Despite the best efforts of some local residents, Oak Ridge has not been included in a list of 15 finalists in a contest to win $100,000 for a dog park.
The first phase of voting in the contest, called “Bark for Your Park,” ended June 13, and the winning cities will be announced Aug. 3.
A list of the 15 finalists is available on the PetSafe website.
The Oak Ridge City Council passed a resolution on Monday supporting a grant application to PetSafe and making land available for the dog park if the city was selected.
In 2006, the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce asked the Recreation and Parks Department staff to consider building a dog park in response to a housing summit that found it was one of the most requested amenities, said Josh Collins, the city’s recreation and parks director.
A potential site was selected at Big Turtle Park.
“Since that time, the establishment of a dog park in Oak Ridge has been the goal of a growing segment of the population,” Collins write in a memo to City Manager Mark Watson.
It would give dogs a spot where they could enjoy the outdoors, exercise, and socialize without having to be leashed, Collins said.
A citizens group has organized a grassroots effort to bring the park to Oak Ridge, and they have vowed to push on, despite the city’s failure to make the list of 15 finalists.
“Well, we didn’t make it in the finals, but we are still going forward with our hopes for a dog park,” Sandra Walker Herrera wrote in a Facebook group called “We want a dog park in Oak Ridge!”
Collins said PetSafe, which provides feed, fencing, and training for dogs and cats, will award a $100,000 grant to one city and $25,000 grants to two others.
Mare Martell says
Didn’t this hit in the comments about taxes being used to pay a developer to come into our area? About the dog park? Why didn’t the city back up the grassroots movement so they or rather the taxpayers wouldn’t have to pay for much of it if any? It might have even looked like the government was actually actively helping citizens. It could have been promoted as a community wide push to get the funding to improve the city for the citizens.
Ellen Smith says
City government is behind this, but I fear that the support hasn’t been well enough coordinated.
Several years ago (before I was on City Council), city staff identified a good site for a dog park at Big Turtle Park. I don’t know why things didn’t move past that, but I do know that there was concern (on the part of citizens and staff both) that a dog park could be a negative thing if dog owners don’t take responsibility for much of its operation. By now, staff knows a lot more about the ins and outs of running a successful dog park, and the city Recreation and Parks Board has been working with citizens toward making a dog park a reality.
Last week I drafted a resolution of support for an application to PetSafe (so we could qualify to be a finalist), city staff fixed it up and added letters of official endorsement from the city manager and staff, and City Council passed the resolution unanimously on Monday evening. The staff submitted the materials we needed to qualify. We had the necessary city government support for this, but we didn’t make the finalist list because we didn’t have enough online votes from citizens. With a better coordinated effort earlier, we would have done better.
Dave Sill says
DOG PARKS: WHY THEY ARE A BAD IDEA
http://leerburg.com/dogparks.htm?set=1
Dog parks are injuries to dogs and humans waiting to happen.
T J says
See my post under Lavender festival–
Mare Martell says
I’m really glad that the city made this known. I am a citizen that lives in Oak Ridge. I heard nothing of this until this article. I’m sadly disappointed that it’s because “we didn’t have enough online votes from citizens” that we didn’t succeed.
We could speak all day on who’s to blame, but in the end, it’s always the same. He said/She said wrong or right, pointing fingers day and night. Never will we reach a consensus if we all stand with strong defenses and never hear the other side or even try to compromise. Forgive me if I flounce a bit, but your quoted statement is a crock of