beginning of the debate I have stated that I would support the institution of off leash hours, however you seem to have ignored that. Maybe because it doesn't fit with the solution you would want, I don't know. Please let me know your thoughts.

I am completely in support of developing and improving the park, however it is my opinion that the best solution for both parties would be developing the park without a dog run and allowing for off leash hours.

It is your opinion that the development of the park needs to include a dog run.

Both opinions can be allowed to exist in a debate. Just because I don't agree with your opinion for what should be part of the development does not mean I oppose the development of the park.

mdips, you have yet to answer my second question:

Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Are you unwilling to answer this?

mdips wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:

Exactly.

MDips, I previously asked you how big the dog run would need to be for you to be okay with it and you did not respond to the question. So, how big is big enough?

And let me ask you about the issue we are now discussing directly: Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Can you please give straight answers to these questions? If you dodge them I think it will be clear to everyone why you are doing so.

It seems like you are getting aggravated because I am not agreeing with your opinion.

I have not dodged any questions. You asked my opinion of a dog run. I told you I would not support the building of a dog run, mainly because my dog likes to swim in the river. Unless a dog run can somehow encompass or allow my dog access to swim it wouldn't really be a solution for me.

Again, I have not dodged anything. Since the beginning of the debate I have stated that I would support the institution of off leash hours, however you seem to have ignored that. Maybe because it doesn't fit with the solution you would want, I don't know. Please let me know your thoughts.

I am completely in support of developing and improving the park, however it is my opinion that the best solution for both parties would be developing the park without a dog run and allowing for off leash hours.

It is your opinion that the development of the park needs to include a dog run.

Both opinions can be allowed to exist in a debate. Just because I don't agree with your opinion for what should be part of the development does not mean I oppose the development of the park.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Correct djjcview. Asking an owner of an active dog why they bought an active dog in a cramped city with no official resources for them to utilize would be a much, much better question.

No one wants to answer that question, though. The usual answers are "who are you tell me what I can own" or something more rude to that effect. It's a reasonable question to ask to someone older than 5 years old, who, one would hope, operates on more than the id.

Bubble_Tea wrote:

Exactly.

MDips, I previously asked you how big the dog run would need to be for you to be okay with it and you did not respond to the question. So, how big is big enough?

And let me ask you about the issue we are now discussing directly: Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Can you please give straight answers to these questions? If you dodge them I think it will be clear to everyone why you are doing so.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

MDips - Bubble has a point. Many times in this thread people have expressed they refuse to have a designated dog park because, in their opinion, it would be too small, no matter big they make it (see criticism of VV and HP dog runs).

Exactly.

MDips, I previously asked you how big the dog run would need to be for you to be okay with it and you did not respond to the question. So, how big is big enough?

And let me ask you about the issue we are now discussing directly: Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Can you please give straight answers to these questions? If you dodge them I think it will be clear to everyone why you are doing so.

For an active dog, I'd say a run the size of the one in Lincoln Park is ideal. HP and VVP dog runs are OK sizes for smaller, less active dogs, and people generally take their dogs there for socializing, not exercise. In figuring minimum size for an active dog run, I'd suggest the space would you need for 3 dog owners to play fetch, without creating a swarm of pets fighting over the same toys - which is about as far as you can throw a ball in 3 different directions.

Interestingly enough, some of the early HP dog run proposals allocated a larger area (2 segments) of the park, but the final design chosen by vote, crammed sports areas into these segments, rendering the dog runs useless for exercising active dogs. Perhaps that's why dog owners let their dogs off leash on the grass when they can get away with it...which is what dog owners did before the dog runs were built.

Lincoln park is a dog run. HP and VVP are dog pens.

Asking an owner of an active dog whether they would support building something useless to them, isn't really much of a question, is it?

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

MDips - Bubble has a point. Many times in this thread people have expressed they refuse to have a designated dog park because, in their opinion, it would be too small, no matter big they make it (see criticism of VV and HP dog runs).

Exactly.

MDips, I previously asked you how big the dog run would need to be for you to be okay with it and you did not respond to the question. So, how big is big enough?

And let me ask you about the issue we are now discussing directly: Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Can you please give straight answers to these questions? If you dodge them I think it will be clear to everyone why you are doing so.

MDips - Bubble has a point. Many times in this thread people have expressed they refuse to have a designated dog park because, in their opinion, it would be too small, no matter big they make it (see criticism of VV and HP dog runs).

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

It may not seem like it because you're focused solely on Morris Canal park but the city has done a pretty impressive job of developing the waterfront despite a difficult economic and political situation.

I agree 100%. That doesn't change the view held by me, and I'm sure many JC residents, that it would be great to see Morris Canal Park be something other than a glorified dog park.

Quote:

Bubble Tea, has anyone on this board said they would be opposed to development of that park?

I think lots of dog owners would prefer no development of the park if it meant that their dogs would be limited to a dog run and leash rules were enforced. That's pretty obvious.

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

It may not seem like it because you're focused solely on Morris Canal park but the city has done a pretty impressive job of developing the waterfront despite a difficult economic and political situation.

I agree 100%. That doesn't change the view held by me, and I'm sure many JC residents, that it would be great to see Morris Canal Park be something other than a glorified dog park.

Quote:

Bubble Tea, has anyone on this board said they would be opposed to development of that park?

I think lots of dog owners would prefer no development of the park if it meant that their dogs would be limited to a dog run and leash rules were enforced. That's pretty obvious.

It may not seem like it because you're focused solely on Morris Canal park but the city has done a pretty impressive job of developing the waterfront despite a difficult economic and political situation.

Bubble Tea, has anyone on this board said they would be opposed to development of that park?