I walked him in lower Chimbo this morning and saw one other dog owner. No ghosts, vagrants, picnickers or others appeared to be using the area.

I’ve taken my dog to Barker Field and loved it … however, I think it is a bit absurd to drive my dog to a dog park. Before anyone jumps in and tells me to walk him there … I have walked to Byrd park and will do so again, but now with a 5 month old dog who would be too exhausted to walk all the way back.

I am an advocate of leashes and wouldn’t trust my very friendly dog to run around unattended in an unfenced area. And for all the people who are concerned about dog poop… many of us in CH scoop, bag … all you have to do is check the park trash cans. The only place I have noticed dog poop is around Nolde…

And last I checked ghosts liked dogs… after all dogs can actually see them.

We are working with the City Parks and Recreation Department and they have determined the location that would best fit with their overall plans for the park. When we first approached the City we expressed our interest in developing a dog park in Church Hill and were open to site locations. We initially suggested the far east end of the lower park and the little open space below the new wall near the playground. The City consulted their park planners and facilities staff and came back to us with the current site location, which fits with their plans and meets the criteria required to ensure that the site is safe, accessible and well maintained.

While you may not agree with all aspects of the project, we are your neighbors and fellow community members and have rallied to organize in order to do our part to create a better community for everyone – dog owners and non dog owners alike. Again, we know that the public commons is about balancing out the needs of the entire community, requiring compromises on everyone’s part. We hope that all of our neighbors can help be a positive force and will work to find appropriate solutions and resources to make this a success.

We also encourage folks to read up on dog parks and the role they play in other communities. http://www.freeplay.com http://www.dogplay.com

Whether you agree/disagree, love us/ hate us, are a dog owner/ or not, you like chocolate or vanilla, sunrise or sunsets, you are welcome to join the committee, attend the meetings or get in touch with us to discuss your ideas. Or if you are interested in meeting one of us for a cup of coffee to discuss your ideas we can meet at Buzzy’s anytime.

The Church Hill Dog Park Committee
chimbodogs@hotmail.com

I don’t know who you have been talking with, but the park is not anywhere near as dangerous as you have been told. Unaccompanied men and women have been walking their dogs down there for years and I am unaware of there ever having been a single incident involving an assault, robbery or rape in the park. Given that the criminal activity in the park occurs after dark, when no one is supposed to be there, the dog park is going to have absolutely no impact on that activity.

As for the location of the park, the doggy enclosure will indeed alter and restrict the access and usage of the central area of Lower Chimbo. Whether you want to admit it or not, the enclosure does introduce an “eithor-or” dynamic into that area (I’m not even going to get into the issue of its negative impact on the aesthetics of the lower park – GAG!).

As for the picnic areas, there’s no need to build new ones at taxpayer expense when the dog park, which has yet to be built, can be moved towards Government Road at no expense. What exactly is the fixation you have with locating the park in the center of the park, anyway? Why can’t it be tucked away in the eastern extremity of the park where it will be out of the general public’s way? Or is it that it never occurred to you to look past your own interests and consider the people who will not be using the dog park? Is that consideration – minimizing your impact on the park – too much to ask of the proponents of the dog park?? Is this a give and take situation or just take and take? I think the answer to that is painfully self-evident.

You’ll pardon me if I fail to perceive the altruism that isn’t at work here – the proponents of the dog park are only doing themselves a favor locating the enclosure in the middle of the park. I honestly don’t think any of you gave a passing thought to the interests of those who won’t be using the dog park.

Whenever I go there I run into people who warn me to stay away from the lower Chimbo park because its not safe. I’ve been told that to walk my dog there alone is irresponsible and that I’m asking to be assaulted. So I never go there unless I’m with at least one other person. With a dog park, a parking area and renovated lights, more people will feel comfortable using the non-dog-park areas of lower Chimbo now than ever before.

So I don’t understand when people say the dog park advocates are co-opting this space – from who? A select few who in fact will be welcome to use the area as much as they want?

