New Search
o • tftJSr'uuv.. _ - <br /> . m .. •.. <br /> RECEI ' <br /> R +' CITY MA`' =r., \MAYoRt <br /> mcc <br /> my 21, 1992 <br /> JU! 2 21992 imGR ✓ <br /> Members of the City Council t <br /> City of Eugene ASST MGR ✓ <br /> 777 Pearl Street INFORMATION ONLY occ <br /> Eugene, OR 97401 S' <br /> Dear Councilors: Copies to <br /> � �� �` <br /> I am becoming ever more frustrated by the controversy surroun• 1: - • a a , -. - • :+ ch Park as <br /> an off -leash area. I have spent countless hours over the last six months on this issue. They are <br /> hours I would have preferred to use in some productive manner. <br /> I recognize that when the program first began in August, not all dog owners were as considerate <br /> as we should have been. I understand why area residents circulated and signed petitions asking <br /> that the off -leash program be modified or discontinued. As documented in articles in the <br /> Register -Guard, most concerns were initially directed at improper parking practices, noise, and <br /> failure to pick up after our dogs. Due to peer pressure and other self - enforcement, parking <br /> along Crest Drive and Lincoln Street was minimized and clean-up by dog owners became almost <br /> universaL Noise, if it ever really was a problem, has been reduced by opening of other areas. <br /> Since then, opponents of the off -leash program have added a whole series of other complaints <br /> induding: traffic problems, more rapid wear -out or failure of the roads, violation of good <br /> planning practices, spread of disease, destruction of wildlife habitat, water pollution, destruction <br /> of native vegetation, accusations of crimes including vandalism, improper use of a "historic <br /> park," and fire danger. The opponents proposed solution to these alleged problems has always <br /> been the same: "close the park to dogs." <br /> Users of the off -leash area have responded to each of these complaints. Most of the opponents' <br /> complaints have proven to be completely unfounded or have just enough truth to make them <br /> initially believable. <br /> It is extremely frustrating to have a couple very vocal opponents continue to use one complaint <br /> and then another at every available forum to raise the issue again and again. Even the recently - <br /> released draft Master Plan, which has quickly been embraced by opponents of the off -leash <br /> program, is little more than a thinly- disguised attempt to exclude dogs from the entire pasture. <br /> Why else would "secured gates" be proposed at every entrance to it? Why were dog owners <br /> prohibited from participating in all aspects of master plan development until the draft plan was <br /> released in late June? <br /> At no time have the opponents offered any sort of compromise solution. Their only "solution" <br /> seems to be "dose the park to dogs." On the other hand, consider what off -leash program <br /> participants have done and what we have offered to do. Even though it is entirely legal to do <br /> so, we have for the most part refrained from parking on Crest Drive and Lincoln Street. We <br /> have proven we are more likely to dean up after our dogs and pick up litter than are users of <br /> other city parks. We offered months ago to assist the City with various maintenance activities of <br /> benefit to all Park users. We offered to paint the fence and put wood chips on trails throughout <br /> the Park, for example. In the spring, I believe users of the off -leash area could have assembled <br /> work crews of dozens of people to undertake such tasks. <br /> The only "compromise" which has come to light in recent months is the City staffs proposal to <br /> reduce the off -leash area to less than half its present size. I have heard it said that is a good <br />