RECENT COMMENTS
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
Church Hill Dog Park update
12/28/2007 5:05 PM by John M
Everything is a go with Parks and Rec for the Church Hill Dog Park, they are officially a partner. The CHDP committee is working on ways to get money for the necessary fencing. The city has been fixing up the lower part of Chimborazo these last few months getting everything ready – digging out the cobblestone, cutting down some dead trees, restringing the lights, reshingling the shade structures and making sure the water source works. The CHDP committee will hold elections in January to make official their organizational structure. Contact chimbodogs@hotmail.com if you have any questions or would like to be involved.
Hooray for fixing up the lower part of Chimborozo Park.
Boo for ripping up cobblestone!
My wife and I can hardly wait for the new dog park. On Christmas, we took our puppy to Barker Field for her first dog park experience. It will be a great joy to have such a dog park even closer to us to make regular trips to.
Maybe they will recycle the cobblestone to create an aestetic feature somewhere in/near the park. (Being hopeful.)
I am not sure that digging out the cobblestone means digging them out, but rather uncovering them from years of no maintenance. I can remember digging out my historic brick sidewalks when I first moved to Union Hill– I had to shovel years of soil and grass build up on the sidewalks on my street to expose the beautiful herringbone pattern.
Is this what happened to the cobblestones?
The cobblestone is still there, they just took tons (and I mean tons) of dirt and debris off the top. I recommend you have a look to better understand what I’m talking about. When I saw it I didn’t realize 1) there was that much cobblestone already in existence down there and 2) that the part had been ignored for so long!
They are also fixing the cobblestone steps that lead down to the park and the fountain that has been sitting broken for many a year.
We are very excited, too!!
Crystal Koch Pintac
Co-Chair of the CHDP Committee
When was the public hearing on this park?
Is it too late to suggest putting the dog park at the east end of the lower park rather than in the middle of the lower park? The east corner is more isolated from the rest of the park and seems quite large enough. As I understand it the dog park will use both existing covered structures which have pick nick tables. It seems like now that the city is working on cleaning up the lower park both dog and non-dog people might want to use the structures for something other than sitting next to a dog park. No offense! I love dogs too and walk my dogs there most days.
thanks
M
We spoke at the Church Hill Association meeting in October I believe (and we’ll be there again this month, the 15th) and we’ve posted information through John on CHPN multiple times. Plus those directly involved have been talking to those not so directly involved and I do believe word of mouth has worked well in this case.
I’m curious to know how, exactly, would we have held a public hearing when it is citizens of Church Hill who are completely volunteering their time to get this park up and running….
Our next meeting will be next Tuesday, January 8th at 7pm. Please contact us at chimbodogs@hotmail.com, for further information.
JC
Why should there have been a public hearing? There are no hearings when parks and rec put in a tennis court, or put up a swing set Why should this improvement be any different?
C –
Thanks for the info, but I respectfully disagree with you that word of mouth has worked well in this case – most of the people I have spoken with about this matter, which includes people who walk their dogs in lower Chimbo, were completely ignorant of this proposal. Reading your response, I’m somewhat shocked that word of mouth could even be considered an appropriate, much less adequate, means of properly informing the public about an issue concerning a City park.
I appreciate that you have made an effort to address the CHA and post info re. this proposal here at the CHPN, but that doesn’t substitute for a public hearing, open to everyone in the City, where all points of views concerning the dog park and its location could be expressed in the presence of City officials before permission was granted to proceed with this proposal. My question remains – When was THAT public meeting held?
rubberneck –
First of all “improvement” is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly, your slavishness to procedure suits your own interests well.
Secondly, I don’t see why the public should not have been consulted in this matter. The dog corral is a major alteration to that area and will effectively render lower Chimbo nigh worthless to much of the public.
JC
Should we have hunted you down? Hired people to walk the streets with sandwich boards? Or hidden in trees, jumping out at dog owners yelling “dog park, dog park, dont you want a dog park?” What do you want?
Seriously, we have posted multiple times online. We have met with the neighborhood organization and will do so again. And more importantly,we have satisfied the Dept of Parks and Rec requiremenst. This seems like a reasonable amount of effort.
I have to ask, every November, when election day sneaks up on you, do you contact the candidates and ask them to delay the election so that you can become informed and participate?
If you want to have a voice in community affairs, you should become active in the community. Not just hide your head and then gripe late in the process.
