Paul,

Many citizens support the dog park. Many don't.

A dog is not a good choice of pet for many situations.  It is cruel for them to only get a chance to stretch their legs when their own feels like walking them. What do they do the rest of the time?

The laws controlling dogs are not arbitrary.  We have to live in a dense area and we need to live by rules.  Some of those rules include controlling one's animals. 

There are 5 dog parks already in Oakland.  

If someone has to have a dog, maybe the Lake is not the best place for them to live.

And every time I hear the argument that elderly people need to have the dog park at the Lake, I want to ask if elderly people will be the only people using the dog park.

So, your entire premise is that people who live near the lake shouldn't have dogs? That's not going to change, ever. The reality is people near the lake have dogs, will always have dogs, and it's not cruel for them to have dogs. That you suggest such is laughable. People in every single city, dense or otherwise, across the planet have dogs. Deal with that fact. It will not change. 

The dog parks in other parts of town are not accessible to MANY people in the area. That's also a fact. The laws controlling dogs are in fact arbitrary, and outlawing them from the 1000 acres of parks in oakland flatlands serves no purpose. none. No other city in America has such draconian laws regarding dogs. Not one. 

And, so what if the thousands of elderly and disabled in the neighborhood are the only ones that use this park? They won't be, but what if they were? Study after study proves that elderly people with dogs LIVE longer, and have better lives. The Lake Merritt area has the densest population of elderly and disabled people in all of Oakland and Alameda County. Check out this video, and tell me how this woman in a wheelchair is cruel to her dog and should live elsewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJQDr4cLn1U

Paul,

The irresponsible actions of some dog owners led to a demand to enforce laws.  

People all over the world own dogs.  That does not justify irresponsible dog ownership in Oakland.  Proper dog care, including proper space, is a very important part of responsible dog ownership.

For example, German Shepherds are cute.  However, keeping a pair cramped in an apartment is unfair.  Walking them once a day or taking them to a dog park a couple of times a week is not sufficient exercise for them.

Just because I say I "love" them or call them my "children" does not make them any less animals with needs.

By the way, unless the dog park is specifically for elderly or disabled people, you're exploiting them to get sympathy for your cause.  That is very cheap.

we're not exploiting anyone anymore than you are exploiting children or soccer players. We have heard from hundreds of elderly in the area that this would be a huge benefit to their lives. Here is a video with a sampling of those that testified at planning, including a Gerontologist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJQDr4cLn1U. 

Unless you have statistics that show any significant amount of german shepherd owners are keeping them in cramped, inhumane conditions, I suggest you present that. Otherwise, making these claims that people by the lake are somehow mistreating their pets is yet another red herring from you.

We don't need "statistics." We need common sense.

I visited someone who lived near the Lake.  There was a lot of noise in his apartment.  I asked him what it was. He said the woman above him had two large retrievers and they played in the apartment all day.  They had hardwood floors.  He also said they sometimes played in early morning and in the middle of the night.

He could not move out because he had a lease.

That woman was extremely inconsiderate to both her neighbors and the dogs.

Oakland has more important issues than catering to such selfishness. The money can be spent elsewhere.  

Translation: YOU don't have statistics, or anything to back up ANY of your claims. You have a few one-off specious claims of randomness. I knew someone who got into a fight with a soccer player. The soccer player was really rude. I once got bumped in a restaurant by a soccer player. I have seen tons of trash left in that park after the 8 guys play soccer for an hour on Sunday. Should we ban soccer? That is the same logic you're using here. 

Money? Most of the money set aside for this project are private donations, and donations from corporations. It won't be spent elsewhere. So, don't worry about that.

Allowing hundreds of people in the neighborhood to have a small space to go and exercise and socialize with other people and their dogs is selfish? How exactly is that selfish?

LOL:

Kheven: "I don't need no stinkin' statistics! I've got fear-mongering and stereotypes anecdotes! You guys are selfish for wanting half an acre out of the 150 acres you can't use around the lake. Me and my unselfish friends want it all."

Can that private money be spent on some more serious issues in Oakland? We have 116 murders so far in Oakland.  If your problem is keeping a pet in your apartment, get goldfish. Hamsters and guinea pigs can also be kept in an apartment.  In the real world, this really is a non-issue.

Do you think there would honestly be a study or statistic on German Shepherds being crammed in small apartments around the Lake? If you need some facts on raising animals in confined places, I suggest some basic books on dog care. Once again, it really isn't a serious issue.  Guinea pigs and hamsters are wonderful pets for an apartment.

Do you know what "stereotype" or "fear-mongering" are? Are basic pet care book "stereotyping" or "fear-mongering"?

I think private money donated to build a dog park probably can't be used for another purpose. If you want money for something you consider more important, have a fundraiser for it.

There are studies on animals being inhumanely treated. They're called animal abuse reports from Oakland Animal Services. Google "Charles Black blueberry" to see what happens when people are caught abusing animals in this town.

You're claiming that large numbers of people are mistreating animals, and therefore a dog park should not be built. Unless you've got something to back this claim up (you know, "statistics"), you're just blowing smoke.

And, stereotyping is when you make broad generalizations about a group of people ("people near the lake are mistreating their dogs") based on unproven anecdotes ("my friend had a neighbor..."). 

Fear mongering is when you try to scare people that this park will be dangerous ("one time a dog lunged at me") without any basis in facts.

More energy has been spent on this issue than on feeding the homeless people.

Get a hamster, a guinea pig or a parakeet.  Spend the money for the dog park on the homeless.