HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/4/2026 Item 4a, Cary
Carla Cary <carla.adela.cary@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday,
To:Advisory Bodies
Cc:E-mail Council Website; Dietrick, Christine; McDonald, Whitney
Subject:Clarification regarding Emerson Park
Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners,
I am writing to clarify a key factual point about how Emerson Park is used, which is central to the decision
before you on February 4.
Recent City correspondence suggests that formalizing a fenced dog park is justified because dogs are
occasionally present at Emerson Park. It is important to clarify that this field is not used regularly as a
dog area as much as it is throughout the day.
If occasional noncompliant dog use is treated as justification for permanent conversion, then
the longstanding, appropriate, and dominant use of this space by children should weigh far more heavily
in favor of protecting it — not taking away the only open field where kids can actually run and play sports.
In a small neighborhood park, placing off-leash dogs right next to active children is not a question of
fence height or landscaping. Balls and frisbees will fly, children will approach dogs, dogs will react to
movement and noise, and conflicts will occur. These interactions cannot be designed away when uses
are placed side by side.
I offer this clarification so the Commission can evaluate the proposal based on how this park is actually
used and experienced, rather than assumptions that fencing and landscaping resolve the fundamental
conflicts created by this location.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carla
1