AND I forgot to add, who uses lower Chimbo? He double L, no one even uses upper chimbo since the leash police started patrolling. If it were not for occassional dog walkers and joggers, the park would be abandoned to people who sit in their cars doing heaven knows what at all hours of the day. I go to the park every day and have NEVER seen anyone other than dog walkers in lower chimbo. For the last several years, it was not even usable due to disrepair.
JC
I have to agree with Chimbo. I have never seen anybody using the portion of of the park in question. Plus don’t even own a dog, and I’ve known about this project for quite a while. I’ve read about it and listened to their plans at public meetings. If you are just finding out about this, I doubt you would have been aware of any public hearing.
I also can’t understand what your problem with this park is. It’s in a pretty much unused part of the park, and it is being funded and maintained privately. Nobody says you have to use it and it’s existance will deny you nothing. What is your reason to oppose this? Be honest here. How often are you in that area? And how will your life be negatively by this dog park? I think that you just don’t like anything new. I think you percieve any community initiated change as an affront to your “rights”. If you really think that most people who walk there dogs in lower Chimbo are against this, organize a counter effort. Maybe you can raise money for the cause by selling “Don’t tread on my dog poop” flags
I find it interesting that people who obviuosly read this site would be ignorant of the effort going on to promote a dog park at Chimbo. These people have worked very hard to investigate the city and federal requirements for this endeavor and are doing something positive in the community. Instead of lamenting the lack of a “community hearing”, people should come to the organizational meetings. We attended the last one and everyone there was open to any and all input.
I am fairly new to the Church Hill area and I know about (and approve of, for that matter) the dog park. If JC and others didn’t know about the proposed dog park, they are living with their heads in the sand. Actually, I am astonished that anyone who walks a dog in Chimbo and speaks to their neighbors could NOT know about it, as so many people are very excited the park and working very hard on the project. If you are interested in having a say in what goes on in the community, you need to read this web site (the dog park has been an on-going topic with TONS of postings for a few months now) and attend CHA meetings. If you don’t support the dog park, you don’t have to come to it. That’s certainly your choice.
I’m in Petersburg these days (formerly lived on Chimbo), and try to not comment on this site much as I’m not living in the area now, but I have to say that even I know about the dog park efforts (and have pointed out to folks in Petersburg how such efforts exemplify how sites such as CHPN enable community dialog and in turn action –> other people in Petersburg are also aware of these discussions).
Examples of where “many points of view” have been shared in relation to the proposed park:
http://chpn.net/news/2007/09/08/animal-control-in-chimbo-park/
http://chpn.net/news/2007/10/01/towards-a-dog-park-in-chimborazo/
http://chpn.net/news/2007/10/09/a-name-for-a-doggy-park/
http://chpn.net/news/2007/11/09/church-hill-dog-park/
Even Ch. 8 picked this one up!
(I deleted a comment that had gone too personal. If you want to talk shit, sign your name to it.)
Chimbo –
Your failure to provide a simple answer to a simple question, coupled with your gratuitous, ad hominem attacks, leaves me with the impression that you are trying to disguise the fact that no effort was made to engage the input and participation of the general public, outside of the narrow confines (or, echo-chambers) of the CHA and CHPN. If you would care to dispel this impression, by all means do so and I will gladly stand corrected.
“The heaviest penalty for deciding to engage in politics is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself.”
–Plato
JC – Channel 8 coverage is “narrow confines”?
Chimbo –
AND I forgot to add, in response to your post #12, that it was the irresponsibility of the dog owners in upper Chimbo that has driven the establishment of the dog park in lower Chimbo. Prior to the recent crackdown on these dog owners, no “need” existed for the establishment of this park. Dog owners have always been free and able to use the park without having to deny the central area of the lower field for the recreational uses of non-dog owners, picnickers and bicyclists (even after TS Gaston). If there had been a need for this park prior to the crackdown on these irresponsible dog owners, one would have been established by now.
UH Neighbor –
Your point is well taken, but what was the scope of this coverage? A single thirty-second segement that people who don’t watch Channel 8 news would never see?