I can understand that some folks have had the place pretty much all to themselves and have had the luxury of letting their dogs run around off leash because there is no one down there to complain. I can understand how from this perspective how an influx of lots more park users might not be appealing! To those folks, perhaps you will eventually find that your dogs enjoy the dog park just as well – and plus you’ll get to know some of your neighbors, so maybe it won’t be so horrible.

Perhaps for those seeking solitude, the Gillies Creek ravine, which is inaccessible by car and completely overgrown and hard to get to, might be a good option?

Welcome to the neighborhood! I used to live in Maryland and am a new resident to Church Hill as well – it’s a great place. Believe me all the crazy comments on this blog are not indicative of the neighbors in general.

We’d welcome your involvement in getting this park up and running. If you are interested in coming to a meeting, check out the yahoo group at: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/chimbodogs/

I hope the move goes well and I’m looking forward to meeting you!

Let me be clear – I am not opposed to the establishment of a dog park in our neighborhood. My issue was with the process and the selection of the site. I apologize to the law-abiding dog owners that I may have inadvertently tarred along with the scofflaws in upper Chimbo Park, but I haven’t changed my position about rewarding certain individuals for their bad behavior. I would like to see a solution that would satisy the interests of ALL the people in this community, and locating the dog park between the picnic areas does not satisfy that criteria. I think the locations suggested by M (#6) or Mike (#35) would satisy everyone’s interests.

You are FUBAR! And nuts!

Permit me to remind you that our previous disagreement concerned your flawed interpretation of the language in the O&H ordinance and its enforcement, not whether or not I supported the ordinance itself. Surely you recall, it was I who argued in favor of the enforcement of the ordinance in strict accordance with the letter of the law – a position, unlike your own, that was backed by the City Attorney’s Office. End of argument.

I’m sorry if you’re still smarting from our last encounter, but there’s no need to feel sorry for me, my poor little Pavlovian poodle.

They want to blame me for the dog park and everything else they don’t like in the hood.

Supposing there’s an O&H conspiracy behind everything in Church Hill suites their interests.

To whomever asked if the dog park will be in an O&H district: the answer is no. That’s the first thing we checked.

what exactly is wrong with having a dog park anyway? you keep jabbering on about ‘irresponsible’ dog owners, etc… (gross over-generalization!) so i would think you would be glad to have doggies off in a designated area??

i just don’t get why you’re so pissed off about it….

Is there a timeframe as to when the park will be open?

Are you the punk who came up with the bright idea of putting a dog park on Yorktown Battlefield Park?

FIX BAYONETS!

“The Commission also assists and advises City Council, all City Boards and Departments, and property owners in matters involving historic resources relating to appropriate land use, zoning, and other issues.”

Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but it appears that the O&H does indeed regulate usage (why wouldn’t it?). I also imagine that the O&H would impact the choice of materials that could be used within the park (?).

Taking a break from the WGA picket line? Negotiate your contract and get back to work. We’re tired of re-runs!

The lower park has to be used for something. As it stands right now it has no identity. Sure there may be the occasional event, picnic, drug deal down there but it is very limited at best.

Now for those against the dog park, have you ever driven by one of the other dog parks on a nice spring evening or weekend? It is loaded with people.

Leaving the area a non-descript, shabbily maintained area would never attract the usage a dog park would.

There still is the entire upper park for gathering.

I defend the dog park. So what if it’s in an O&H?

If you want to talk about zoning, O&H’s do not regulate usage, plain and simple. You cannot use me as a scapegoat for this one. Pretty lame try.

As for my “arse,” that’s reserved for Jim.

If I did have a dog I would probably avoid it anyway. I don’t think I would be willing to expose myself or my animal to possible aggression.

Is that a disenchanted building inspector for Williamsburg that lives on N. 27th St. behind the curtain?

Still sore about us getting the O&H eh? So sad.

