 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
FEATURE ARTICLES | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memo's | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
Mid-County’s Holladay East, Cherrywood, Argay and Ed Benedict Parks to have dog runs
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
Last month the Portland City Council passed a plan to create new facilities for allowing dogs to run off-leash. It bore some resemblance - but only some - to the advice the bureau had solicited from local neighborhood associations. The plan calls for two types of off-leash facilities: Year Round Sites (YES) that are fenced off and available for use whenever the park is open; and shared sites that are not fenced off but are available for dog running during certain hours.
These are 5 to 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. until the park’s closing time, between May 1 and October 31; during winter months the evening off-leash hours begin at 5 p.m., and dog running will be allowed in most of the park except for playgrounds and natural areas. YES sites will have disposable waste collection bags and receptacles.
Multnomah County Animal Control will have increased inspection of the off-leash parks, and people who allow their dogs to run free outside the designated areas and times will be subject to $150 tickets.
Holladay East Park will become a YES area, making it one of seven in the city. Argay, Cherrywood, Glenfair, Ed Benedict and Lynchwood will be among the 26 parks with shared areas.
East Portland Neighbors was one of four neighborhood coalitions that agreed to help provide outreach to the bureau and make recommendations on the issue. They recommended Holladay East as the “primary” site for off-leash facilities, and three other possibilities: Cherrywood and Parklane parks (the latter after planning and improvements) and property of Parkrose High School. The Park Bureau recommendations published less than a week before a City Council hearing, surprised and puzzled East Portland leaders.
“They did make Holladay East the primary off-leash area, so I guess they at least read what we gave them, but there’s no indication of how they reached the conclusions they did,” one person connected with the process said.
Park planner Janet Bebb conceded to Council that the bureau treated the neighborhood recommendations as “a point of departure” for their own plans. They subtracted and added parks based on a desire for “a better distribution” of facilities, to avoid areas with playgrounds, natural areas and other “conflicts,” and include areas that already have large dog usage. In fact, even the most supportive neighborhoods have said they don’t want their local park to be the only off-leash facility within their coalition area. Dogs running off-leash in a park has been a hot issue for years. As commissioner Jim Francesconi, who has charge of the park bureau, told Council, “People are passionate about their parks, and they should be. Now there is no larger conflict. People are tripping over holes (dug by dogs), people have been bitten, there are conflicts between dog owners and others.” The most dramatic manifestation of the conflict was the recent poisoning of 11 dogs in Laurelhurst Park by unknown people for unknown motives. “This is an important livability issue, and we need to act now,” Francesconi said.
Louise Cody of the Centennial Neighborhood Association didn’t agree. She told Council that the short notice of city action violated city policy on public involvement. She said that three of the parks recommended are close to schools (in violation of the bureau’s own criteria), and that there was no call for enactment of the proposal on an emergency basis.
Linda Robinson of the Hazelwood Neighborhood Association was more muted in her criticism. She commended the choice of Holladay East as a YES area, but said it would need extensive work, starting with a sign “to tell people what its name is and that it’s a park.”
Some people who testified doubted whether the proposed enforcement would be effective in preventing problems that are now occurring. Others said that the proposed regulations were too restrictive and didn’t provide enough opportunities for dog owners. One, Gina Patrearca, said, “You can’t discriminate between park users. There’s no difference between me and my dog visiting the park, and a mother and her child.”
The proposal calls for $193,000 in one-time improvements, with the single largest item being improvements to Holladay East, and $100,000 for ongoing enforcement. Commissioner Dan Saltzman suggested that at least some of the costs be paid for through the bureau’s own Systems Development Charge funds, which are currently earmarked for the development of new parks.
Bureau director Zari Santner told Council, “We could have come up with a more substantial plan, but we wanted something that was practical and doable. We thought we’d start small. If we’re successful and prove it can be done, it can be expanded.”
Francesconi said that for the plan to work, “It will take all of us. We’re especially asking for dog owners’ help. The burden shouldn’t be on other park users. Those who just open their car doors and let their dogs run, those are the ones we’ll target immediately (for fines), without warning. Dog owners “do have the right to use the parks, and we’re trying to increase their options.”
Commissioner Erik Sten said the plan was “a good enough starting point. On paper you won’t write a perfect plan. This is a good framework to start from.”
Admitting that he had let his dog run off-leash illegally for years, Sten said, “You can walk your dog on a leash any time anywhere. To let them run loose any time anywhere doesn’t make sense.”
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home