JC-
you seem to have a lot of excuses for having not ‘been informed’ about the new dog park… can you honestly say you haven’t heard mum about it? and you repeatedly ignore the questions from some of the other posters– do you actually, honestly even use the lower part of the park!? i’ve never seen anyone other than dog-walkers down there…
but the arguement is mute now… there is city approval for the park & the parks & rec department is behind it as well. path access around the lower portion of the park is to be maintained for walkers and bicyclists (i’d like to see you ride your bike on those cobblestones!) etc…
change is a good thing! this park provides a wonderful opportunity for the people of church hill to meet each other and form bonds. without having a place to socialize my puppy- i wouldn’t know half the people in my neighborhood that i do now:)
i have high hopes for the success of this venture, and i’m sorry for your apparent late-awareness of it, but the park is happening- and that is a good thing!
I heard about this but dismissed it as way to stupid of an idea to actually see the light of day. I hope no public funds went into this.
My dog and I use this park EVERY morning. I see the same faces and dogs and there are no more than 1/2 dozen of us. I really take exception to post #20. I always bag my dogs shit and the squirrels he kills and with few exceptions so do the other dog owners. Just take a peek in some of the trash bins if you don’t believe this.
I can respect that someone else has a different idea of what is a good use for a public park, but even if you don’t like the idea of a dog park (in a very small portion of an enormous park) you have to concede that they are there for everyone’s benefit — including dog owners. I suspect that if you organized a group of bocce ball enthusiasts, you could have a portion of the park dedicated to bocce ball. The fact is that the park is large enough to accomodate several concurrent, diedicated uses. If you don’t like one of them, you do not have a heckler’s veto over it.
Personally, I see this park as a terrific enhancement to the community. From a real estate perspective, it may make Church Hill homes more attractive to dog owners. It may also help people in the neighborhood get to know each other a little better. These are good things.
John M:
I am not “talking shit”(#18). You can’t handle the truth.
The work of the Church Hill Dog Park group has directed attention to a long neglected area of Chimborazo Park. The use of the area as a dog park seems most appropriate and will certainly increase people traffic in the park, which normally results in less crime, vandalism and other inappropriate activities. The City has been working to restore the area, not just for the Dog Park, but also other uses.
The beauty of this project is the Community’s willingness to develop a grass-roots organization to help fund and maintain the overall project. It is a wonderful example of a citizen/government partnership to address a community need. The Church Hill Dog Park is one of many citizen driven partnerships under the Richmond Recreation and Park Foundation that work to enhance the City’s Park facilities and Recreation Programs. You can visit http://www.rrpfoundation.org for other working partnerships in the City, and more information about the RRPF.
Across the country Dog Parks are being constructed in parks to meet citizen demand for these facilities. They have historically been well maintained facilities, where pets, owners and others can socialize.
I would be interested in hearing the reasons why someone would oppose this project, which already seems to be having a positive impact on the park and surrounding community.
rubberneck (#14) –
First of all, Chimborazo Park is a PUBLIC park that is owned, operated and maintained by the City of Richmond through taxpayer dollars. It is not private property, it is not privately maintained and it is not privately funded.
Secondly, as Bruce and myself have pointed out, people are using that space on a daily basis for years, and at times, there are special events held in that area (more were held prior to TS Gaston when the park’s infrastructure was in good shape) – it has never been unused space. To claim the dog park won’t impact the access people have enjoyed to what is the central and most important space in Lower Chimbo is absurd.
Finally, your comments about what I supposedly like and dislike are even more ignorant than your comments regarding the ownership and usage of lower Chimborazo Park. I see no reason to dignify them with a response.
From #13 by rubberneck “It’s in a pretty much unused part of the park, and it is being funded and maintained privately.”
I think the poster meant that the DOG PARK is being funded privately, not that Chimborazo Park is being funded and maintained privately. Frankly, even though I don’t have a dog (and I’ve buried two cats down in that lower area), I think it’s great that it’s being fixed up. I haven’t been in there in awhile but last time I was there, not only was the lower area a mess, the upper area needed some maintenance, too -the bollards were broken, the locks were broken, trash needed picked up, and too many cars were zooming through going way too fast for pedestrians with or without dogs. I grant that was maybe four or five years ago, but if someone’s doing something to fix it up, either upper or lower area, more power to them.
EcoGirl (#22) –
You should read my posts more closely.
Not that it matters, but I’m one of the faces Bruce and Elvis sees every day – would we happen to know you?? Somehow I doubt it.
As for change, that’s all well and good when and where it is appropriate, but, on the other hand (and as Bruce may have implied) only an idiot “fixes” something that isn’t broken.
we don’t need a dog park in chimbo. dog owners already have access to that space, why do they have to deny it to everyone else?