Pardon me for answering your question with a question, but where were you prior to August 31, 2004? Before Tropical Storm Gaston trashed lower Chimborazo Park, dog owners, joggers, walkers, picnickers, bicyclists and various youth, church and recreational groups all enjoyed the use of the space that is being considered for the new dog park. Tell me, after waiting patiently for the City to allocate the resources (i.e., our tax dollars) necessary to revitalize the park for everyone’s enjoyment, why we should punish the general public by rewarding the exclusive use of a space we have all been using and enjoying for years in lower Chimborazo Park to accommodate a bunch of irresponsible dog owners who were issued citations for violating the rules in upper Chimborazo Park a couple months ago?? Screeewwwwwwwww THAT.

It’s time to dispense with the lie that the central field in lower Chimborazo Park has not been used before, during and after the arrival and carnage of Tropical Storm Gaston, because it has been enjoyed by scores of residents and visitors for decades.

I think the carport landed on your sister.

as for the dog park, i am new to the area but it seems that a section of the park which has not been in use for a while by the public is being rejuvenated by those who would like a dog park.

i am a dog lover, but not an owner and it seems that anyone raising such alarm over the dog park should answer the question: what would you prefer the space to be used as, and where were you months to years ago when that section of the park was overgrown and unused?

just my two cents.

The point of having the location at the bottom of Chimborazo Park would be so that a large amount of people can walk there easily. It is difficult to walk to Gillies Creek Park.

I also wish they would better connect the bottom of Chimborazo to the rest of the park, Williamsburg Road and maybe even all the way around to Libby Hill. Better connection to Gillies Creek Park would be nice too. A sidewalk down Government Road would help as well as maybe a direct path through the trees.

Having three parks right next to each other that are not connected is ridiculous.

You’re comparing apples to oranges. We’re not talking about developing some overgrown tangle of woods where Union scout might have bumped into a Confederate picket at some point during the Civil War. We’re talking about construction on an existing park (acquired 1874) that was the site of Chimborazo Hospital, where scores of soldiers died in the service of their land and their countrymen (perhaps that would explain the Statue of Liberty facing the setting sun?).

I’m sure we could argue about the intent and the usage of Chimborazo Park, but I don’t think there is any arguing about the human and historic significance of this site. Nevertheless, that wasn’t my point. My point was that there appears to be completely unused public land in the Gilley Creek area that would be a far more appropriate and less intrusive space for a dog park. It appears to me that the selection of the Gilley Creek site would have preserved the use of all of Chimborazo Park for all residents and visitors while putting an unused, undeveloped parcel of public land to good use.

I’m curious – were any veterans or historic preservation groups brought into the site-selection process?

With all due respect, I believe you are mischaracterizing both the park and its usage. While the wooded area and trail between Lower Chimborazo and Gilley Creek can indeed be considered “practically in a ravine”, the same cannot be said for the park itself.

As someone who enjoys the use of Lower Chimbo on a regular basis, I also take issue with your statement that the only people using that space are people “scrounging for old bricks and medicine bottles”. From first-hand observation, I can tell you that the space is used by dog owners, bicyclists and people taking a leisurely stroll or hanging out in the field by the picnic areas. Before the park was damaged by Tropical Storm Gaston and fell into disrepair (understandable given the City’s limited resources), groups used that space for gatherings and other recreational purposes. To say the site in question is and was unused appears to be the canard that the proponents of the dog park have used to legitimize the expropriation of the central area of Lower Chimborazo Park. I would also add that had the area been revitalized earlier, many of the individuals and groups that have generally avoided the area since Gaston would be enjoying the use of that space again, but it appears that much, if not all, of that usage will be strangled in the crib.

That area has been in disrepair and neglected for years. Most people who frequent that area are scrounging for old bricks and medicine bottles for their antiquities collections. To the west of the proposed area, it has basically been a dumping ground.

We’ve ridden are bikes down there now and again, but it’s pretty treacherous. Seems to me a great use of a space that has gone unused and neglected for a long time.

