Quote of the Day provided by The Free Library


Wednesday, August 29, 2007

An open letter regarding the proposed Waldo Dog Park

The following is a letter from Deb Hipp, Chairman of WOOF (Well-Organized Off-leash Friends). It is published in its entirety for your information.

Dear Dog Lovers,

Today, the parks board that was appointed to increase parks usage and serve the citizens totally screwed us and shut down our entire dog park plan in the most flagrant display of disregard and rudeness to the public that I have ever witnessed. I am saddened and outraged. This is what happened:

When I called to check on the parks board agenda, which I couldn’t find online, I was told that there was an “amendment” to the city’s dog park guidelines on the agenda. When I asked Parks Department Director Mark McHenry what the amendment was, he would not tell me and told me that I was “welcome to come” to the meeting and find out. That is when I sent out my urgent e-mail that you received yesterday, urging people to come and speak at the “public hearing” portion of the parks board meeting, which is ALWAYS open to the public.

This amendment was news to me, which led me to believe that they were trying to slip it in and screw us over with little attention. What I feared was true, and when I tell you what happened next, you will be as outraged as I am.

About 40 dog park supporters showed up and at least a dozen signed up to speak during this “open” public hearing portion. The room was packed. As the parks commissioners walked in, Commissioner Aggie Stackhaus, who has made no secret of her friendship with Eula Inloes (opponent to our park and president emeritus of Here’s Waldo Neighborhood Association) or her opposition to our dog park, walked by me and gleefully said, “I’m loving every minute of this.”

As the PUBLIC hearing began, Commissioner John Fierro announced that NO off-leash dog park testimony would be ALLOWED and that they would be making an announcement pertaining to the proposed dog park. I objected to this, and several other people, who had taken off work to testify, also objected. One supporter raised her hand and said, “I’d like to talk about transparency in government” but was told that NO, she would not be allowed to speak about that!!

They rushed through the reading of this policy change – which excludes any dog park from being in a neighborhood park, near homes – in other words, OUR dog park, voted hurriedly on it and then, as people shouted out their dissatisfaction, just went on with the meeting as if none of the forty of us were even present. We kept on talking, though, and managed to get on the news.

Several reporters were there, and you can read the Star story here.

As a crowd of us gathered in the lobby and discussed this obvious back-room deal struck up by parks commissioners who seemingly –and blatantly-- believe that they are above answering to the public that they were appointed to serve, the Parks Department actually called the police! On a bunch of people wearing WOOF t-shirts discussing this denial of the public process – after all, we were promised a public hearing from day one. We have followed every procedure, been polite, professional, courteous, thorough and honest – something our few opponents (less than a dozen outspoken people) have never demonstrated…..and this is what has happened.

I believe that this parks board cheated us out of our public hearing (the big one that we were PROMISED) because they knew that with the overwhelming show of public support for our project, they would have looked foolish to not approve it. Now they have chosen to look foolish anyway, and callously disregard what the public wants – in full view of news cameras and citizens.

I have not had time to plan our next move, but trust me, there is one. For now, you can meet with me and others at Jakes Barbecue, 83rd and Wornall (by Big Lots) on Thursday, August 30 at 7 p.m. Come, have a beer, vent and strategize.

Tell the Mayor who Appointed These People What You Think

We need to FLOOD the mayor’s office with e-mails of outrage. Mayor Funkhouser appointed these people to do what is right – not make up the rules, the newest one being NOT ALLOWING the public to speak and denying citizens the right to due process – and he needs to know how his new appointees are behaving. Here is the e-mail: mayor@kcmo.org

Oh, and be sure to CC these people below too when you send your e-mail to the mayor. Everyone needs to know about this underhanded move by the KCMO parks board and parks department:

susan_borge@kcmo.org; karmen_bradley@kcmo.org; jim_giles@kcmo.org; news@nbcactionnews.com; mmahoney@hearst.com; iler@nbcactionnews.com; kaut@nbcactionnews.com; david.martin@pitch.com; eric.barton@pitch.com; leslie.carto@foxtv.com; cj.janovy@pitch.com; khoux@dispatchtribune.com; mcampbell@kcstar.com; melba_curls@kcmo.org; kimberly_randolph@kcmo.org; gina_boucher@kcmo.org; dyanne_bean@kcmo.org

Mad as Hell and Not Going to Take it Anymore?

