Frustration with City Officials Boils Over Dog Park
Opponents and Supporters Respond to Minneapolis park board president John Erwin's intention to take a dog park at Martin Luther King Park off the table.
Groups in support and against having a dog park at Martin Luther King Park are frustrated with the breakdown in communication that residents have had with city and park officials.
Following last Wednesday’s Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board meeting in which members of the community were invited to speak in support and opposition of an off-leash dog area at Martin Luther King Park, park board President John Erwin released a statement detailing a plan to remove King Park from consideration for a sixth park district dog park.
“Parks are a meant to be places to bring people together, not create division,” Erwin said in a letter. “I have concerns that recent discussions about placing a dog park at Dr. Martin Luther King Park are dividing the local community, rather bringing it together. My recommendation reflects my respect for residents who are offended as well as, my desire for the community to come together.”
The Jan. 19 board decision to not suspend rules in to allow a vote to take the dog park off the table spurred some emotional rhetoric, including statements by activist Spike Moss that some construed as threats. However, Erwin said that he condemned the words of “an individual who advocated violence,” referring to Moss, and "that his words did not affect this decision.”
Commissioner Brad Bourn said he was concerned that Erwin’s decision is going to send a mixed signal to the community, that it was somehow the right thing for the wrong reason. “I’m concerned that it’s going to send a message to some people that process is not important,” Bourn said. While Bourn said that he didn’t believe it was Moss’ intent to make a threat of violence, he is concerned that it now looks like the park board is responding to the threat as opposed to the community’s voice. “It’s very hard to stand up and say you are not responding to a threat when what you are doing makes it sound like you are responding to a threat,” Bourn said.
Sandra Richardson from the Citizens In Action, an anti-dog park group, said that no members of her group condoned Moss’s statements at last Wednesday’s meeting. “Things have unraveled in ways that were unexpected,” she said. “There’s been damage to the community that I don’t think the Park commissioners realize [...] There’s a certain amount of poison that gets in the water.” Richardson said the process has been frustrating, she hopes a more inclusive park board process will come out of all the furor.
For the last few weeks, Richardson and other members of her group have been meeting with the Kingfield Dog Park Task Force. The combined group issued a statement at last Wednesday’s meeting that so far, the group has yet to come to a compromise. “We just disagree,” Richardson said, “It’s not personal.”
Richardson said she was hopeful that the park board will take the dog park at King Park off the table: “People still have to live with each other—no matter what.”
Like Richardson, members of the Kingfield Dog Park Taskforce said they feel frustrated with park staff and officials, as well as city officials. In the two years they've been working to put a dog park at Martin Luther King Park, they said that park officials have discouraged them. When conflicts arose, they said their requests to set up meetings with opponents through authorities like Minneapolis City Council Member Elizabeth Glidden, went unheeded.
Elizabeth Glidden said that when members of the Task Force approached her asking to be connected with opponents of the dog park before the park board meeting in July, she did ask the opponents that were in her district with whom she was communicating, and was met with a negative response. She also said she felt uncomfortable giving out names and phone numbers of her constituents, she said, particularly those were were over eighty years old.
"I know that feelings are very high," Glidden said. "I know that sometimes as an elected official I may be the target of emotions." Glidden said she did reach out to members of the taskforce and attended one of their meetings.
As for Erwin's statement, Taskforce members said the timing sends the wrong message.
"We feel that our lives have been threatened," said Jonathan Lee, a dog park supporter, who is black. "Erwin is just trying to cover his own butt."
Lee also said that the Task Force were planning on offering a proposal that would take the dog park off the table, with a possible compromise that certain hours would be designated off-leash. Now, Lee says the task force members feel they were sand-bagged at the last meeting: "We are just going to keep our heads down and avoid the bullets."
Scott Zosel
7:52 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
Angry Spike Moss is of course at the heart of this 'division.' I don't really understand the insult felt by members of our community, but I have to respect it, like it or not. I live across the street from King Park and really wish that it was used more by members of the predominantly white 'Kingfield' neighborhood. King Park could really be a gateway park uniting the community, not dividing it.
Faye
8:01 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
I am one of the task force members who met with this reporter for over an hour. She failed to include 99.9% of the information regarding the events of the last couple of years. Facts that the public has a right to know.
Are you kidding?? When I read through the article, I am dumbfounded, having sat through and having heard all the information she was presented. This is what she comes up with?? This city is a mecca of misinformation. And reporters are making sure the public at large stays misinformed.
In Minneapolis, dialog doesn't work. Bullying does. Lesson learned.
Jonathan K. Lee
8:38 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
All of the information the reporter was given... and THIS is the story published? I had hoped that at least one reporter would be honest in their promises to tell both sides of the story.
Jeff Smith
9:03 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
Erwin sounds like an idiot, "parks are supposed to bring people together, this is separating them" Why? Because of a fence? Give them a piece of the park idiot!
Erica Mauter
9:16 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
I'd say the completely body of Patch's reporting, including other stories by Sheila Regan, gives plenty of space to the pro-dog-park argument. In fact, I'd say Patch is doing a better job than many outlets giving both sides of the story. Does it make sense to rehash the entire 2-yr process in every single story?
The fact is that the nature of the opposition is fair (tactics is another story) and the disrespect shown to that opinion is... telling. That's my issue with this whole thing. Not the merit of the proposal (which is a good one) but the reaction of the proponents to the opponents. I think John Erwin's recommendation is reasonable and was inevitable.
Faye
12:37 pm on Monday, January 24, 2011
Erica, you're the perfect example of someone who has relied on the media to give you information and make your sensible judgement based on that information. I agree, you should be able to do that. The problem is, there is another story. And yes, it does make sense to "rehash" it when misleading information and inaccurate information has been printed. Imagine our frustration when we KNOW the truth is not being publicized.
There have been apparently hidden agendas here. The task force simply feels it is of great importance, in the spirit of translucence, that the public should have all the facts.
Will I EVER volunteer for a community service again?? I'd have to be crazy after experiencing this. We're are not the insensitive blobs that we've been painted to be. We're your neighbors. The whole community has been mislead by it's "leaders".
All I heard, over and over, was a re-telling of misinformation. At some point, I guess you have to let the world believe the earth is flat.
Ben
10:24 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
@Erica - Then despite the news coverage, here or elsewhere, you (and Patch) are missing the full story.
Kingfield Dogpark's reaction to the opponents and the nature of their argument is NOT what has been reported in the Star Tribune or pretty much any news source. Forget the merits of this or any of the other sites we wish considered. At every step we have looked for ways to reach out to and incorporate the views of all stakeholders in our plans. We have always worked to put forward a request that has the least negative impact on the rest of the community, regardless of the nature, source, or reason for the concerns expressed.
The public at large may have their own opinions, mostly in favor of our request, and much of it, granted, HAS been disrespectful to the views of stakeholders at THIS site who oppose our request.
That is precisely WHY we have been fighting to hold the Park Board accountable to their promise to convene a fair, open, and inclusive community-based committee to devise the ultimate recommendation after HEARING and RESPECTING, and INCLUDING ALL VOICES from our greater community and considering ALL feasible sites.
Do not confuse the voices of the general public with the efforts of Kingfield Dogpark. We AGREED with the Park Board's decision to pause SO THAT we could work with opponents to define a process that was deemed more open and fair to everyone. That the Park Board has now decided to reverse course after violent threats were made is... telling.
Mary Vanderford
11:07 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
I am a member of the Dog Park Task Force and have attended many meetings on this proposal. Whoever has "fanned the flames" of the opposition group (MIA at MLK Park) is responsible for the loud racist outbursts at the park board mtgs. and the violence threatened. You need to know that you have destroyed bridges that have been built over many years between racial groups within my community. I don't think this is stating this too strongly. The level of trust is very low.
MnDogLover
11:21 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
So what now? Lawsuit?
Jonathan K. Lee
11:50 am on Monday, January 24, 2011
No. Lawsuits are the tactic of Flowers, Moss, and their ilk. We care about our community and want to make sure the interests of all stakeholders are taken into consideration. Our frustration stems from the plain and simple fact that certain politicians and Park Board Commissioners have been playing both sides of the issue, and the media doesn't seem to want to report the actual facts, just the provocative, easily taken out of context, "sexy" bits.
There never should have been this kind of controversy. When the concerns were first raised, the Kingfield Dogpark Task Force immediately made an attempt to reach out to the elders to make sure they understood the intention of the Task Force and to clear the air concerning the incorrect information they were purposely given. A City Council member intervened, claiming that they would speak to the group of elders on our behalf.
They did not. And members of the Task Force have the documentation that proves that certain politicians have been less than honest with both groups in this situation. Elders attempted to speak with me after a Park Board meeting, and when I tried to engage them, I was shouted down by Al Flowers.
The elders have NEVER been given the opportunity to speak with the Task Force.
Too many people who are NOT involved with the Task Force, or the process are the ones being allowed to speak as if they ARE involved. If every voice is supposed to be heard, why is the Task Force being effectively silenced?
