On Wednesday June 28, 2000, Jonathan Rice presented the following statement the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of the City of Charlottesville. The statement was written by Jonathan Rice, Alyson Rice, and Sharon Wright. This statement was prepared in consultation with several dozen local residents.

The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of the City of Charlottesville consists of the following individuals: Linda Bowen, Linda Daly, Johnny Ellen, Gregory Jackson, Maurice Jones, Mary Beth Magyar, Peter McIntosh, Judy Mueller, Pat Plocek, Elissa Rosenberg, Tim Supler, Peggy Van Yahres, and Camille Wilson.

"Thank you for providing this opportunity to discuss some of the concerns local dog owners have regarding the city's parks.

I. The first and broadest concern that most local dog owners have is that we have felt largely excluded from the planning process for the city's parks. Up to now, we feel that city officials have not made an adequate effort to keep us informed about various plans and proposals that have a direct bearing on our interests as park users. We've had a difficult time finding out such basic information as what the nature and scope of the recent renovations at Azalea Park are or where we can take our dogs for off-leash exercise in general. This has been a great source of frustration to us.

Our first goal, therefore, is to create a better dialogue and exchange of information with city officials. As taxpayers and as park patrons, we want our interests and concerns to be taken into account and given their proper due. We think that today's meeting is a very positive step toward that end.

II. Second, we are concerned about the safety of city parks. We think a very few basic improvements would help create a much safer and more enjoyable environment for all park patrons.

(1) We would like to have emergency telephones installed in at least some of the city's larger and more remote parks such as Azalea and Riverview. At present, some dog walkers are reluctant to go to Azalea and Riverview Parks by themselves or in small groups because they are, quite frankly, afraid - and not without good reason: there have been sexual and other criminal assaults at both parks as I'm sure all of you are aware. It is our belief that the availability of emergency telephones would have a very beneficial impact. On the one hand, they would serve as at least some deterrent to crime. On the other hand, they might play a critical role in preventing a medical emergency from turning into a tragedy that could have been avoided. In sum, the availability of such telephones at Azalea and Riverview Parks would make these parks more fully accessible to park patrons than they are at present. We should emphasize that the installation of emergency telephones would be beneficial to all park patrons, and not just those who happen to be walking their dogs.

(2) We would also like to have electric lights installed at Azalea and Riverview Parks. The great majority of us work the traditional 8 or 9-5 schedule. Unfortunately, we've never been able to get our dogs to understand things like "daylight savings time" and they do stubbornly insist on getting their exercise, whether the sun is up or down. This obliges the great majority of us to attempt to walk and exercise our dogs in twilight and in darkness. As you might imagine, this doesn't work very well. We don't need to belabor the point, but it's very difficult to exercise proper control over your dog when you can't see him or her, and it's impossible to clean up after your dog when you can't see your hand in front of your face. Most importantly, it isn't safe. Many of the city and county parks that cater primarily to other types of patrons - e.g. basketball players, softball players, tennis players, etc. have artificial lighting for the safety and convenience of their users. None of the city's parks that cater primarily to dog walkers has ever had artificial lighting despite the clear need. We're not asking that the parks be kept open all night to accommodate dog walkers; we're asking for artificial lighting Monday through Friday until 7 or 8pm so that we can safely walk our dogs after work.

III. All of us are immensely appreciative of the space we presently have for exercising our dogs off-leash. As things stand, we can let our dogs exercise off-leash in parts of Azalea Park (excluding the softball field, basketball court, children's play area, and community gardens - in other words, most of the park). At present, we can also let our dogs exercise off-leash at Riverview Park and along the Greenbelt. I have to tell you, however, that this is not enough space for the current level of demand.

A conservative estimate is that there are at least a couple of hundred local dog owners who currently take their dogs for off-leash walks on a regular basis. The number of dog walkers in Charlottesville compares very favorably with the number of residents who engage in other types of park activities such as playing golf, soccer, softball, basketball, or skateboarding. Moreover, dog walkers are the ONLY park patrons who make use of the city's parks year-round and in all types of weather. Faced with a complete lack of alternatives since late February of this year when the renovations at Azalea Park began in earnest, more and more dog owners have been coming to Riverview Park and the Rivanna Greenbelt. The inevitable consequence of so many dog owners being squeezed into one park is that tensions both with the residents of the surrounding neighborhood and with that park's other patrons such as joggers, bicyclists and fishermen have grown sharply. A little over a year ago I noticed that a large number of senior citizens were out walking the Greenbelt on a daily basis. In the past six months, however, I've seen very few senior citizens on the trail. I'm very concerned about this - I suspect that many of our senior citizens have stopped coming to the Greenbelt not because there are dogs being exercised off-leash there but because there are so many dogs being exercised off-leash there. Now that Azalea Park has reopened to dog owners, there will be a few less people going to Riverview Park every day, but the serious problem of overcrowding at Riverview Park won't be alleviated until additional park space is made available to dog owners.

