MAILBAG - Feb. 8, 2001

I disagree with your editorial (“Does Huntington Beach really need a

dog park,� Jan. 25).

Many people visit the park and want to see it remain open. The

standing-room-only crowd that filled the Council Chambers on Jan. 10 for

a public meeting was evidence of this.

We all have different interests -- some of us may have children who

use public playground equipment or the skateboard parks, some of us use

running trails or the city pool and some of us have dogs we take to the

dog park.

Contrary to what your editorial stated, the dog park is the only

enclosed public facility in Huntington Beach where dogs can run

leash-free. If the agreed upon alterations to the park -- including

limited hours of operation -- do not silence the neighbors’ complaints,

the park should be moved to an alternate location with a budget provided

by the city.

This solution would accommodate the hundreds of dog park users, and

also satisfy the eight residents bothered by its current location.

CAMIE BOOKER

Huntington Beach

The Independent fills a vital role in our community. Many of us depend

on it to shine a light on many issues that would otherwise be obscured.

Our reliance on you, however, is based on our perception of the

responsibility and duty incumbent on you for objective reporting of the

news and the use of critical thinking in your opinion pieces. Your

editorial about the dog park was sadly lacking on both counts.

You say that eight residents filed complaints. In order for your

readership to develop some sense of the magnitude of the supposed

problem, you should have added that these eight folks represent only four

households in the entire area.

You say changing the hours won’t change the excessive barking these

residents hear. That is true, but only because there is no excessive

barking. These people have manufactured a horror story that has no basis

in objective reality. Calling barking excessive doesn’t make it so.

You indicate that Costa Mesa has had problems with its dog park,

suggesting that dog parks are inherently troublesome. Costa Mesa’s

problems arise from warring factions within the community, and have

nothing whatsoever to do with the dog park itself.

You say that there is already an off-leash park at Dog Beach. The fact

is, Dog Beach is not an off-leash park. Dogs are only allowed off their

leash’s on the wet sand at the water’s edge. Most of the sand at Dog

Beach is dry, thus leaving very little room for off-leash romps.

You say that other towns have “held fast� against creating dog parks.

You should have added that many others, including Santa Monica (which has

two dog parks), have welcomed Dog Parks. Irvine has also recently

established a dog park.

The conclusion you reach is that city officials should “do the right

thing� and close the dog park. Your position would be more credible and

your conclusion more convincing if you had used the simple expedient of

trying to confirm what the four complaining neighbors have alleged. If

you did so, you would find that there is a lot less there than meets the

eye.

If you compare what the four neighbors said at the hearing with what

anyone can readily observe at the dog park, you can only conclude that

the neighbors are relying on distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation

and outright prevarication to make their position prevail.

RICHARD WHISSEN

Huntington Beach

I am writing in response to your dog park article. It was just plain

ridiculous. There are many flaws in your editorial that need to be fixed.

You had a key word in the opening paragraph that really shows how

selfish the writer and residents are. You said a “small group of

Huntington Beach residents.� You also said “specifically eight.� I have

never seen less than eight Huntington Beach residents at Dog Park. That

means those eight are trying to ruin something that a much bigger group

likes.

There is hardly incessant barking. When I am in the parking lot, I

cannot hear any barking. If I were to walk 50 yards further away from the

park to where the houses are, would you expect me to all of a sudden hear

incessant barking? Give me a break.

When these residents moved there, they knew they were going to be

right next to a busy street. That is the so-called incessant traffic they

hear, not dog park traffic.

You said “nearby Costa Mesa has had trouble with its park and the mess

created by it.� Have you ever been to Huntington Beach Dog Park? It is

extremely clean and neat, it has trees and lots of great landscaping.

This is not done at the expense of the city, rather it is funded straight

out of the pockets of its supporters.

KENNETH SEIDEN

Age 14

Huntington Beach

Your editorial (“Does Huntington Beach really need a dog park,� Jan.

25) does not mention that four of the people who spoke at the city’s

Community Service Commission meeting were from one family. Two of whom

were children whose parents had the gall to enable them to use the dog

park as an excuse for poor grades. Most of the complaints voiced by the

homeowners were contradicted by facts from city officials, leaving only

one (of four) potential credible issues remaining -- the noise of the

dogs barking.

More importantly, however, this letter is addressed to the last column

in the article. In this day and age, more people look to the

companionship of pets, despite the fact that most of us have very small

backyards. The dog park allows for dog owners in restricted environments

to meet others with similar interests, while their dogs enjoy exercise

and learn socialization skills. In the long run this enables them to be

better neighbors in their own homes.

The article makes some rampant statements such as, “the Costa Mesa

park has had trouble with the mess created by it.� How about some facts

to support this claim? The next sentence indicates that other towns held

fast against creating dog parks for these reasons. Again, can we have

some specific facts? It is my understanding, to the contrary, that dog

parks are included in most new planned development communities and that

the Huntington Beach Dog Park has been their role model.

I would agree that perhaps the city could have chosen a more secluded

location to build the dog park originally. Central Park is a massive park

that appears to have many undeveloped areas that would be well-suited for

a dog park. Moving the park would no longer require restricted hours that

directly hinder those who need to schedule their time around work hours.

Another section of the park may even provide a more viable location for

dog lovers because lights could be installed to extend hours in the

winter without bother to residents.

Since the park is supported by a nonprofit organization and totally

self-funded, I would expect that the city would contribute funds toward

moving the dog park if this outcome proves necessary. Unfortunately, it

appears that these homeowners will not rest until they have eliminated

the park altogether despite the credibility, or lack thereof, of their

complaints.

I am disappointed with the Independent for printing such an editorial

without any basis for support.

MONA J. FINE

Huntington Beach