If you’d like to express your opinion to the five parks commissioners who made this disgraceful decision, CALL THEM. They were appointed to serve their constituency – that’s us.

Editor's Note: I removed the phone numbers provided in the email since they are not readily available on the Parks Board website. The phone numbers are however listed in the phone book.

John Fierro, Executive Director Mattie Rhodes Center

Aggie Stackhaus

Tyrone Aiken, Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey

Ajamu Webster, DuBois Consultants Civil and Structural Engineering

Frances Semler

If you’re against back-room deals, and “amendments” slipped in and rammed through over cries of outrage from people who were NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK about that very amendment at a PUBLIC hearing, tell the mayor today.

Also, if you are an attorney, and would like to talk about the possible illegality of what the parks board did today, please contact me.


I will be in touch soon. It ain’t over yet.

Deb

Comments on "An open letter regarding the proposed Waldo Dog Park"

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (12:53 PM) : 

I've been following the development of this park from the beginning. It's true that they have followed every procedure throughout this process only to be treated in this manner.

Shame on the park board for pulling this underhanded move.

 

Blogger Xavier Onassis said ... (12:57 PM) : 

I'm not familiar with the details of the proposed off-leash dog park.

Was this park going to be fenced to protect people from the dogs and the dogs from traffic? Because this is the ONLY type of park where dogs should be allowed off their leashes.

Who would pay for the fence?

What about insurance against dogs biting people or waivers people would be required to sign saying they can't sue anybody if they are bitten or attacked by a dog running loose?

Dogs are excitible animals with sharp teeth and claws. They aren't little children (although they sometimes attack little children).

Dogs belong on a leash or behind a fence. Always, all the time, no exceptions.

 

Anonymous brent said ... (1:10 PM) : 

XO,

The plan involved a fenced in off-leash area. 5 foot high, nice black fence surrounding the park (similar to the one at Penn Valley Park).

The park was going to be 100% privately funded -- and the folks were also going to repave the running path that was going to have to be rerouted, as well as plant more trees in the park. All with private dollars for the park (and maintenance).

People would be liable if their dogs bit someone, just like they would be if their dog was on leash.

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (1:12 PM) : 

Xavier,

I take it you have never visited the Penn Valley Dog Park? You should, it's on city property and this proposed dog park would operate the same way.

Of course, a dog park has a fence. That is the entire point of a dog park. The fence would be paid for by donations.

You comment about dogs being excitable animals prone to attack like children is somewhat comical, if not completely misinformed. Sure dogs can be taught to be mean, if their owner is somebody like Michael Vick. I think the DOG ATTACKS! propaganda on the nightly news has gotten you a little excitable. :)

Before anybody makes up their mind about a dog park they should really go visit the dog park on an evening or weekend. It's a place that give a great opportunity to bring the community together, like a park ought to.

 

Blogger Eric said ... (1:13 PM) : 

I'm a dog lover and user of the Penn Valley dog park, but I was embarrassed by the rude and threatening behavior I saw on TV last night. You came across as a bunch of crazy people more concerned about your own little privileged corner of Brookside than about the city as a whole. I understand your anger at being shut out, but it looked really, really bad. Now the parks board is going to be even less receptive when some other neighborhood asks for a dog park.

Dog park advocates would have a lot more success if we formed a real city-wide advocacy group. What are you doing to work with allies in the Northland, Downtown, or East Side? Would you have been this upset if you already had your own park and the city had denied someone's request for a park in another park of the city?

Doing this on a case-by-case basis in each neighborhood leads to the problems you experienced yesterday.

