Sue Lani Madsen: Neighborhood wants to be heard on dog park site

“What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”

Tuesday night’s public meeting with the Spokane Parks department suffered from “Cool Hand Luke” syndrome when a dogged focus on process led the Spokane Parks and Recreation staff to overlook public expectations and emotion. There was a failure to communicate.

Spokane Parks director Garrett Jones had planned a design meeting to vote on design concept variations and discuss desired amenities. Area residents like Melinda Norman were expecting an opportunity to vote on whether to build a dog park on the Upriver Drive site at all.

Communication failure has been the theme for the past two months, starting when residents adjacent to the park property were blindsided by the development proposal in April. The Minnehaha Neighborhood Council said they were led to believe the affected residents had been consulted when the council originally approved the proposal .

The latest communication breakdown started in Norman’s driveway on May 24. She texted me the next day saying “Jones, Bingle, Cathcart and a couple assistants met with us neighbors yesterday and walked the park” and “They will put together 3 options for the public to vote on June 6. One large park. One small park. One NO park at all.” She was hoping for a resounding “no” vote and texted we’re “crossing our fingers they will listen this time.”

So when Jones announced the format of Tuesday’s meeting would be a presentation of three design concepts for the Upriver Drive site with small group breakout sessions and comment cards, the crowd was restless. They were not in a mood to have a chat about ranking whether benches were more or less important than paved paths. They were looking for a public vote on the site, and expected “none of the above” to be one of the options.

It was not.

The feedback form asked participants to select a preferred design concept for the Upriver site. It wasn’t called a proposed site but “the” site. Any other opinions, like the no the neighbors were hoping for, had to be written in the “additional input” box. Repeated statements from parks department staff that all the forms would be scanned as part of the public record didn’t address concerns about whether comments would make any difference or just be filed to validate the process.

An alternative suggested by the neighborhood wasn’t included in the parks presentation. On June 1, the Minnehaha Neighborhood Council had met and adopted a resolution rescinding their support for the Upriver Drive site and suggesting Minnehaha Park instead. The “whereas” statements scathingly rejected the Parks Department process as having ignored local residents, misled the neighborhood council and overlooked significant problems.

It concluded with, “Therefore be it resolved: The Minnehaha Neighborhood agrees the proposed Upriver dog park location is neither good for dogs, the environment, traffic, public safety and/or preservation of wildlife access to water,” and demanded the Park Board direct resources to add features to the Minnehaha Park site instead.

Shannon Benn, chair of the Minnehaha Neighborhood Council said, “We’re not NIMBY. We’re saying we want it in our backyard in Minnehaha Park.” Six blocks west of the Park Board’s adopted site for a regional dog park, a neighborhood dog park is already part of the master plan for renovating Minnehaha Park and could be expanded.

The controversial Upriver site is on the border between city and county, affecting residents in both jurisdictions. City Council members Jonathan Bingle and Michael Cathcart attended Tuesday’s meeting. About 50 people filled the school cafeteria tables at Cooper Elementary. County Commissioner Amber Waldref was noticeably absent and did not respond to a request for comment.

In their defense, Parks department staff were focused on carrying out the Park Board resolution, which directed them to consider alternative designs and not alternative sites. They were using a standard public design meeting agenda and a list of 15 amenities to be ranked.

But the audience was clearly not going to play along and had their own agenda. They came prepared with photos and presentations of site characteristics incompatible with a dog park. As one longtime Upriver Drive resident pointed out, when the police academy is training with flash-bangs a big dog can easily clear a 6 foot fence. They wanted to vote.

It was getting a little heated when Bingle stepped up. “Our ears are open,” he said. He started counting heads in the room and proposed a vote. “If you hate the idea, raise your hand.” Thirty-one hands shot up.

Norman asked if she could add the 375 signatures she and her neighbors had collected on petitions against the Upriver site, and Bingle said yes.

It was bureaucracy meets democracy. This neighborhood wants to see investment in recreation facilities and amenities but just not here. As a Minnehaha neighbor said: “Maybe this isn’t the right thing but maybe we can find something better in the future.”

The question is, will the Park Board have their ears open when they meet on Thursday, or will the failure to communicate continue?

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com.