Of these dog parks being constructed around the country (#27), how many of them have been erected on the hallowed grounds of a Civil War memorial park?

I’m all for dog parks, but I don’t see how the construction of a dog stockade on the site selected is remotely consistent with the historic, pastoral and reflective qualities of Chimborazo Park. Personally, I think the unused space down in the Gilley Creek area would be a far more appropriate and less intrusive space for a dog park.

That being said, the Church Hill Dog Park is not a “private” organization, nor is it a “private” facility. They are open to the public. This is no more a private facility than a basketball court, or a tennis court or a Picnic Shelter.

Just because everyone doesnt have a dog, doesnt mean there shouldnt be a place where dogs can play safely and owners can socialize. Every park use cannot serve every person.

Picnickers have picnic shelters in parks. Hikers and Walkers have trails. basketball players have hoops. tennis players have courts. Canoeists have places to put in and take out. People with kids have playgrounds. People with dogs have doggie parks.

Just because I dont have kids doesnt mean I think playgrounds shouldnt be allowed in parks. Playgrounds meet an important need in the community and I support their development. I dont think they infringe on my rights as a citizen without kids. I also support tax dollars to build playgrounds, even though I dont use them.

Parks are places for people to play. Every facility may not serve every person, but parks should provide opportunity for a diversity of activity for the community. Dog parks meet that criteria.

Leisure is so important to our quality of life. People play in different ways. We are lucky in Church Hill to have some great parks and open spaces. Let’s do our best to protect them and provide appropriate access and support facilities to allow all our citizens to fully enjoy these shared resources.

You should read my posts more closely.

Not that it matters, but I’m one of the faces Bruce and Elvis sees every day – would we happen to know you?? Somehow I doubt it.

As for change, that’s all well and good when and where it is appropriate, but, on the other hand (and as Bruce may have implied) only an idiot “fixes” something that isn’t broken.

I think the poster meant that the DOG PARK is being funded privately, not that Chimborazo Park is being funded and maintained privately. Frankly, even though I don’t have a dog (and I’ve buried two cats down in that lower area), I think it’s great that it’s being fixed up. I haven’t been in there in awhile but last time I was there, not only was the lower area a mess, the upper area needed some maintenance, too -the bollards were broken, the locks were broken, trash needed picked up, and too many cars were zooming through going way too fast for pedestrians with or without dogs. I grant that was maybe four or five years ago, but if someone’s doing something to fix it up, either upper or lower area, more power to them.

First of all, Chimborazo Park is a PUBLIC park that is owned, operated and maintained by the City of Richmond through taxpayer dollars. It is not private property, it is not privately maintained and it is not privately funded.

Secondly, as Bruce and myself have pointed out, people are using that space on a daily basis for years, and at times, there are special events held in that area (more were held prior to TS Gaston when the park’s infrastructure was in good shape) – it has never been unused space. To claim the dog park won’t impact the access people have enjoyed to what is the central and most important space in Lower Chimbo is absurd.

Finally, your comments about what I supposedly like and dislike are even more ignorant than your comments regarding the ownership and usage of lower Chimborazo Park. I see no reason to dignify them with a response.

The beauty of this project is the Community’s willingness to develop a grass-roots organization to help fund and maintain the overall project. It is a wonderful example of a citizen/government partnership to address a community need. The Church Hill Dog Park is one of many citizen driven partnerships under the Richmond Recreation and Park Foundation that work to enhance the City’s Park facilities and Recreation Programs. You can visit http://www.rrpfoundation.org for other working partnerships in the City, and more information about the RRPF.

Across the country Dog Parks are being constructed in parks to meet citizen demand for these facilities. They have historically been well maintained facilities, where pets, owners and others can socialize.

I would be interested in hearing the reasons why someone would oppose this project, which already seems to be having a positive impact on the park and surrounding community.

Personally, I see this park as a terrific enhancement to the community. From a real estate perspective, it may make Church Hill homes more attractive to dog owners. It may also help people in the neighborhood get to know each other a little better. These are good things.