JC
Never said the park was not a public park. However, the dog park will be paid for and maintained privately, administered through the Parks and Rec Foundation- a private not for profit that pays for many of of the amenities in our parks.
Bruce
If your dog is killing squirrels ( a natural event in the life of a dog) He most likely off the leash, which at this moment is illegal. Whether you agree with this law or not, it is a fact, and you could be fined for letting him run. The dog park will provide a legal space for dogs to be able to run and get the excercise they need
Parks are for everyone. Nobody should have private use of a park. Period.
That being said, the Church Hill Dog Park is not a “private” organization, nor is it a “private” facility. They are open to the public. This is no more a private facility than a basketball court, or a tennis court or a Picnic Shelter.
Just because everyone doesnt have a dog, doesnt mean there shouldnt be a place where dogs can play safely and owners can socialize. Every park use cannot serve every person.
Picnickers have picnic shelters in parks. Hikers and Walkers have trails. basketball players have hoops. tennis players have courts. Canoeists have places to put in and take out. People with kids have playgrounds. People with dogs have doggie parks.
Just because I dont have kids doesnt mean I think playgrounds shouldnt be allowed in parks. Playgrounds meet an important need in the community and I support their development. I dont think they infringe on my rights as a citizen without kids. I also support tax dollars to build playgrounds, even though I dont use them.
Parks are places for people to play. Every facility may not serve every person, but parks should provide opportunity for a diversity of activity for the community. Dog parks meet that criteria.
Leisure is so important to our quality of life. People play in different ways. We are lucky in Church Hill to have some great parks and open spaces. Let’s do our best to protect them and provide appropriate access and support facilities to allow all our citizens to fully enjoy these shared resources.
Hi folks, my dog “Sayde” and I are getting ready to move to the Church Hill area (around the 2800 block of East Grace) and I would like to help in anyway that is needed with the ongoing development of the dog park. I’m expeceted to move in the next couple of weeks and the one thing I was really concerned about was is there going to be a dog park near to where we would be moving? Through this website which I started checking out about a month ago (which is wonderful by the way to whom ever maintains it, great job) I learned of the happenings in reference to the dog park. Needless to say I was thrilled. I’m moving from an area in Maryland where the city that I live in has two dog parks and there is a push now for a third which would be walking distance from the town center. I am very excited about moving to the Church Hill area of Richmond and very happy to know about the soon to be dog park in the Church Hill area (as I’m sure my dog Sayde will be too). I can tell you that it is so nice to have a place on a daily basis weather permitting to take your dog to be able to run off the leash. It’s also good for getting to know other dog owners in the area. Again, if there is anything anyone needs who is involved with the project that a newcommer such as myself could help with….please by all means let me know what to do and who to contact. One more thing, for all the nay-sayers of such a woderful idea & project “Give Me A Break”!
Mr. Conkle –
Of these dog parks being constructed around the country (#27), how many of them have been erected on the hallowed grounds of a Civil War memorial park?
I’m all for dog parks, but I don’t see how the construction of a dog stockade on the site selected is remotely consistent with the historic, pastoral and reflective qualities of Chimborazo Park. Personally, I think the unused space down in the Gilley Creek area would be a far more appropriate and less intrusive space for a dog park.
Lower Chimborazo, where the Dog Park is going to be located, is practically in a ravine and really far away from most of the goings on at Chimborazo Park proper.
That area has been in disrepair and neglected for years. Most people who frequent that area are scrounging for old bricks and medicine bottles for their antiquities collections. To the west of the proposed area, it has basically been a dumping ground.
We’ve ridden are bikes down there now and again, but it’s pretty treacherous. Seems to me a great use of a space that has gone unused and neglected for a long time.
“Hallowed grounds of a Civil War memorial park”? If people never built on or near anything related to the Civil War, there would be nothing ever built in Virginia. Practically the whole state was a battleground.
Laura Daab –
With all due respect, I believe you are mischaracterizing both the park and its usage. While the wooded area and trail between Lower Chimborazo and Gilley Creek can indeed be considered “practically in a ravine”, the same cannot be said for the park itself.