 

Blogger Xavier Onassis said ... (2:05 PM) : 

brent and doinkman - as long as it is fenced as you have described, and paid for by private funds, I have no problem whatsoever. You have my blessing (which means absolutely nothing, btw).

As for actually visiting a dog park, ummm, no, I think not.

There is a reason I don't own a dog myself.

If I enjoyed being accosted by a needy, smelly creature who would only stop nagging me when I ceased what I was doing and started giving them my undivided attention, I would still be married.

 

Anonymous MichelleD said ... (3:20 PM) : 

Eric, why don't you read something before you comment on it. For one, its WALDO. For two, people were mad about being denied the right to speak in a public forum and the back room deal to deny them fair consideration. No one is to blame for this debacle than the parks board.

XO, so we should fence in all playgrounds too? So those smelly little two legged creatures won't bug me - yeah, that's a good idea actually. OH, and I want my taxpayer funds back for the equipment too since I don't have kids. 3 billion in Tif money and folks are worried about a few thousand dollars for fence?! Good grief.

 

Blogger doinkman said ... (3:27 PM) : 

It doesn't make any sense to me to have KCMO residents in front of the Liberty park board asking for a park in the Liberty community and vice versa. The whole point of community involvement is that it's YOUR community. All politics is local, etc...

haha @ XO

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (4:07 PM) : 

Xavier -

Using your argument I think it makes sense to KEEP HUMANS ON LEASHES. Humans kill and hurt other human much more frequently than dogs do. Sure, Dogs have sharper teeth but humans have guns.

I think Deb Hipp, if she wants to get her point across more effectively, should tone down her rhetoric and speak intelligently, calmly and more briefly.

Beginning her letter with a literal "we got screwed!" is a big turnoff for moderate folk who care.

I am sympathetic, and think the Park Board ain't that good, and they mishandled the situtaion majorly.

But I don't want to stand up with, and next to, an over-emotional loudmouth.

 

Blogger Xavier Onassis said ... (4:15 PM) : 

doinkman - which is why my "blessing" or objections mean absolutely nothing! :) But that's never stopped me from sharing them before.

michelled - actually, most playgrounds ARE fenced for many of the same reasons that your dog parks are fenced. But I don't have any problems with public funds going to protect human children because they are, well, human. Whereas dogs are, ya know, animals.

Dogs aren't going to grow up, get an education, become gainfully employed and pay into the tax base that supports our infrastructure. Investing money in the care, nurturing, protection and education of children is an investment in the future.

Spending money on dogs is just, spending money on dogs.

 

Anonymous MichelleD said ... (5:39 PM) : 

XO - This is another park feature for TAX PAYING CITIZENS. Same with tennis courts, walking trails, playground equip whatever...You/everyone get the payoff of having well socialized dogs that won't attack and increased home value.

I digress...The real issue is the backroom shinanigans the parks board is putting on - how about THEIR snide comments and unethical, if not illegal conduct? They shut down a project because Aggie's buddy didn't like it. Everything they're doing is contrary to Funk's campaign platform of open government and replacing the "elitist" parks board. And he's throwing up his hands on the whole issue...

 

Anonymous Allie said ... (8:58 PM) : 

That's absolutely it. This is an issue about tax paying citizens being denied the right to speak about a matter on the agenda of the mayor-appointed park board.

And Mainstream - you obviously don't know Deb Hipp. I do, and she has been level-headed, reasonable, moderate and positive during the whole eight months or so that she has worked on this project. But Deb, unlike many of our politicians, is a person of integrity who tells it like it is. She doesn't use words like "screwed" lightly -- in fact, I've never heard her use that terminology in connection with the dog park before. But, dammit, in this case, we got screwed. And I find it refreshing that, in this case, she didn't mince words. Good for her.

