Comments for Richmond Hill K9 Klub

Comment on Letters of support for the Richmond Hill Dog Park by another park supporter

another park supporter — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:24:09 +0000

I am not the only person who thinks it is a bad idea to hold a party in the vicinity of the dog park. Some of us are just shaking our heads with this bad judgement.

It is not permanent yet. Hold the party somewhere else other than near the park. It is a question of basic human psychology. To hold a celebratory party in front of the noses of these people could easily incite a frenzy of activity. Think about it. The park is not even permanent yet and you are already celebrating the victory. That is the what these people are going to see. Arrogance on the part of the dog people is what they will see.

Once the park is permanent and the Town declares it permanent, not the k9 Klub, then hold a party if you simply cannot hold yourselves back.

At least hold the party away from the park area.

It is not the fact that they disagree. It is the tactics that they are using that is the concern.

Give these people a chance to get over losing the battle before you celebrate anything.

One person suggested patroling the perimeters of the park in the am for some time after the park becomes permanent.

My best suggestion is to celebrate if the park becomes permanent, not now.

If you insist, celebate well awsy from the park.

It is not that we don’t have the right to celebrate the park,but celebrating one year is premature and potentially can bring an unwanted backlash from people who may become more desperate to win.

After all, really they are concerned that property values will drop.

Money can drive people to do nasty things. For them, they believe they will lose tens of thousands of dollars.

Be patient and let the dust settle.

Comment on Letters of support for the Richmond Hill Dog Park by yet another park supporter

yet another park supporter — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:52:43 +0000

This type of concern is there regardless of timing. If it’s your belief that we need to be any less vigilant once the off leash area is approved by the Town, you’re mistaken. But we have to be able to feel comfortable acknowledging the hard work that has been done and celebrating our community of dog owners in the meantime. It is no one’s intent to deliberately generate ill-will. By the same argument, our presence with our dogs at the park on a daily basis is an affront to those people and will continue to be so after the pilot project phase is over, if we’re still there. We respect the fact that they have a right to disagree about the off-leash area, but when should we feel we have a right to enjoy ourselves without fear of ‘waving a red flag’? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Comment on Letters of support for the Richmond Hill Dog Park by another park supporter

another park supporter — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:46:43 +0000

I certainly understand where you are coming from on the party issue. I was in fact joking about the director’s house.

However,we are dealing with people that are willing to create a petition that is full of fiction. The park was also locked up twice in the winter.

That is called criminal mischief and is punishable by up to 2 years in jail. So we are not dealing with normal dissent. At least one person who is against the park is willing to sneak around at night and commit a criminal act. So, I think we should be thinking about protecting our dogs and the park. I know of a case in Thornhill Park, a few years ago, where a guy came into the park with a shotgun because a puppy ran into his yard which backed onto the park. It was a very affluent area and completely unexpected. Yes,he was arrested.

So, there is no need to crawl under a rock, but I think it is only common sense to party someplace else for now.

Of course, if the k9 Klub director’s go ahead with this early celebration and something bad happens as a result, it is on their conscience.

Again, I say don’t wave a red flag in front of a bull if you don’t want to be gored.

Comment on Letters of support for the Richmond Hill Dog Park by yet another park supporter

yet another park supporter — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:27:45 +0000

I agree that everyone with a positive thought or feeling to share about their park experiences needs to send those sentiments to the town using the email you have published on the website. The lengthy rebuttal was, in fact, addressed to the Town, Councillor Lynne Foster and the RHK9K. All stakeholders were included in the correspondence and it is important to continue this mandate.
Having the anniversary party at a director’s house is a nice idea but rather impractical given the potential size of the crowd, don’t you think? I don’t know many people with homes big enough to accommodate such an undertaking…As for the choice of venue, there have been other community BBQs held in the parking lot (by CIBC etc) in the past which have been a huge success.
Waiting until the permanence of the off-leash area is a ‘fait accompli’ might seem more prudent, but the idea here is not that of ‘waving a red flag in front of a bull’ but rather that in the face of dissent, we are gathering as park supporters to celebrate a year of hard work and enjoyment at a community event. There is a latin saying which goes: “Virtutis Fortuna Comes” which roughly translated means: “Good fortune is the companion of Courage”. We should never become arrogant about our leash-free area, but neither should we hide under a rock in the meantime.

Comment on Letters of support for the Richmond Hill Dog Park by another park supporter

another park supporter — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:29:05 +0000

Great rebuttal. Remember though that the most important thing to do is email plui@richmondhill.ca with your positive experiences at the park.

Because 200 people signed the petition sponsored by the people who live on the street that borders the park, I really think holding an anniversry party in the plaza is a very bad idea. it is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Why not wait until the park is permanent. At the very least, hold your party well away from these people How about at a director’s house?

Remember that the park was padlocked twice in the winter by someone who opposes the park and I would not want to antagonize these people again at this point. How about some common sense?

Comment on Petition to Close Richmond Hill Dog Park Filed! by another park supporter

another park supporter — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:36:07 +0000

The petition drafted by Yuri Gerber? and the other 2 main complainers contains false and misleading statements. Just because Yuri says it does not make it true. We all know that the park is very quiet. Nothing in the pettion is true other than the fact that Yuri et al wants the park relocated. Richmond Hill is a great place and the Town will properly look into the allegations. They will dismiss it as having no merit.

Yuri, when you buy a house that backs onto property that does not belong to you, there is always a risk that something will be put there that you do not like. It is obvious that you are concerned about your property value dropping, but that is the risk you took when you bought that huge and beautiful estate.I doubt that values would drop because your view changed from Canadian Tire to a dog park. Why don’t you just neuter your dogs and come into the park and enjoy what is so close to you or just sell and move?

Comment on PETITION UPDATE – July 21, 2010 by Mike P

Mike P — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 01:34:04 +0000

I agree with Judi. You can also add the fact that the creation of their houses or the whole subdivision led to the destruction of many wild life habitats well before the park created. If the people in this neighbourhood ever had a family event or people over, the additional cars parked on the street also contributes to the congestion, pedestrian incidents, and disobeyed road rules they attribute to the park. Dog park or not there will be people visiting the parks and nature trails because thats where you take dogs for walks. Where would they like us to walk our dogs? In circles in our backyard? The dog park is also a volunteer run / maintained facility. If they are upset about our tax dollars going into a dog park then I’m equally upset that my tax dollars are going into local parks. I don’t have kids so why should I pay for those parks. Fortunately for these petitioners we are a community and we support each other. We pay taxes to support and create a happy and thriving community atmosphere. I would never sign a petition to deny their kids a chance to play in a park or anything that will benefit the community. Its upsetting that people are willing to put such time, money and effort into closing a community park. There are so many other issues that need to be addressed yet this is there focus. Unbelievable, you got a beautiful home in an amazing town learn to embrace it.

My suggestion to these petitioners is to become very active with their by-law office and request that their neighbourhoods be properly patrolled.

Comment on PETITION UPDATE – July 21, 2010 by Judi A

Judi A — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:58:17 +0000

I have never been very good at judging distances but I very much doubt that the dog park is as close as 150 ft from anyone’s back yard. I use the park probably twice a week and would like to know what time of day these 200 dogs and dog owners are at the park EVERY DAY. Maybe if I come at that time, I would hear all the barking because I certainly don’t at the time when I do go. This group of homeowners must have an incredible neighbourhood watch program to know that the dog owners are the only ones who disobey stop and speed signs. Also, they believed they had homes in a naturalized setting – I didn’t realize that a mall containing two big box stores (Canadian Tire and Sobeys) and a strip mall containing Shoppers Drug Mart, right off of Yonge Street, a major north/south access route, were part of a naturalized setting. I would think that the bigger noise problem would be from the huge trucks servicing the Canadian Tire and Sobeys. But, I have gone on enough.

Comment on PETITION UPDATE – July 21, 2010 by Christine

Christine — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:40:14 +0000

The petitioners are complaining of the noise level. It would be interesting to know if they would complain about the noise level if it had turned into a children’s play park instead. I’m guessing probably not since I’m sure they have children. Why are people always “okay” with something happening so long as it’s not in their own “backyard?”

Comment on Petition to Close Richmond Hill Dog Park Filed! by Colette

Colette — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:23:28 +0000

Responding to Yuri, let us not mince words, whether we call it ‘closing’ the dog park or ‘relocating’ the dog park, it has the same effect of eliminating the dog park as it stands, where it is, after having been set up, to great cost and effort already outlayed and established of the city and all involved.

Regards,

Colette, dog owner, park (where it is situated) supporter