As someone who enjoys the use of Lower Chimbo on a regular basis, I also take issue with your statement that the only people using that space are people “scrounging for old bricks and medicine bottles”. From first-hand observation, I can tell you that the space is used by dog owners, bicyclists and people taking a leisurely stroll or hanging out in the field by the picnic areas. Before the park was damaged by Tropical Storm Gaston and fell into disrepair (understandable given the City’s limited resources), groups used that space for gatherings and other recreational purposes. To say the site in question is and was unused appears to be the canard that the proponents of the dog park have used to legitimize the expropriation of the central area of Lower Chimborazo Park. I would also add that had the area been revitalized earlier, many of the individuals and groups that have generally avoided the area since Gaston would be enjoying the use of that space again, but it appears that much, if not all, of that usage will be strangled in the crib.
j –
You’re comparing apples to oranges. We’re not talking about developing some overgrown tangle of woods where Union scout might have bumped into a Confederate picket at some point during the Civil War. We’re talking about construction on an existing park (acquired 1874) that was the site of Chimborazo Hospital, where scores of soldiers died in the service of their land and their countrymen (perhaps that would explain the Statue of Liberty facing the setting sun?).
I’m sure we could argue about the intent and the usage of Chimborazo Park, but I don’t think there is any arguing about the human and historic significance of this site. Nevertheless, that wasn’t my point. My point was that there appears to be completely unused public land in the Gilley Creek area that would be a far more appropriate and less intrusive space for a dog park. It appears to me that the selection of the Gilley Creek site would have preserved the use of all of Chimborazo Park for all residents and visitors while putting an unused, undeveloped parcel of public land to good use.
I’m curious – were any veterans or historic preservation groups brought into the site-selection process?
I do understand the significance of Chimborazo Park as a historic site. If the dog park were being proposed for anywhere on top of the hill I would be opposed. But the bottom of the hill has been dumpy for years and will continue to be that way until people have more of a reason to go down there.
The point of having the location at the bottom of Chimborazo Park would be so that a large amount of people can walk there easily. It is difficult to walk to Gillies Creek Park.
I also wish they would better connect the bottom of Chimborazo to the rest of the park, Williamsburg Road and maybe even all the way around to Libby Hill. Better connection to Gillies Creek Park would be nice too. A sidewalk down Government Road would help as well as maybe a direct path through the trees.
Having three parks right next to each other that are not connected is ridiculous.
i second j’s post. having some continuity between the park system on the east side of town makes sense.
as for the dog park, i am new to the area but it seems that a section of the park which has not been in use for a while by the public is being rejuvenated by those who would like a dog park.
i am a dog lover, but not an owner and it seems that anyone raising such alarm over the dog park should answer the question: what would you prefer the space to be used as, and where were you months to years ago when that section of the park was overgrown and unused?
just my two cents.
isn’t this proposed chimbo dog park in an old & historic area? has C.A.R approved this project? this sounds like a job for larry d. and his balls.
Anne N:
I think the carport landed on your sister.
Welcome to the neighborhood, CHnewbi.
Pardon me for answering your question with a question, but where were you prior to August 31, 2004? Before Tropical Storm Gaston trashed lower Chimborazo Park, dog owners, joggers, walkers, picnickers, bicyclists and various youth, church and recreational groups all enjoyed the use of the space that is being considered for the new dog park. Tell me, after waiting patiently for the City to allocate the resources (i.e., our tax dollars) necessary to revitalize the park for everyone’s enjoyment, why we should punish the general public by rewarding the exclusive use of a space we have all been using and enjoying for years in lower Chimborazo Park to accommodate a bunch of irresponsible dog owners who were issued citations for violating the rules in upper Chimborazo Park a couple months ago?? Screeewwwwwwwww THAT.
It’s time to dispense with the lie that the central field in lower Chimborazo Park has not been used before, during and after the arrival and carnage of Tropical Storm Gaston, because it has been enjoyed by scores of residents and visitors for decades.
Steer away from the water buckets, Dabb.
JC:
Is that a disenchanted building inspector for Williamsburg that lives on N. 27th St. behind the curtain?
Still sore about us getting the O&H eh? So sad.
l.d.:
you are all for old & historic districts until it conflicts with your own self interests. then, it is becomes inconvenient.
Well…I don’t have dogs and it would be nice if that were a space all of us could use…but on the other hand if it will give my neighbors a place, other than in front of my house, to let their dogs relieve themselves…then I am all for it!