MnDogLover
1:25 pm on Monday, January 24, 2011
Thanks for the response. I feel like meaningful context is finally being provided on this issue. I think that we Kingfielders can all come to a reasonable solution if given the time. The fire of emotion and rhetoric is very hot right now, thanks in no part to our friendly local rabble rousers. A city council member isn't needed to talk to our neighbors. Lets help each other out.
Reier
1:05 pm on Monday, January 24, 2011
As an African American, and a dog owner, who lives in the neighborhood I am shocked and saddened by the reaction to this dog park. It speaks completely against what MLK Jr. stood for. Whether it be people or dogs we cannot judge based on what past generations have done. My British Labrador is color blind, literally and figuratively, and would like face regardless of that face's ethnicity.
Jonathan K. Lee
1:38 pm on Monday, January 24, 2011
Something that speaks to the way that the community has been mislead by the media on this issue is evident above.
All of the information I have given in my above comment was also given to the reporter who wrote this article, yet none of it appeared in the article, only a provocative, easily taken out of context quote I made in jest.
Why is that?
Erica Mauter
2:48 pm on Monday, January 24, 2011
I'm not in any way defending Don Allen or Spike Moss. And my opinion on the matter is partially based on the discussion at the Minneapolis Issues Forum. My problem is the apparent implication or presumption - correct me if I'm wrong - that if all the "reasonable" opponents could just hear Kingfield Dogpark out, then they'd come around. It still dismisses the voiced objection. Some people made it rudely, but more people hold the objection sincerely.
Now, elected officials renegeing on promises in the process? That's a big deal (but also kind of unsurprising). Have you not been able to get anyone to publish your op-ed detailing this specific problem with the process? I don't see it anywhere on kingfield.org. If that's what everyone is missing then you need to get it out there. Unless you're trying to remain diplomatic so as not to shoot yourself in the foot with the Park Board and further compromise your chance in this. But if you're out in force in the comments here, then that can't be that big of a concern.
Hey, if the Star Trib or MinnPost won't pick it up, I'd be happy to publish it at my website, fresh.mn.
Ben
3:28 pm on Monday, January 24, 2011
Then here is your correction - at least on our "presumptions".
Commissioners Jon Olson and John Erwin are reportedly going to push again for removing the option of Martin Luther King Park from the table. I think that would be a great disservice to both sides by not allowing for everyone to feel like a fair and inclusive process was allowed to make a decision as a community.
I could support other viable sites and alternative plans very easily, but I don't think there will be community buy-in from all stakeholders if we don't do this in an open and fair process.
That is what we have been pushing for all along. There are many more people who hold an objection sincerely and speak rationally, but also at least as many who see a value in the project, including, and perhaps even more so, if it were located at a park named in Dr. King's honor. We want a process that hears from them ALL and moves on from there after considering all other viable solutions.
The current stance seems to be that the violent threats made from a small segment of the community are enough to halt that inclusive process and make a unilateral decision without further input.
If our efforts to work with all stakeholders and find a fair and respectful way forward were sexier, it would have already been reported in the Strib, MinnPost, or even here, but conflict sells, so the quotes and information published to date have been selected to amplify the supposed differences.
Ben
3:51 pm on Monday, January 24, 2011
We're your neighbors, we look just like you (whatever you look like). We're dog owners who see a need in our neighborhood - a place where we can gather and do what we like to do when sharing time with others: play with our dogs, talk to each other, get to know each other better, become more a part of our community.
I like to think of our dream dog park as a neighborhood park where people come separately but walk home together.
We're stakeholders in our community too. We want our community to get STRONGER and we know what we each feel when we part ways with a complete stranger who has just stopped us on the sidewalk to ask about the dogs with us. Race, economics, religion, age, sexuality... I've seen all of that melt away when someone I don't know YET wants to approach me and talk for just a minute. If our dream can't come alive at Martin Luther King Park, then we've been asking, begging, reaching out to ALL community members to help us find the right place for that to happen. Someplace that serves our community just as well.
There have been political aspirations and misinformation that has gotten in the way of that happening. That's the bigger story, but it's the perceived racial divide that is being told. We've BEEN trying. Unfortunately, just as with the opposition, our voices often get confused for the wider community that hasn't put the thought into it that we have, and the press loves a good fight.
Reier
10:50 am on Tuesday, January 25, 2011
There are other MLK Jr. dog parks in the country. Just grow up and get over it . Parks are meant to be used, hear a good use for this park is being the line buy a small group of ignorant people. If these people stop this from being builtI proposed building it in Powderhorn... we have a lot of space and would welcome this.