[BCNnet] Thatcher Visit,11/9: DFA
Rbdoeker@aol.com
Rbdoeker@aol.com
Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:31:13 EST
-------------------------------1068489073
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Great info Jill.
How about possible areas in the neighborhood outside of the FP?
It will be city park land, no doubt, and cities don't want the expense of a
dog park-- they have to contend with the look and smell, which is a reason they
would want to hide them in the FP. But city parks do have the mission to
provide recreation.
I've gotten some unpleasant emails because I have not taken the negative
nabob, just-say-no approach. We tried that in Chicago regarding the dog
beach.....and the dogs got the beach. In talking to decision-makers after the fact, it
seems clear we would have done much better if we would have gotten ahead of
the problem by promoting an alternative solution. The city officials didn't
feel it was their place to find an alternative. The dog group felt it would
hurt their overall case to suggest a change. That left the bird groups and the
only formal response we offered was 'no beach'.
Randi Doeker
Chicago
PS The argument that a DFA is a private use won't get far with any
commissioner. It's no more private than the golf course -- everyone can get in the que
to use it and only golfers are allowed on the grounds. And it would take a
US Supreme Court order to get rid of the golf courses. Half the commissioners
are still basking in the glow of having met Billy Casper last summer.
-------------------------------1068489073
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUTF-8 http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charse=
t=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>Great info Jill.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How about possible areas in the neighborhood outside of the FP? <=
/DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It will be city park land, no doubt, and cities don't want the expense=20=
of a dog park-- they have to contend with the look and smell, which is a rea=
son they would want to hide them in the FP. But city parks do have the=
mission to provide recreation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I've gotten some unpleasant emails because I have not taken the negativ=
e nabob, just-say-no approach. We tried that in Chicago regarding the=20=
dog beach.....and the dogs got the beach. In talking to decision-maker=
s after the fact, it seems clear we would have done much better if we would=20=
have gotten ahead of the problem by promoting an alternative solution. =
The city officials didn't feel it was their place to find an alternative.&n=
bsp; The dog group felt it would hurt their overall case to suggest a change=
. That left the bird groups and the only formal response we offered wa=
s 'no beach'.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Randi Doeker</DIV>
<DIV>Chicago</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>PS The argument that a DFA is a private use won't get far with an=
y commissioner. It's no more private than the golf course -- ever=
yone can get in the que to use it and only golfers are allowed on the ground=
s. And it would take a US Supreme Court order to get rid of the=20=
golf courses. Half the commissioners are still basking in the glow of=20=
having met Billy Casper last summer.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
-------------------------------1068489073--