If I did have a dog I would probably avoid it anyway. I don’t think I would be willing to expose myself or my animal to possible aggression.
i was hoping to hear ms daab defend herself but i guess all she has for her defense showing her arse nice to know you dont have to follow your own rules.
i’m disappointed that this area is no longer a huge outdoor hospital with thousands of recovering soldiers laid out in canvas tents. what about the soldiers? why do you not care about us? we were there long before you ever were. i am against this “dog park” and i plan on haunting every single one of you who use it in a very scary and consistent manner.
Anne N and thepinch:
I defend the dog park. So what if it’s in an O&H?
If you want to talk about zoning, O&H’s do not regulate usage, plain and simple. You cannot use me as a scapegoat for this one. Pretty lame try.
As for my “arse,” that’s reserved for Jim.
Some of these comments are bordering on being downright ridiculous and becoming quite entertaining.
It’s amazing how childish the rhetoric can get… do your parents know you are using the computer? Now why don’t you STFU and let the grown-ups talk.
The lower park has to be used for something. As it stands right now it has no identity. Sure there may be the occasional event, picnic, drug deal down there but it is very limited at best.
Now for those against the dog park, have you ever driven by one of the other dog parks on a nice spring evening or weekend? It is loaded with people.
Leaving the area a non-descript, shabbily maintained area would never attract the usage a dog park would.
There still is the entire upper park for gathering.
however, “the other mike” (if that is your real name), the lower park would attract more ghosts if left in its current state. currently there are several who frequent the area…mostly ones that can’t get into belle isle or that scary ass theater on 25th due to a minor tormented level. give the lower park ten more years of abandonment, and there will surely be more. please, that’s all i’m asking. why are you so anti-ghost, the other mike? and laura? and all you others? what gives? perhaps you’ve heard of this word in your fancy-pants lawyer clubs: it’s called “unghostification,” and it is no laughing matter. when you take out the “ghost” and all you have left is “unification” what happens then? you have a really silly, useless word, that’s what.
civil war ghost:
Taking a break from the WGA picket line? Negotiate your contract and get back to work. We’re tired of re-runs!
It’s not going to take up the entire lower portion of the park!
I’d imagine that there will be more than enough space for everyone to do whatever it is that they want down there (that includes the rattling of chains and plaintive wailing of ghosts).
I’m sure that if people want more picnic tables, bbq spaces and enclosures the same methods used to get the CHDP under way could be utilized to those ends.
lordy…exactly how much crack is being used by people in our neigborhood?
Chimbo (#57): Now that’s just not right! There’s no need to go dragging our neighborhood crack dealers through the mud. I have it on good word from the Crack Dealers Assoc. that they are meeting next Tuesday to talk about increasing output to get us down from this $100 per mark. Up until now this was a spirited debate focused on the dog park. Why the need to make it personal by slandering these valuable members of our neighborhood economy?
This from CAR’s website:
“The Commission also assists and advises City Council, all City Boards and Departments, and property owners in matters involving historic resources relating to appropriate land use, zoning, and other issues.”
Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but it appears that the O&H does indeed regulate usage (why wouldn’t it?). I also imagine that the O&H would impact the choice of materials that could be used within the park (?).
civil war ghost:
Are you the punk who came up with the bright idea of putting a dog park on Yorktown Battlefield Park?
FIX BAYONETS!
indeed so what if its in an o&h. well said. im am sure you would change your tune to fit your needs. not that it matters. all i wanted was for you too answer peoples questions without the “so sad” attitude. i like your stratagy though, belittle people who question you. i dont know why im so surprised, ive actually come to expect these things from churchill. it truely is so sad.
I don’t mean to interrupt the childish name calling but..
Is there a timeframe as to when the park will be open?
JC (#30)-
perhaps you should read my post more carefully too… i’m not attacking you or anyone else personally- and YES i am a user of the park, and was so even more before winter hours set in and now can’t make it there before dark.
as for “only an idiot “fixes†something that isn’t broken”… we are fixing something that is broken! Broken to us is the fact that we lacked a space to freely excersize our dogs- so we are fixing it by being proactive about it- we got city and Parks&Rec support and we’re moving forward! we are not taking up the whole park, we just want a little corner where we can excersize our dogs without worrying non-doggie people.
what exactly is wrong with having a dog park anyway? you keep jabbering on about ‘irresponsible’ dog owners, etc… (gross over-generalization!) so i would think you would be glad to have doggies off in a designated area??
i just don’t get why you’re so pissed off about it….
