| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 51 | Blair Selby | |
| 52 | Indu Gulalia | |
| 53 | Amanda Batt | |
| 54 | Bob Kenney | |
| 55 | Lisa Walthers | Read the local papers - dog parks are important to people in Arlington County. The parks need to be bigger not smaller. Decisions should not be made without the proper participants! |
| 56 | Niharika Shukla | Please preserve 50% the Park at 13th and Herndon streets (Clarendon Dog Park) for dogs!
Thanks
Niharika |
| 57 | Margit Singer | I attended the meeting and did NOT get the impression the majority of attendees wanted to reduce the dog area to 40%. That is just totally unfair. In all honestly, I was impressed by the presentation and my respect grew for Arlington County. Was I wrong. Do the few loud voices count more than the many more who enjoy the facility. |
| 58 | Kathleen D. Swasey | Save the dog park! |
| 59 | Karen Skanderson | All park users should be included in decisions regarding park use. |
| 60 | Jessie Hester-Mautner | |
| 61 | Megan Tinker | |
| 62 | Clifford Stevens | |
| 63 | Robin Bergman | |
| 64 | Mickey Bergman | |
| 65 | Lisa Byington | This is an absurd abuse of power by the APRC! The sector plan says 50%, the CCA should remain 50%. Arlington County staff put in a lot of work and effort to create a beautiful design in September. That design should be implemented ASAP. |
| 66 | Rob Huehmer | I am disappointed that APRC has reneged on the agreement in principal on the CCA. |
| 67 | Judith Treesberg | Please preserve at least 50% of the space as "dog park." Going to the dog partk every day makes my day as well as my dog's. |
| 68 | Tracy Gruis | |
| 69 | Liz Martin | Major meetings regarding the dog park should obviously include the organization sponsoring the park and as well as any other Arlington citizens who have an interest. Not very impressed with the backhanded way this was handled. |
| 70 | Julie Gupta | I am dismayed by the recent events related to the CCA. As both a user of the CCA and a resident of Clarendon, I request that the initial terms of the Master Plan be upheld, and that any further dicussion be shut down.
This is ridiculous and a really poor waste of taxpayer dollars.
Julie Gupta |
| 71 | Stephen Sachs | |
| 72 | Meredith Clayton | |
| 73 | Andrew Dybalski | |
| 74 | Jay LaBonte | It is disappointing that the Parks and Recreation Commission chose to hold this meeting without all concerned parties being informed before hand. |
| 75 | Yasmin Matten | |
| 76 | Michael Matten | |
| 77 | Vicki Gottlieb | |
| 78 | Mike Mageau | |
| 79 | Ian Betts | |
| 80 | Helene S. DeLaunay | |
| 81 | Heather Holsinger | This is outrageous! The planning has already commenced on a design that involves 50% canine community area. At the Sept. 25th meeting, Arlington officials repeatedly stated that this determination (50% dog park) had already been made and was no longer under discussion! |
| 82 | Rebecca Halbe | Please hear us and approve the initial plan with the CCA being at least 50% of the area. It's already being cut in half, so please don't make it any smaller. Remember, CCAs get some of the most use of any park land in the County! |
| 83 | Nikki Koulizakis | |
| 84 | Dabheyba Revollo | |
| 85 | Rebecca Kojm | |
| 86 | Lisa Kelly | |
| 87 | Pam Johnson | PLEASE be honourable people. The dogd NEED at least 50%. |
| 88 | Rob Luthman | |
| 89 | Christina Thornblom Kish | Please preserve the dog park space! People meet, catch up, and make neighborhood connections ther. AAnd, it keeps the dogs (and dog poo) in one controlled spot - a huge benefit to the neighborhood! Sincerely, Christina |
| 90 | Sandra Leiva-Lopez | |
| 91 | Anonymous | |
| 92 | John Fallon | These parks are an integral part of our dialy routine - please preserve them! |
| 93 | Anonymous | |
| 94 | Justin Strait | |
| 95 | Shari Lewis | Part of the quality of life for residents is the canine exercise areas. They are a vital part of recreation for us in the community. |
| 96 | Anonymous | |
| 97 | Liz Howard | |
| 98 | Sheila McGee | Keeping the meeting a "secret" from interested Arlington residents who have a vested interest in this issue is completely unacceptable and borders on unethical.
1. ADHERE TO THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION CALLING FOR approximately 50% of the space TO BE USED FOR THE DOG PARK!! The park concept and retention of 50% of the space for the park was generally agreed upon by all parties, and was in accordance with the Master Plan! WHY CHANGE NOW USING UNDERHANDED TACTICS?
2. Let all concerned taxpaying residents have a voice in how OUR park land will be used! |
| 99 | Chris Williams | |
| 100 | Pat Brown | A recent Washington Post article described the benefits of dog parks to people -- creating a sense of community, developing friendships among dog owners, as well allowing dogs to run and play. |