Just about every association from soccer to football to hockey have fees for their membership using city-owned property and these fees usually are beyond just simply paying for uniforms and association provided equipment. Those fees also cover costs and manpower that the associations bear that the city isn't having to do.

Let me make it simple: if the dog park is charging a fee and it's going to keep the dog park clean, safe, insured, in compliance with whatever, these are tasks and expenses the city isn't having to fully cover. How is that a bad thing? Yes, I realize that some city money was used to start all of this and it was mental midget Councilman Murray Weed's idea to begin with, but doesn't everyone realize that EVERY sports field or park in the city was created with city money to begin with?

It's a great idea to have Council and the dog park people review the basic principles of how this dog park is going to be run/not run and getting that info out to the public, but the basic idea of charging some kind of fee to use city-owned property by association is hardly a new thing.

Not a fan of Steve Brown the political dude and I don't have a dog in this dog park fight (yuck yuck) as I don't use it, but I don't see where Brown is doing anything nefarious here. Seems like common sense to me.

is what this place does best, in case you haven't noticed.

Perhaps its senility on my part, but associations do not retain exclusive rights to city property. Take for example, four kids and a soccer ball conducting a pick up game on a vacant city field, or the same four kids with a basketball at an unused city court, does an association have the right, much less gall, to tell them to leave? Granted, I haven't been to the dog park for awhile, but the last time I was there we picked up after our own pooch with no one telling me to pay a buck or join their group.

My point back to you is that the Peachtree City Recreation Department is very well funded and can easily cover the $3200.00 annual maintenance costs. If they actually need an association to take the responsibility because of whatever reason, then the problem is not just at the Dog Park.

I take both my dogs to the park and it's fantastic. Mr. Brown saved the park and the people who use it appreciate it. It's the only non-athletic park we use in the city. My kids can't wait to go and see the dogs and it's so clean I don't mind them coming along.

We'll just go with "Brown droppings."

Is it $1 per visit per person, per dog, per family?

If Doug's kids come to watch, do they have to pay?

Same questions for the $35 annual pass - how many people/dogs does it cover?

And the big question - how do you enforce this? A city employee as a gatekeeper 7 day a week? Anybody think that's going to be cost efficient?

Oh yea, 1 more question. How are all the other dog parks around the country maintained?

The people who created this park were well-intentioned, but the city should have realized from the get go that they were going to be maintaining this thing - just like all other dog parks in the country. Can't imagine who was in charge of the city when this idea was hatched and why they weren't smart enough to set up city maintenance right away.

And the wonderful irony of a failed politician as the saying goes - unable to get elected dog catcher - is now running the dog park

Mudcat, I'm not sure how the $1 fee works. We paid the $35 for 12 months, not a bad deal. I can tell you the membership is is per family including dogs.

I've seen people manning the front gate checking a membership list.

The only other dog park we've been to is the one at Piedmont Park in Atlanta. The private operator who runs the park also runs the dog section. I actually like ours in Peachtree City better.

What's up with Mike King anyway? He's grumpy and envious.

I don't use the dog park and I'm happy I don't pay for it. Less government sounds good to me!!!

Don't worry about Mike King. He just hates Steve Brown, not the dog park. He's an old retired Army fart like me with nothing better to do than grumble.

Vote Republican

At least it gives former mayors something to do. I do wonder, however, if Harold will succeed him as Association Pres when he realizes the futility of seeking state office.

I guess I'm too old fashioned to understand why we need an association to run/control a city park given the budget of Peachtree City's Recreation Department. But then, with a mindset of doing everything for everybody is what makes our government grow.

Once a week empty the trash. Once a month clean up some dog poop and spread some mulch. No need to complicate it with an association, fees, leadership, etc. The Rec department can absorb this with no fanfare.

Harold is just running for statewide office so he had an excuse not to run for mayor again since he knew he would lose. He knew by his predecessor's example that an incumbent voted out of office has very little chance of coming back. No shame in trying for statewide office and coming in third or fourth. He's still high profile and can run again. He can even use the funds he raised this time for a run at county commissioner, which is his most likely next move.