To other mike: we hope by spring the fence will be up. It all depends on how fast we raise the money hence the reason why we are pushing for funds and people to hold fundraisers.
To whomever asked if the dog park will be in an O&H district: the answer is no. That’s the first thing we checked.
No worries Crystal. It’s just people who try to find something to grab onto when there is nothing to grab onto to support their case.
They want to blame me for the dog park and everything else they don’t like in the hood.
Supposing there’s an O&H conspiracy behind everything in Church Hill suites their interests.
OK so now we know the park is not in an O&H, however I must chime in here. From conversations I have had with Saul Gleiser, the former CAR secretary, the CAR only has jurisdiction over the design features in an O&H, not usage. To “assist and advise” does not mean regulate. It means they are there for a resource for the council if needed. If a dog park was proposed, and approved by the city, CARs only jurisdiction would be in the design of the fence and any other structures built in conjunction with the park.
Also, the same folks who keep insisting on dragging Ms. Daab and the new O&H into this dog park conversation, are the folks who opposed the O&H in the first place. They seem to be sore losers who are trying to find reasons to demean this designation and those who worked so hard for it.
I see your broom has crossed my sword again, Madame Dabb. Have it your way – En Garde!
Permit me to remind you that our previous disagreement concerned your flawed interpretation of the language in the O&H ordinance and its enforcement, not whether or not I supported the ordinance itself. Surely you recall, it was I who argued in favor of the enforcement of the ordinance in strict accordance with the letter of the law – a position, unlike your own, that was backed by the City Attorney’s Office. End of argument.
I’m sorry if you’re still smarting from our last encounter, but there’s no need to feel sorry for me, my poor little Pavlovian poodle.
John Conner:
You are FUBAR! And nuts!
EcoGirl –
Let me be clear – I am not opposed to the establishment of a dog park in our neighborhood. My issue was with the process and the selection of the site. I apologize to the law-abiding dog owners that I may have inadvertently tarred along with the scofflaws in upper Chimbo Park, but I haven’t changed my position about rewarding certain individuals for their bad behavior. I would like to see a solution that would satisy the interests of ALL the people in this community, and locating the dog park between the picnic areas does not satisfy that criteria. I think the locations suggested by M (#6) or Mike (#35) would satisy everyone’s interests.
BACK PEDDLING!!!!!
Reply to #34 David W
Welcome to the neighborhood! I used to live in Maryland and am a new resident to Church Hill as well – it’s a great place. Believe me all the crazy comments on this blog are not indicative of the neighbors in general.
We’d welcome your involvement in getting this park up and running. If you are interested in coming to a meeting, check out the yahoo group at: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/chimbodogs/
I hope the move goes well and I’m looking forward to meeting you!
To the folks who are concerned that their use of the lower park will be constrained. Anyone is welcome to walk there – the proposed dog park will only take up a portion of the area. Folks will be able to ride bikes and there will be plenty of lawn space available for picnics. I’ve never seen anyone picnicing under the shelters but surely we could get more of them if there was a need? This argument that the dog park will exlude other users from this area is really a false ‘either or’ situation (for those of you with some training in logic – that will make sense).
Whenever I go there I run into people who warn me to stay away from the lower Chimbo park because its not safe. I’ve been told that to walk my dog there alone is irresponsible and that I’m asking to be assaulted. So I never go there unless I’m with at least one other person. With a dog park, a parking area and renovated lights, more people will feel comfortable using the non-dog-park areas of lower Chimbo now than ever before.
So I don’t understand when people say the dog park advocates are co-opting this space – from who? A select few who in fact will be welcome to use the area as much as they want?
I can understand that some folks have had the place pretty much all to themselves and have had the luxury of letting their dogs run around off leash because there is no one down there to complain. I can understand how from this perspective how an influx of lots more park users might not be appealing! To those folks, perhaps you will eventually find that your dogs enjoy the dog park just as well – and plus you’ll get to know some of your neighbors, so maybe it won’t be so horrible.
Perhaps for those seeking solitude, the Gillies Creek ravine, which is inaccessible by car and completely overgrown and hard to get to, might be a good option?
I’ll see what I can do, Bill.
Oh – and I though JC was Jesus Christ.
K –
I don’t know who you have been talking with, but the park is not anywhere near as dangerous as you have been told. Unaccompanied men and women have been walking their dogs down there for years and I am unaware of there ever having been a single incident involving an assault, robbery or rape in the park. Given that the criminal activity in the park occurs after dark, when no one is supposed to be there, the dog park is going to have absolutely no impact on that activity.
