Friday, August 1, 2003
|
Friday, August 1, 2003 |
|
South 74 complex going to the dogs? Recreation Commission urges new location for proposed dog park By J. FRANK
LYNCH
A proposal earlier this year to build a park exclusively for dogs in Peachtree City was panned as a waste of money by critics, became the subject of countless jokes and gave fodder to feline lovers in the eternal debate: Dogs or cats? "What a difference a couple of months make, huh?" said Michael Williams of the city's Recreation Commission as he gave an update on the dog park plans Monday. "Now the dog park people are the darlings of the city," he told fellow recreation commissioners. Indeed, the Dog Park Committee won first place in the city's Fourth of July parade earlier this month, and was treated to an awards presentation in city council chambers that included about a half-dozen of Peachtree City's best-groomed canine residents. The new-found popularity has helped the committee raise $7,000 in T-shirts alone, Williams reported. That's about half of the $14,000 the committee said it would need to open the first phase of the park. In fact, the dog park has already taken a journey of sorts, traveling about seven miles down Ga. Highway 74 to a newly recommended location at the South 74 Soccer-Softball complex. Leisure Services Director Randy Gaddo explained that the new site, on 22 undeveloped acres on the northern end of the South 74 complex, was better suited environmentally to the dog park. The South 74 location was the first alternate site for the park organizers, who at first wanted the dog play space located at Kedron Fieldhouse and Aquatic Center. Gaddo said an environmental survey of the sites concluded that the South 74 location was better from an ecological standpoint, and so it was made first choice. "Plus, it's just better suited, period. It's more natural, it's heavily wooded." The 22 acres were purchased by the city after the development of the present fields, intended for future use as need arises, but Gaddo said that's not even on the five-year master plan. "There will be an agreement that (the dog park) can stay until growth requires more fields," he said. "But there's nothing in the five-year plan to indicate that kind of growth." The best solution at this point, Gaddo said, is that the dog park not be surrounded by a bunch of athletic facilities it has the potential to contaminate. This location takes care of that. And when it comes time to move, "It's not that difficult to move a dog park," Gaddo said. "I think the best interest of the committee is to put it in the best location it can find for now, and if we have to move it later, we move it." In another matter, the Recreation Commission agreed to communicate to the dog park committee members that the project, as defined by the city, now comes under the auspices of the commission exclusively. That means all requests for funding, site plans, construction permits and the like must start with the recreation commission "Anything they want approved, it has to come to the recreation commission first, and then if we approve of the plans, we will make the recommendation and presentation to the City Council," said Gaddo. In March, the City Council voted to spend $5,000 in "seed money" to help the organization start the dog park. The park will feature a special fountain with two separate faucets, one up high for humans and one down low for the dogs. Proponents of the park argued that many residents would use the park to allow their dogs to get exercise and socialize with other dogs. Another plus would be giving the dogs a place to walk other than the city's cart path system, where some have complained of encounters with dogs, council was told. There has been no date set for construction or completion.
|
||