|
Other anti -lights arguments hi .ted the fear that installing lights will re._ _ in special events at the dog park
<br />attracting large crowds. Even though no such events have ever taken place or been planned at the dog park,
<br />frequent special events at the Equestrian Center already attract large crowds along with many horse trailers.
<br />The popularity and growth of the Equestrian Center also must account for some of the traffic on Las Flores,
<br />particularly with the many vehicles pulling horse trailers. Why the double standard for dog owners?
<br />The same double standard applies to the lights themselves: the Equestrian Center, which is much closer to the
<br />homes of some of the strongest opponents of dog park lights, has several, very bright, stadium -style lights
<br />which are able to stay on until 10:00PM, and Waverly Park, which borders some of their homes, has shoebox
<br />lights already installed along the walkways; yet the dog park, several hundred yards away, is expected to have
<br />no lights at all because they might be offensive to some fictitious neighbors. Even if we do succeed in getting
<br />approval for the lights, they will be extremely dim by comparison to those at the Equestrian Center, and forced
<br />to go off nightly at 8:30. To be completely fair, we should be able to have lights according to the same
<br />standard applied in the rest of the community, IO:OOPM. The unfairness is mind-boggling and the double
<br />standard is unacceptable!
<br />All of these patently absurd claims lead me to conclude that this is not about Innocuous, low -intensity, off -at -
<br />8:30 lights. Its about the residual anger of a few malcontents who did their best to stop the construction of
<br />the dOg park, and, still chafing from that loss, are now trying to stop any improvement to it, despite the fact
<br />that it serves such a large segment of our community. The lights would benefit primarily the working, tax-
<br />paying dog owners whose labors contribute to the viability of this city, and at the same time, make it
<br />impossible for them to use the dog park during weekday daylight hours for about half of the year. The.loudest
<br />objections are coming from a -few people who live west of and down the hill from the dog park, where they
<br />cant even see the park from their homes, and will not be able to see the lights either. What I find so amazing
<br />and frustrating, is that these few people have been given so much power and their weak and baseless
<br />arguments so much credence by local government officials. It's time for those representatives to remember
<br />that they were elected to serve ALL of the community, not just a select few obstructionists with no valid
<br />reasons for stopping this project.
<br />Enlightened cities all over this country are recognizing the value of off -leash dog parks for their residents and
<br />their dogs. More than 700 dog parks have been built to date, and more are opening every day. Many of these
<br />are lighted and provide other amenities such as paved parking lots and bathrooms. One of the best examples
<br />of these is nearby in the city of Poway, CA. Their dog park illustrates how much can be accomplished with
<br />community/government cooperation, and should serve as a model for the city of Thousand Oaks and the CRPD.
<br />Even their web site is enviable:
<br />ht-tp://www.a.p-om.ca,usLdMpart-Jdocipark.htffl
<br />I have attached the portion of their text, relating to the lights, to this letter.. Please note that they have
<br />installed stadium lights, 3 on one pole, which stay on nightly until 9:3013M. And several other dog parks in the
<br />state and country also have installed lights that stay on until 1OPM: Long Beach (CA) Dog Park; Sacramento
<br />(CA) Dog Park, Belmont (CA) Dog Run, Palo Verde Dog Park, Tucson, AZ, Wells Parity El Cajon, CA, Fort Woof
<br />Dog Parr Forth Worh, 7,1; University City Dog P/ayArea, St. Lou/s, MD; to name just a few.
<br />Also attached are the photos taken last year by one of our dog park patrons, but ignored by the Administrative
<br />Hearing Officer, showing the non-residential location of and need for lights at the dog park.
<br />I believe that the anti -lights faction will be satisfied if they can bamboozle the city officials into delaying this
<br />project for another year by throwing up more fear -based, groundless claims of dire consequences and imposing
<br />more time-consuming and costly impact studies, Every year of delay is a victory for their selfish, obstructionist
<br />views. I want this to be the year when the CRPD Board of Directors and staff stand firmly behind their
<br />constituents and this project and face the jurisdictional disputes with the City of Thousand Oaks head-on. If
<br />the CRPD is truly an independent entity, then it's time to behave as such and get those lights installed before
<br />the end of daylight time this year.
<br />Thank you for your attention,
<br />6,&e: C4,�
<br />Elise Rimmeli
<br />
|