 

Anonymous idan said ... (10:04 PM) : 

It seems like a bad fit to put a regional amenity - like a dog park - in a small, neighborhood park. Neighborhood parks should attract local patrons that mostly walk. A dog park would consistently attract patrons from all over south KC which would mean cars on the streets of a neighborhood that is probably pretty quiet normally.

 

Anonymous Alan Birch said ... (10:51 PM) : 

I wish all of you the best of luck... But really, is this really the issue you all need to be spending your time and energy on?
I mean, aren't there more important political issues to deal with here in KCMO?

66 murders so far this year
Public schools continuing to fail
Absolutely inept mayor and staff
Promised TIF reform that isn't happening.
3 billion dollars worth of sewer work needed now.
Public transit fiasco

And all you people can get worked up about is whether or not you have a place where your little Bubbles can run around and poop on close to your house? Put your dog on a leash and walk the little crapper, for chrissakes! Or set your fat butt down in your BKS-mobile and drive down to Penn Valley Park.

The injustices that have been perpetrated upon you amount to a hill of beans. Get yourselves worked up about something that really matters.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (11:03 PM) : 

Allie, Aggie Stackhaus didn't mince her words either.

And let's talk about Aggie Stackhaus. Living proof that

"weebles wobble but they don't fall down"

Aggie Stackhaus is the meanest spirited so-called public servant in Kansas City. Everybody knows that about Aggie, and if you disagree with her once, she's against you for the rest of your life.

Aggie is incapable of compromise and any leadership whatsoever. She holds grudges and exacts retribution freely, and just about everybody knows that.

And she's psychotic. Have you talked with Aggie? Pull up a seat, and I hope you have three hours and ear plugs. She's become a caricature of herself.

And remember, Deb Hipp's quote is accurate - Deb is not lying when she said

"The room was packed. As the parks commissioners walked in, Commissioner Aggie Stackhaus, who has made no secret of her friendship with Eula Inloes (opponent to our park and president emeritus of Here’s Waldo Neighborhood Association) or her opposition to our dog park, walked by me and gleefully said, 'I’m loving every minute of this.'"

That happened.

And Funk said the old Parks Board was divisive.

Pffft.

I hope some Stackhaus sympathizers or even Aggie responds on here, because I'm ready for an Aggie-thon. We'll take a walk down memory lane and relive all of Aggie's mismamanagement, mean-ness and crying in public and private to get her way.

Aggie, you're one weeble that's gonna do a bit more wobblin'.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (11:16 PM) : 

Note to Allie: I never once used he word "screw".

:o)

 

Blogger Xavier Onassis said ... (11:35 PM) : 

Michellled ...XXXXxxxxxxsnoorrre...

Eh! What? Dogs. What?

"...You/everyone get the payoff of having well socialized dogs that won't attack and increased home value."

What? What the hell does that even mean?

Nice dogs mean higher property values?

Show me a real estate comp that includes "regional dog personality" as a property value.

You people are insane.

You do realize, don't you, that your 'pets' aren't really 'children'.

They aren't 'human'. They're animals.

There actually is a real difference between a hampster, a gerbil, a dog, a cat, a goldfish or a tarantula which you bought or was given to you as a gift, and an ACTUAL HUMAN CHILD WHO SHARES YOUR DNA!

Please tell me you know the difference.

Are you "animal lovers" so desparate for any form of affection that you can actually equate the slobbering, needy, hunger of a dog to the true, biological love and affection of a human child?

Good God. How pathetic.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (11:40 PM) : 

XO, I understand your point, but I think they were only expressing their love of dogs and in the heat of debate everybody's comparisons get exagerated...

 

Blogger Capt. Geoffrey Spaulding said ... (1:49 AM) : 

Whew- THANX Mainstream-

I was thinking I was the ONLY one who thought Aggie Stackhaus is a NUT!!!

I think the Park Board just dimmed The Funk's bulb even more with this "open" performance.

