I want to publicly thank our Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commissioners for voting that a dog park should not be built at Brand Park. I hope our City Council is listening since it is the ultimate decider of the dog park issue.
The commission met last Monday. With the exception of one speaker who supported Brand Park, everyone else who spoke, both in person and phoning in, all opposed this location with good reasons.
The above vote has me breathing a bit easier. Brand may look large but it is not. One area is hilly and has a large children’s play area with picnic tables. The middle has two youth ballfields. The spot wanted for the dogs is the only area left open for all park users to enjoy.
Another location, suggested by the Dog Park Feasibility Study consultant from the RJM Design Group, was Palmer Park near Adams Square and the commissioners voted against this also since it was also deemed not appropriate.
While the feasibility study itself was approved, the commissioners voted the locations of this now controversial park should be both at the city owned Parking Lot 11, located on Colorado across the street from Central Park, and the GCC Garfield campus and that the parks be divided into areas for assorted sizes [of dogs]. This had always been on the table when the issue first arose.
Dog parks eventually become dirty over time. Dust will fly everywhere. I hope the Council will agree with the commissioners. If there are any doubts about this, I suggest they take a look at the dog parks at Griffith Park and Silverlake, which are located in areas that do not impact park users.
Carol Brusha
Glendale
First published in the September 23 print issue of the Glendale News-Press.
