Member since Mar 16, 2011


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Dog Park Divides Lake Merritt

Dog park is different than a fenced-in dog run. How many non-dog owners are going to think it's useful to go inside a fenced-in, wood-chipped dog run if they don't have a dog. That's a little exclusionary. It removes the space from multi-use to primarily single-use.

Posted by wayloopy on 03/16/2011 at 6:58 PM

Re: “Dog Park Divides Lake Merritt

For Rlz, Shared? You are going to compare off-leash dog runs to slavery and GLBT civil rights? Just confirm that for me. And please note the rest of my commentary about the process running it's course in the time and place we currently exist. The item about the timing of the economic downturn was mostly an aside...Your comment equating the timing is nonsensical -more about that in a minute. If more Oaklanders want a dog run, so be it. But if most don't, that should be respected also.

My comment was more about the key suggestion that it's been underway for 14 years so we have to do it. X number of years of "struggle" doesn't change the core nature of injustice of civil rights with respect to sexual orientation or race (to use your analogy more appropriately). You can't say, "I think people should be denied civil rights because I've been pushing my opinion against it patiently through the system patiently for 14 years". If you want to compare the two, *that's* the parallel. Not that it's the "wrong time" for dogs. Dog's don't have human rights to run off leash in public spaces. Humans do have civil/human rights to be treated equally under the constitution of our country and - some would argue - under international human rights obligations.

And TedE - that's precisely my point. If you turn the space into a dog run, humans/people *will* be excluded from the space. The park makes the place *exclusionary* to people. Right now, no one is excluded. Their companion animals are. Animals, although they should be treated respectfully and humanely, are not people and their exclusion from a space is not the same as human exclusion from a space.

Let the community decide. And let's try to rise above the melodramatics.

Posted by wayloopy on 03/16/2011 at 4:39 PM

Re: “Dog Park Divides Lake Merritt

Enough already. Some of us haven't lived here for 14 years (6 for me), but shouldn't be discounted. A single person’s opinion or vote is not worth more because of seniority or effort expended. Democracy doesn’t work that way.
Demographics, needs, esthetic trends, funding, and attitudes all change over a decade and "we've been working on this a long time and everyone should have known" does not overcome concrete objections to restricting land-use at a time when more and more people have less money to recreate and need to use public spaces.
There are other dog runs nearby. There are tons of places for leashed exercise (probably more than 40% of outdoor public space in the city). The dog owner alone (me included) is responsible for obtaining the size and type of pet that can be reasonably accommodated by the community in which we expect to live. If others that share that community don’t wish to provide further accommodation, they should be heard, and their opinions respected. Nobody moved here or obtained a pet because a dog run near the lake was imminent. Some people *may* have moved here because the parks around the lake are beautiful, and free and open to all. Either you found the community acceptable as it was, or you didn’t move here (or you didn’t obtain that pet that was too large for your personal accommodations and the dog runs that are in close proximity). Once we are all here, changes cease to be personal (whether or not to live here) and become community-based (how to use public land), i.e. political.
Let’s just let the community process to its work and respect the outcome. Today is today. Yesterday (and 14 years of yesterdays) is (are) over.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by wayloopy on 03/16/2011 at 2:41 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation