Proposed St. Petersburg dog park runs into opposition

Fill out this form to email this article to a friend

ST. PETERSBURG — For two years, City Council member Jeff Danner has tried to fulfill a promise to his constituents and get a dog park built in his district.

At first glance, it seemed like the kind of project that would easily win the approval of his colleagues. The park would be paid for with dedicated recreation funds, it would be built on 2 acres of blighted land under a highway overpass and it would create additional green space near one of the city's busiest, urban corridors.

But after years of council members spending thousands of dollars on such pet recreation projects without much objection, the mood is different these days.

Citing budget concerns and an unwillingness to spend nearly $200,000 on a park for dogs, several council members criticized the project Thursday. At a time when St. Petersburg might have to cut $10-million out of its budget because of a recent statewide reform on property taxes, the city needs to be more judicious with its spending, they said.

"Just because we are allowed to spend this money doesn't mean we have to spend it," said council member Leslie Curran, the only council member to vote against the park during a committee meeting Thursday. "I have a real concern with putting dogs first."

"I can't support spending nearly a quarter million dollars on a dog park. That's just me," said council member Wengay Newton, who walked out of the meeting before a vote was taken. "It's nothing against Mr. Danner. It is about being fiscally responsible."

Danner said he understands why some of his colleagues would be reluctant to approve the dog park, but added that the city should use its recreation fund to improve the quality of life of its residents.

"We are not increasing taxes to do this," he said. "This park would be located at a gateway to the city. It would take an area that's being used for illegal dumping and turn it into a beautiful park."

The $191,785 park would be paid for with money from the city's Weeki Wachee Fund, which can only be used for recreation and beautification projects.

It would sit under Interstate 275 near Central Avenue in the Historic Kenwood neighborhood. The vacant stretch of land, which is owned by the Department of Transportation, would have to be fenced in and accessorized with benches, waste bins and a parking lot.

The council will vote on the dog park sometime in late April. A date has not been set yet.

About $14.4-million sits in the city's Weeki Wachee Fund, money earned from the sale of a 440-acre recreation area in Hernando County in 2001. More than $2.1-million of the fund has already been spent on recreation projects, including skate parks, dog parks, a boat dockage project, and the Vinoy Basin Boardwalk.

If the city wants to use the fund wisely, the council should address neighborhoods where there are no playgrounds, Newton said.

Newton, former president of the Westminster Heights Neighborhood Association, said he and his neighbors have been asking for a playground for seven years, but were told the city did not have enough funding.

"There is a difference between a want and a need," he said. "These children have to play in the street and we are talking about a dog park."

But council Chairman Jamie Bennett said it would be shortsighted to write the project off because it is a dog park.

"It's a people park," he said. "It's a park where people bring dogs. It's a place where neighborhoods congregate."

Comments on this article

by Kim	Mar 18, 2008 4:24 PM
200K for a dog park and that doesn't include buying the land? How much could a fence possibly cost?

by Allison	Mar 18, 2008 1:11 PM
There is already a dog park in the Vinoy area. Having another one down the street seems silly. There are NO dog parks in North St Pete, they should put one there!

by paul	Mar 18, 2008 11:27 AM
Newton is right, there are plenty of neighborhoods where there are no parks at all. Children have no where to play safely. How about taking care of the children first, dogs second.

by Loretha	Mar 18, 2008 11:27 AM
Where would Wengay put a children's park? South St Pete? What about North St Pete-people live up here as well and need things like parks and dog parks. Why not do a combo of both? Dog parks give dogs a chance to run and play fetch without

by Nancy	Mar 18, 2008 8:33 AM
Newt is right. The children should get a park first. Then, if money is still available, a dog park would be fine. By the way, I stopped taking my dog to the dog park because the vet told me the dog park has horrible germs to get dogs sick.

by annette	Mar 17, 2008 5:29 PM
what is this world coming to? pets before people? c'mon. i have a dog, we walk around the neighborhood daily. He's had no complaints. it's just ridiculous to spend that kind of money on a dog park when the children are in danger play

by Frankie	Mar 17, 2008 2:56 PM
Wengay would like to see alternative proposals put forward,but this location could really benefit from having a park. The overpass is currently a blighted area next to a homeless shelter. A dog/people park would really make the area better.

by Sharon	Mar 17, 2008 2:22 PM
If the City has land available, and the is $14.4M in the fund, which can only be used for such purposes....where is the dispute or problem? It surely would be a better use for only 1.3% use of available funds?! Sounds like politics at work.

by Pete	Mar 17, 2008 2:05 PM
It will become a homeless park where the neighborhood homeless will set up camp. Trash the place and it will become an eye sore. That neighborhood has a park, so walk your dogs down there

by Frank	Mar 17, 2008 12:35 PM
This Council has a long and proud tradition of putting dogs first. For example, the landmark doggy dining ordinance and Chairman Bennett's conversion of Williams Park to something fit only for dogs. Fiscal restraint is hard on dog and bum issues

by Dave	Mar 17, 2008 12:28 PM
Additionally, the parks are both breeding grounds and "hosts" to diseses in dogs. When a dog poops no matter how fast it is cleaned up, there is potential to spread parasites. This is costly to cure and something a dog doesn't need.

by Paul	Mar 17, 2008 12:09 PM
My ohh my! How this Council is now so concerned with spending OUR money. Just baffling they don't even blink an eye at 1 billion on the Rays scheme but whoa, lets put the brakes on a dog park. I want a recall on all of them.

by Kathy	Mar 17, 2008 12:08 PM
Tolls will make it impossible 4 me to take my dog to F. DeSoto. City spends sooo much on recreation and tourism, what is wrong with making 'friendly'attractions for us? City pays for bike paths, water sports, parks and trails. Residents fir

by Kris	Mar 17, 2008 10:31 AM
This would be a great way to beautify a very visible part of our city and make it usable space for people other than panhandlers. To Mr Newton I say focus on what you can do to get your park not hold back others from getting theirs!

by Paul	Mar 17, 2008 10:09 AM
Newton and Curran are either being disingenuous or they are not too bright. A dog park is for the owners not for the non-tax paying, non voting dogs.

by Marty S.	Mar 17, 2008 10:02 AM
Go Newt! This is why you were elected to the council. Fiscal responsibility. And Chairman Bennett, the issue is not that its a people park, the issue is $200,000.00 plus eternal maintence that we just can't afford right now.

by Pete	Mar 17, 2008 10:00 AM
Wake up, Curran and Newton. It's not dogs you're dissing, it's dog owners. We're citizens of this city too and we vote!

by Rick	Mar 17, 2008 9:54 AM
Don't we have enough dog parks? While native St. Petersburg residents sit hungry, they want a 250K Dog Park??? Priorities in this city are a litle screwded up.