-Groucho

 

Blogger Mark said ... (7:39 AM) : 

XO, Alan Birch, et al,

If you leave the dog park/no dog park argument out of it, in my opinion what you still have is the Parks Board behaving badly. This debate could have just as easily been over the merits of zoysia versus fescue. If friends of Aggie Stackhaus decided one grass was better than the other, I believe yesterday's meeting would have gone down the same way.

As I said yesterday on TKC (and got accused of pandering. Huh?) in my mind this is about back-room deals and the squelching of opposition. You serve on a public committee (or host a blog) you have to accept that every once in a while some people are going to scream and yell at you and tell you how many ways you suck. (At this point XO makes a marriage joke, ba dump bump. Thank you, I'll be here all week!)

Not that I'm trying to control the debate (OK, I am) but what about the core issue? Did the Parks Board handle itself correctly? Whether you agree with their decision, did the Parks Board conduct themselves in a manner which we are all proud of? Did I just end a sentence in a preposition?

 

Blogger Mark said ... (7:47 AM) : 

mainstream,

I disagree with your comments about Aggie Stackhaus. I don't think your criticism of her is fair.

She is far worse than what you describe.

I commented to several people when the appointments were announced that Semler was not the most controversial appointment. All the hand-wringing about racism and illegal immigration but was Frances Semler in the middle of this? Nope!

I argued passionately with a mayoral insider about Aggie's appointment. This person's comment to me was how awesome Aggie's application was. Maybe an awesome application but as the old saying goes I believe Funk's chickens are coming home to roost.

 

Anonymous Midtowner said ... (8:30 AM) : 

Sunnyside Park is one of the most underutilized parks in the entire City. Putting a fenced in dog run next to BigLots sounds like a great idea to encourage more use of this public space.
These Parks Board members should go to New York and see the dog runs in tiny neighborhood parks like, Madsion Square Park and Washington Square Park, all in very densely popoulated neighborhoods. They add to the sense of community and increase park utilization. Non dog owning strollers enjoy watching the activity inside the fences. Once again, Sunnyside Park is serioulsy underutilized and would be a great site in Waldo for such a use.

 

Anonymous Alan Birch said ... (11:29 AM) : 

So, the real issue here is how an appointed board holds their meeting and conducts their business?

I kind of lost all of that amongst all of the rabid screaming.

The problem is, we need to choose our battles wisely, and if this quasi-insane WOOF organization is going to fight the backroom-dealing-city-government issue for us, then they will lose. Noone will EVER take these whiners seriously.

A dog park in whitey-town is not the issue to battle our government over, as much as these folks would like it to be.

Drop this and get on the mayoral recall train.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (11:34 AM) : 

Alan,

Your last comment was insightful, well-reasoned and rational. Therefore it has no place here!

;-)

I'm not for jumping on any recall train over some whackjob appointments. I think a recall is a bit extreme at this point.

 

Anonymous Lassie said ... (12:30 PM) : 

I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12:57 PM) : 

Visit any major city (i.e. St. Louis, San Francisco, Washington,) and you will find these types of parks are increasingly popular. They are more likely to be in the city than at some far-reach outpost only accessible by driving/busing. Under the current amendment, Penn Valley would not have meet the new guidelines. You can certainly rule out any new dog park areas to help with what appears to be overdeveloping condominium neighborhoods in the downtown area. This is a valuable amenity that a LOT of people would see as value added when choosing Kansas City downtown living. This amenity is very accessible in almost every large city in our nation right now. Example in point:
http://www.stldogparks.org/
St. Louis now has 7 operating dog parks with more planned. 5 require permits and 2 do not. This is a balanced approach to what is surely a popular topic with many residents of this and other cities. WOOF (Well Organized Off-Leash Friends) has discussed using a permit approach as well with the parks and recs board and opponents along the way. It is sad that Kansas City has chosen to hide from a real city issue than to deal with it. It is a growth issue that will not just go away, and it has nothing to do with WHETHER YOU HAVE A DOG OR WHERE YOU LIVE.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (1:04 PM) : 

p.s. Hey Mark you and your wife- Robin and Bradley say Hello and come back to Sharps!!!--Robin

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (2:36 PM) : 

Even though this particular issue is about back-room deals, not dog parks, I find it interesting that commenters who speak against dog parks tend to be so full of hate and vitriol:

"Put your dog on a leash and walk the little crapper, for chrissakes! Or set your fat butt down in your BKS-mobile and drive down to Penn Valley Park."

That borders on scary, yet this same person calls a citizen group that has been working in a professional, positive manner to better their community "quasi-insane."

Um, yeah.

And one question: do you direct the same type of hateful rhetoric toward people who try to establish skate parks, tennis courts or spray grounds in their neighborhoods?

 

Anonymous the wife said ... (2:47 PM) : 

I would love to see more off-leash dog parks in KC. In pursing her cause Ms. Hipp takes a "fight fire with fire" approach to the bullying tactics put forth by Stackhaus and the rest of the Parks Board. Unfortunately, that approach is not earning her or other dog park supporters a lot of public support. I hope all in support of an off-leash dog park will recognize that cooler heads usually prevail. Your public display of protest aired on the news makes you look like petty drama queens. The parks board conduct is outrageous and they should all be ashamed of themselves. However, dog park supporters need to calm the rhetoric to gain public support from people who think there are more important things out there than off-leash dog areas in KCMO parks.

-Hi Robin - thanks for stopping by The Post

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (3:20 PM) : 

That's an interesting point, the wife. But I disagree. I think that these bullying tactics called for a strong response. If Ms. Hipp hadn't taken a "fight fire with fire" approach, she and WOOF would not have been on TV, she wouldn't have written the letter published here and we woudn't be discussing this right now.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (9:21 PM) : 

Back room deals? Hello pot this is the kettle. WOOF's claim that they they spoke to the adjacent property owners and that we were invited to / notified about their "public" meetings is absolutely false. They certainly had their own agenda and trying to talk with them was futile.

There is already a master plan for the park that WOOF completely snubbed their noses at. I completely support dog parks in Larger parks, not neighborhood parks.

As for this park being "one of the most under-utilized parks in KC"...have you ever been to Sunnyside? There are so many weekends and evening that I can barely get out of my driveway thanks to cars at the park. I'd hate to see a well used park let alone live near one.

Mark, I read both your blogs almost daily and usually the posts appear to be well thought out and researched. I am disappointed that this one appears to be more of a rant than a well thought out piece. Especially the near-threat at the end.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (9:30 PM) : 

anonymous 9:21PM,

Mark did not write this post. It is an open letter from Deb Hipp.

 

Blogger Mark said ... (7:20 AM) : 

anonymous 9:21PM,

The previous commenter is correct. I did not write this post. It is an open letter sent out by the chairman of the dog park group.

In fact, I have many guest editorialists. That's why everything in The Post has a byline. There is no byline on this article because I assumed starting it with this sentence would suffice.

"The following is a letter from Deb Hipp, Chairman of WOOF (Well-Organized Off-leash Friends). It is published in its entirety for your information."

If someone from the Parks Board would like to submit an open letter I will publish that also.

Thanks for reading!

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (8:23 AM) : 

You dogparkers got schooled. First Stackhaus pulls out her trademark move. Piss the opposition off when nobody is in earshot and then play the surprised victim when you go ballistic on her. You look like psychos and Aggie pretends to be on the moral high ground. Old school.

Now Marcason writes a letter so she can look like she's helping when in fact this is a done deal. Where was Jan before the vote? In the thick of things being a leader or sitting on the sidelines to avoid having to take a position. Keep in mind Jan is buddies with Eula Inloes just like Aggie. Eula was on her campaign literature petes sake. Pay attention people!

Politics as usual folks.

 

Anonymous Laura said ... (4:16 PM) : 

Hi fellow adults (I think...) Just a friendly reminder that racism, prejudice, discrimination, etc, comes from referring to a whole group of people as all being one way or the other....

 

Anonymous Laura said ... (4:18 PM) : 

Also, Jan Marcason has been keeping herself informed of this dog park idea since late winter/early spring.

 

Anonymous Laura said ... (4:54 PM) : 

Sorry, two more things:
1) If you think a dog park is a waste of time and money and you "could care less about" it, why are you not only reading, but participating in this blog?
2) Those of you who think that Debb's behavior of speaking out against an injustice is inappropriate, or "bullying" behavior, then I am very disturbed at what type of society you desire. In addition, could you give some evidence of this so-called bad behavior by Debb? You have obviously never met her or seen her in action! She is the most level-headed, respectful, and calm person I have ever met!

 

Anonymous Dred Scott said ... (5:29 PM) : 

Is Hipp really standing up for an "injustice"? The assholes Funk appointed won't hear public testimony on neighborhood dog parks. They've decided there will be no neighborhood dog parks. Undemocratic?
yes.
Unreasonable?
yes.
An "injustice"?
Get a grip lady!

 

Anonymous Laura said ... (6:05 PM) : 

It's an injustice when the citizens are not allowed to speak at an open forum public meeting of a board which is supposed to represent the people. Yes, that is an injustice. Is it an injustice on the scale of, say, segregation in schools? No,of course not, never said it was. But just because it is about a dog park does not mean that we are not allowed to be angry, that rights were not violated and that it is not legally questionable, "Dred."

 

Anonymous Dred Scott said ... (8:46 PM) : 

laura -
I know you aren’t talking about Jim Crow injustice. You feel your group has received some sort of procedural injustice at the hands of the parks board. Unfortunately, you must be denied a right in order to claim there is an injustice as a result of the board’s procedures.

The parks board refused to hear your proposals. The parks board did NOT deny your group's right to be heard in the public forum. The Board only denied you the privilege of testifying on the record in an open meeting. As much as I disagree with their decision, neither of these acts deprives you of a "right" which would constitute an "injustice".

Try cooling the rhetoric and you might find more sympathetic ears in our community.

 

Anonymous mainstream said ... (9:52 PM) : 

Dred,

I agree with you that they would have served their interests better in the short and long term by being a little more sophisticated in their response.

But unlike Funkhouser, these people are willing to stand up for something they believe in. (aside: the only thing I've seen Funkhouser stand up for in office is the right of his wife to misbehave, anyways...)

The good-hearted people in favor of off-leash are not experienced in adversarial proceedings, so

cut 'em a break.

They were treated badly, without respect, and they're outraged.

The NEW parks board certainly reflects the mayor's style. Those people do deserve to be heard and there are rules and precedents that weren't followed, regardless of any overly-legalistic analysis.

Oh, and let's remember who's at the center of this whole problem -

Aggie Stackhaus.

The weeble that wobbles but doesn't fall down. Yet. I'm repeating myself, but just talk to her and you'll get the impression you're conversing with a acid-tripping, androgynous, rabid loud-talking Weeble figure.

Why is she holding public office?

Everybody read the quote, (what she whispered to Deb just before the meeting) so why isn't someone holding her accountable for her behavior?

Why am I the only one outraged? I'm not ready to fall on my sword for dog parks, but this is bigger. This is about Funkhouser's worst appointment, Aggie Stackhaus The PsychoWeeble.

NOTE TO AGGIE: You got away with it this time because you abused small, helpless people on an issue people don't want to get behind.

You're a bully, and you pick on people weaker than you.

Watch out for another small (or big) issue, you may find the next person you try to abuse will pack quite a bite.

 

Anonymous Dred Scott said ... (11:13 PM) : 

Mainstream -
you are SO RIGHT ON with your Aggie comments!!!
If only she were the lone loony holding public office right now...there's another city hall nutty-nutterton prone to temper tantrums and melt downs...

but I digress...

As for cutting slack - I respectfully decline. IMO - stooping to her level and engaging in a media shouting match hurts the cause at hand (right now, dog parks - tomorrow, who knows?) more than it hurts her.
Too many tempers, too many egos, and in the end Aggie will still hold her power.