As for the location of the park, the doggy enclosure will indeed alter and restrict the access and usage of the central area of Lower Chimbo. Whether you want to admit it or not, the enclosure does introduce an “eithor-or” dynamic into that area (I’m not even going to get into the issue of its negative impact on the aesthetics of the lower park – GAG!).
As for the picnic areas, there’s no need to build new ones at taxpayer expense when the dog park, which has yet to be built, can be moved towards Government Road at no expense. What exactly is the fixation you have with locating the park in the center of the park, anyway? Why can’t it be tucked away in the eastern extremity of the park where it will be out of the general public’s way? Or is it that it never occurred to you to look past your own interests and consider the people who will not be using the dog park? Is that consideration – minimizing your impact on the park – too much to ask of the proponents of the dog park?? Is this a give and take situation or just take and take? I think the answer to that is painfully self-evident.
You’ll pardon me if I fail to perceive the altruism that isn’t at work here – the proponents of the dog park are only doing themselves a favor locating the enclosure in the middle of the park. I honestly don’t think any of you gave a passing thought to the interests of those who won’t be using the dog park.
Our parks are indeed public spaces and hopefully everyone can find a piece of the public commons to suit their needs. We understand that not everyone will agree on park amenities, be it an off leash dog area, a new statue or a playground. There is never a perfect solution to anything. We strived to reach out to the community to discuss possibilities and ideas. To give everyone a little background on our efforts, we have been posting to CHPN with updates and have tried to encourage constructive dialogue, we have provided information to the local neighborhood associations, sent a letter of support to the City signed by hundreds of local residents, contacted local businesses, had monthly open meetings, and have partnered with the Richmond Recreation and Parks Foundation.
We are working with the City Parks and Recreation Department and they have determined the location that would best fit with their overall plans for the park. When we first approached the City we expressed our interest in developing a dog park in Church Hill and were open to site locations. We initially suggested the far east end of the lower park and the little open space below the new wall near the playground. The City consulted their park planners and facilities staff and came back to us with the current site location, which fits with their plans and meets the criteria required to ensure that the site is safe, accessible and well maintained.
While you may not agree with all aspects of the project, we are your neighbors and fellow community members and have rallied to organize in order to do our part to create a better community for everyone – dog owners and non dog owners alike. Again, we know that the public commons is about balancing out the needs of the entire community, requiring compromises on everyone’s part. We hope that all of our neighbors can help be a positive force and will work to find appropriate solutions and resources to make this a success.
We also encourage folks to read up on dog parks and the role they play in other communities. http://www.freeplay.com http://www.dogplay.com
Whether you agree/disagree, love us/ hate us, are a dog owner/ or not, you like chocolate or vanilla, sunrise or sunsets, you are welcome to join the committee, attend the meetings or get in touch with us to discuss your ideas. Or if you are interested in meeting one of us for a cup of coffee to discuss your ideas we can meet at Buzzy’s anytime.
The Church Hill Dog Park Committee
chimbodogs@hotmail.com
Wow! Who knew that the dog park was such a volatile issue? I signed the dog park petition months ago when it first appeared at Buzzy’s (yet another public venue) because while — at that time — I was dog-less, I supported another safe usage of the park. A few weeks ago I got a new dog, in part, because of the proposed dog park.
I walked him in lower Chimbo this morning and saw one other dog owner. No ghosts, vagrants, picnickers or others appeared to be using the area.
I’ve taken my dog to Barker Field and loved it … however, I think it is a bit absurd to drive my dog to a dog park. Before anyone jumps in and tells me to walk him there … I have walked to Byrd park and will do so again, but now with a 5 month old dog who would be too exhausted to walk all the way back.
I am an advocate of leashes and wouldn’t trust my very friendly dog to run around unattended in an unfenced area. And for all the people who are concerned about dog poop… many of us in CH scoop, bag … all you have to do is check the park trash cans. The only place I have noticed dog poop is around Nolde…
And last I checked ghosts liked dogs… after all dogs can actually see them.
im not exactly sure of the numbers but i am sure there are at least 25,000 people living in churchill. how is a few hundred signatures even considered an argument. and i also like to use lower chimbo to walk my dogs. mostly because it is quiet and one of the few places in the immediate area you can feel like your not in the city. i guess not for much longer.