There are more than 25 parks comprising about 890 acres in the City of Charlottesville. Out of 25 parks, only Azalea and Riverview Park/Rivanna Greenbelt currently have viable off-leash areas for dogs (Even if, as we were recently told, dogs are allowed off-leash in other parks, this is impractical without fences to keep them out of adjoining roads and private properties). On the most generous possible estimate, the space available at these two parks is only about 15 acres. Needless to say, this is a miniscule percentage of the city's parkland and it is disproportionately small in terms of the number of people who want and need space in which to exercise their dogs off the leash.

Fortunately, our interests can be accommodated relatively easily - i.e. simply by making better use of existing park space. At present, there are several city parks that are either under-used or that have excess space that could be put to better use. At Azalea Park, for example, there is a parcel of land on the right as you first enter the driveway that is very seldom used. The recent expansion of the parking lot at Azalea has cut into this space and has made it even less usable than before. The total size of this parcel is roughly half an acre to an acre. If you put an enclosed fence around this area, it would make a great additional space where people could exercise their dogs. As it is, it can't safely be used for the off-leash exercise of dogs because there is no fence between it and the traffic on Old Lynchburg Road. As a second example, At Darden-Towe Park there is an unused parcel of land just beyond the edge of the parking lot (between the picnic shelter and the old barn). Surely the city could spare an acre or so of this land for an enclosed "mini dog park."

In addition, several other city parks - e.g. Belmont, Quarry, and Meade - are underutilized. Yet all of these parks are surrounded by a large number of residents who own dogs and who want space in which to exercise their dogs off-leash. The construction of small fenced-in areas of anywhere from half an acre to two acres within three or four city parks would make a tremendous difference to local dog owners.

We should emphasize that the creation of three or four "mini dog parks" within existing city parks would not only benefit the city's dog owners; it would be to the advantage of all of the city's park patrons because it would alleviate the overcrowding at Riverview Park/Rivanna Greenbelt. The creation of more fenced-in areas where dogs can exercise off-leash will serve the interests of those park patrons such as senior citizens and the parents of small children who, not without good reason, want to avoid contact with dogs as much as possible. In sum, we believe that the creation of additional fenced-in areas in city parks would be beneficial not just to dog owners but to all of the city's park users.

IV. Finally, we'd like to address the issue of keeping the parks clean. We are committed to keeping the city's parks enjoyable for all park users. We are more than willing to do our part to help keep the parks clean by cleaning up after our dogs. There are, however, a few very specific things the city could do to help us achieve and maintain this goal:

(1) First of all, we would like the city to post official signs in all of the city's parks asking dog owners to clean up after their dogs. Not all dog owners are aware of the legal obligation to clean up after one's dog, and this would be the simplest and clearest way to inform dog owners of what is expected.

(2) Second, we would like the city to install plastic bag dispensers and a regular supply of plastic bags in all city parks. A couple of months ago, dog owners who frequent Riverview Park began leaving supplies of recycled plastic bags for the convenience of other park patrons and dog walkers. This voluntary effort has helped keep Riverview Park considerably cleaner than it otherwise would have been, but this is not an adequate solution because there is no place to keep the bags where they won't be blown away by the first strong wind. This voluntary approach is inadequate, moreover, because there should be a supply of plastic bags at all city parks and that is clearly beyond what can reasonably be expected of voluntary efforts.

(3) Third, we need more trash cans or other waste receptacles where we can deposit dog feces. There are now four trash cans in the parking lot at Riverview park, for example, but there is only one trash can on the Greenbelt (at the "riverbend" or beach area, approximately one mile from Riverview Park), and this makes it very difficult for anyone to clean up after their dog along the trail. The Greenbelt's one trash can, moreover, is almost never emptied and is usually filled to overflowing. The city could do a lot to help local dog walkers keep the parks clean simply by providing more trash cans or other waste receptacles and by emptying these on a regular basis.

In conclusion, I'd like to emphasize that we're not seeking selfish or narrow goals. We're pursuing a modest agenda -- one that can be implemented quickly and at minimal cost. We have made a conscious and serious attempt to pursue our interests in a manner that recognizes and takes into account the concerns of all other park patrons. We hope that the members of this committee will accept this statement in the spirit of conciliation and compromise in which it is offered. We believe that our goals are consistent with the greater good of the Charlottesville community. City governments throughout the United States have begun establishing official dog parks at a very rapid rate not simply in response to the pressures of constituent demand but because they realize that such facilities are a great benefit to their communities as a whole. Among many other things, well-exercised dogs do NOT disturb their neighbors by barking through the night and well-socialized dogs do NOT pose a threat to other dogs or to people.

Finally, we respectfully request the members of the city's Parks Commission to respond at their earliest convenience to the statement we've presented here today. We request that the Commission's response be made either in writing or in a future public forum. Thank you once again for giving us this opportunity to address you. We look forward to receiving your response and to continuing the dialogue begun here today."

Sincerely, Jonathan Rice jgr9a@cstone.net