I think this is the best of both worlds. I love MLK Park and walk my dog there frequently. I think it will be nice to have a place to let him run off-leash while talking with other dog owners. (The park already offers great spaces for children to run off-leash!) Dog parks are very communal places no different than the soccer and softball fields at MLK Park. I love running into my neighbors down there and meeting new people. I think the dog park will further enhance the park's ability to bring the community together...and I think our diverse multicultural neighborhood is a testament to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy.

So what exactly does the $32.5k for each project get spent on? I understand the park board's dilemma trying to keep everyone happy, but simply deciding to spend an equal amount of money on each project isn't a fiscally responsible approach, and it does not address the real issues behind the controversy. It really isn't about the money.

The park board needs time to conceive and communicate a bigger vision for this park, and the dog park supporters should back off and allow this process to happen. There are many other stakeholders in the neighborhood who are not apparently shouting loud enough. The park's limited size should dictate that we plan very carefully.

Have to agree with Shonda's statement above, that our rather diverse neighborhoods surrounding MLK park prove to be a positive example of Dr. King's vision. I deeply believe that he and his family (who are profound animal rights' activists, by the way) would be more than proud to have his name honored by providing an amenity that brings people of all races together over a common bond (i.e. their dogs). That being said, it becomes even more important to offer that space in an area that will not exclude those of us who aren't wealthy enough to live around a lake (the dog run space should be easily accesible to people from all income levels, thereby representing the entire community).
As far as the dog park supporters backing off to allow the process to happen....so exactly how long should it take? Plans have been around for at least 8 years. Really??? The park board needs to "conceive" for how much longer?? On the contrary, the dog park supporters should insist that action be taken already, rather than letting it fester any longer. I'd like to utilize a fenced dog park within walking distance of my home while my dogs are still alive.
And by the way, there's ample, rarely-used space available in MLK. The dog park site that has been proposed only takes 4% of the entire park. I drive by the park daily...the most common use of that site by the soundwall is usually someone walking their dog. Otherwise, it's mostly empty.

This is a bunch of reversed racism BS going on. Most people who showed up at the meetings to complain were not even from the area. I am a homeowner of eleven years who lives less than a block from the park and the only times I use it is to attend meetings. I am tired of people caving to stupid complaints that are completely unwarranted.
A dog park will reduce crime and allow more people to use the park plain and simple and people using it will have to pay fees to do so. The area has the highest number of licensed dogs and no park and I view this as a certain group of individuals not wanting another group of individuals using "their" park. Martin Luther King Jr. was all about bringing people together not tearing them apart and if the people complaining by making statements about the dogs being used in the race riots were really looking after his memory like they say they are then they would have had a problem with the mural on the side of the park building. The mural is based off of a picture of the wading pool at the park during a time it was segregated. That should be equally offensive to anyone complaining about dogs during race riots as they are connecting it to a dog park.
If you don't like dogs then say that but don't bring race into it because a dog park is not racist!
There is already a mural of Martin Luther King over the door, a bench and the statue which doesn't even appear to me to need $750 worth of "cleaning and stabilizing" This is a waste of tax money!

My dog was one of the ones used on the postcards sent out to neighbors to bring them to the meetings (also on a ton of funny signs I made and plastered the neighborhood with) and I wanted desperately for him to have a space to run his high energy out at. He has since died and my new dog is tiny and doesn't need a lot of space but I still want the opportunity to socialize him and to meet other dog neighbors at. I really don't think that Martin Luther King would be unhappy at that and I don't think he would want us to spend extra tax dollars on yet ANOTHER memorial for him. I think he would have been fine with just the park being named after him and knowing that all type of people were using it and enjoying that space together.

Not sure if some of the remarks above were intended for me or not. I have no dog in this fight, no pun totally intended, and for the record I am a white owner of a brown dog who uses the park regularly. I have a drawing of "Nicollet Field" (not the baseball park), now known as Martin Luther King Park, as it was originally designed hanging in my living room, and it conveys a beautiful vision that was never completed. Whether the dog park planning has been going for 8 years or 28 years is not the point. I desperately want to see a well-planned park that we can be proud of - why can't we hold the park board accountible to that? If we have a decent overall plan to follow we can honor Dr. King and have a dog park, and maybe include other stakeholders in the discussion. I am pained that this city planning discussion has boiled down to a such a nasty fight with racist overtones.

I think money to dedicate MLK should be spent on the human needs for equality and respect that King dedicated his life toward, not a statue. At least make the bulk of the money go for human needs and a smaller, more realistic portion be allocated to bring his history and legacy to light in a permanant written statement on the Park grounds. As for the funds set aside for the dogpark; I believe they would be well spent because what's being termed an off leash dog area is actually just an extension of a "People's Park where Dogs are Welcome". Off leash areas help bring people together from the entire Rainbow of our population and help foster community. I firmly believe that Mr. MLKjr would have supported such an area that helps foster new human relationships. Both plans should go forward, but I find it ironic that only the off leash area has anything to do with fostering the understanding, compassion, and togetherness for fellow human beings that MLK stood for. I urge the Park Board to go further with both measures, but to be extra careful to meeting human needs first, whether they be for people with dogs or without.