Council Meeting Goody Bag
Someone requested I do this so...
On this Tuesday's Sept. 22nd city council agenda are two items of interest.
ITEM #1) Appeal of a decision of the Nuisance Abatement Board declaring property at 30085 McBurney a nuisance.
Here is a summary of the staff report:
This property was approved for construction in 1991 but never completed. It was then purchased from the original owner in 1999. Between 1992 and 1999 it was left in an unfinished state.
This property owner started and stopped rehabilitation of the home several times. However, the work was done without the appropriate permits.
In 2002 there was a complaint about someone living in an RV on the property, and more building code violations.
This property owner was given several extensions of time to acquire his permits and submit plans. Alas, here we are with a still unfinished house, trash and debris strewn all over the property, and a home placed in Nuisance Abatement.
The owner, Mr. Cal Bellini, is appealing the Declaration of Nuisance.
ITEM #2) Consideration of a proposed Dog Park at McVicker Park
A letter and petition with nearly 200 signatures was submitted to the city requesting that a dog park/designated off leash area be established at McVicker Park. The proposal is to designate the fenced area of the lower baseball field for use as a dog park during the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Monday through Friday.
Approval is being recommended by staff. The estimated cost to the city is $2,000.00 for signs, installation, and doggie depots with trash bags for, well, you know.
So, what's your input/opinion???
On this Tuesday's Sept. 22nd city council agenda are two items of interest.
ITEM #1) Appeal of a decision of the Nuisance Abatement Board declaring property at 30085 McBurney a nuisance.
Here is a summary of the staff report:
This property was approved for construction in 1991 but never completed. It was then purchased from the original owner in 1999. Between 1992 and 1999 it was left in an unfinished state.
This property owner started and stopped rehabilitation of the home several times. However, the work was done without the appropriate permits.
In 2002 there was a complaint about someone living in an RV on the property, and more building code violations.
This property owner was given several extensions of time to acquire his permits and submit plans. Alas, here we are with a still unfinished house, trash and debris strewn all over the property, and a home placed in Nuisance Abatement.
The owner, Mr. Cal Bellini, is appealing the Declaration of Nuisance.
ITEM #2) Consideration of a proposed Dog Park at McVicker Park
A letter and petition with nearly 200 signatures was submitted to the city requesting that a dog park/designated off leash area be established at McVicker Park. The proposal is to designate the fenced area of the lower baseball field for use as a dog park during the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Monday through Friday.
Approval is being recommended by staff. The estimated cost to the city is $2,000.00 for signs, installation, and doggie depots with trash bags for, well, you know.
So, what's your input/opinion???
posted by Melissa Melendez at
11:26 PM
7 Comments:
I don't think there is any need for an added dog park with an expense for the City, the public beach (lakeshore) is already used for a dog park, everyday, all day, people bring their dogs to this area and let them run wild, in and out of the water and all over the beach!!!
Seems to me the city has enough problems keeping dogs on leashes in the parks as it is. Why should we allow dog owners to have a park all to themselves, if they can't even respect the parks where we allow our children to play? And pet parks make sense in highly populated areas where there isn't a lot of grassy space, but I would think that almost everyone in LE has a yard, so there is no real need for a pet park. If you don't want your own pets to play in your own yards, why should the city spend the money to allow pets to play in theirs? Save our money.
1 --- If the owner lived next to me, it would be a nuisance, but since he doesn't, I don't care as much. Putting myself in the shoes of the neighbor, I would say, get rid of it.
2 --- Dog park? I don't care either way.
So it's going to be a free for all out there with dogs?Don't the rest of us who use the park have a say in this? I'm not taking my kids out there to play and run the risk of them stepping in what's left behind by inconsiderate dog owners. I hope you all give this some thought because the rest of us don't want our park ruined by others animals. Last time I checked, we all pay our taxes to have that park, not just dog owners.
Thanks for the comments everyone!
Look and see if the home has a septic permit. I don't think you can put a septic tank within 50' feet of a water way. This home is clearly in a water way.
If people do not want dog lovers to share the park with children, that is acceptable. We always talk about the overcrowding in our shelters, but people don't adopt because they don't think its fair to have a dog in a small yard. I think a dog park is a wonderful idea, and yes we want the responsible pet owners to clean up after themselves, I am a proud dog owner and cleaner-upper. I think having a park would also give shelter dogs a better chance in getting adopted. There is so much vacant land in the city, you shouldnt have any problems finding 2 or even 3 locations for parks. Let the kids have the ball park, and enforce the leash law in public beaches. But give us a park or two, even three! There is plenty of room for everyone and its just a matter of some sod, fencing, and if you want to charge a nominal fee to pay for it all, I'm willing !! As long it's not a ridiculous amount like over $1.50 per dog. And make it available from sunup to sundown.
Post a Comment
<< Home