 

Anonymous Deb said ... (12:41 AM) : 

Mainstream,
Hi, this is Deb Hipp, and I just want to explain something. You have to remember that unless you were there (and, excuse me if you were but it doesn't sound like you were), you really didn't see what happened.
All you saw was the news, and of course, they focused on the more volatile people because that's drama. I was also upset but am happy to report that I remained calm at that meeting. I think you must have confused me with someone else you saw on the news.
As for my e-mail message that night, my anger was because the parks department staff, which I have worked closely with for ten months, bringing only professionalism and facts to the table, did not have the courtesy to tell me about this surprise amendment that was intended to kill our project and was put out there in a very sneaky manner.
I guess on second thought, now that I've had some sleep and let this sink in, I wouldn't probably use the word "screwed" again. But really, it's not a profanity, and it seems appropriate to use it when talking about a public meeting in which the public was not allowed to speak on this amendment that affected us.
I know it's easy to watch the news and think you know what happened, but anyone who was there knows that our group was completely quiet and respectful until the parks board rudely refused to allow us to speak and then just went on, as if we weren't even present.
Whenever you see angry people, remember, you probably didn't get the chance to see what made them angry in the first place.
So, there.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (8:55 AM) : 

I'm going to note, based on Deb's comments about the news, that I can say, without exception, that if I were at or involved with any event in this city, and knew enough about it to know what really happened, I've left reading the news coverage of the event with less certainty about what happened...because the coverage was incomplete, innacurrate, or just wrong.

 

Anonymous Dred Scott said ... (5:01 PM) : 

Mainstream -
I think Hipp's comment was directed at me - not you.

ButI think she made my point.

 

Anonymous Brian W said ... (9:26 PM) : 

I drive by sunny side every afternoon and evening. 7 days a week for the last 4 years. I hardly ever see anyone there, ever. It's just a big open field that only a few use.

A dog park would be great.

 

Anonymous Sunnyside regular said ... (4:00 PM) : 

As someone who was there, and was angry, but did not totally lose it, there is one important fact missing from all this. There was a sign up sheet for folks to speak, like every parks board meeting, and 12 folks signed up, all dog park proponents. It was only after they saw who signed up did they decide, "well, we'd just rather not waste our time, we already voted for our amendment in our secret meeting." That is what angered everyone, the fix was in, and we got blindsided.
I understand the difference between dogs and kids, I have both, and huge % of the population also have both. So it makes sense to have activities in our public parks that address this. Last point, I let my daughter in my car, but I would just as soon not have to drive my 2 dogs across town to walk them. You can play tennis in almost any park in KC, even though hardly anyone does. Does Aggie play tennis? I know I could kick her rear.

 

Anonymous Laura said ... (11:18 AM) : 

Dearest Dred, Sorry, I had to get away from the blogging for the weekend. I was not referring to not being able to speak at that particular public meeting as an injustice at all. I was referring to the fact that we were told we would be getting a public hearing since spring where both sides would get to present their case. Then, last week, we were told suddenly there would be no public hearing and that they were going to rule on it immediately. That is an injustice. Again, just because this is about a dog park does not mean that it does not show a very disturbing problem with the big picture: that a branch of local government does not feel it has to respect and answer to the public. If you do not think that is an injustice, then I worry about you.

 

Anonymous Laura said ... (11:29 AM) : 

PS Dred, How are we stooping to Aggie's level? "Media shouting match?" How do you figure that? You seem to think that we should just lie down and accept what happened. Sorry pal, not going to happen. Aside from Deb's use of "screwed" in her open letter, which some may view as inappropriate, we have done nothing wrong. My God! Why am I continuing to try to explain myself to someone who is putting time and energy into putting others down for standing up against local government for a cause?

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (1:02 PM) : 

why dont that crazy ass deb want to put the doggie run in loose park its much larger then sunnyside which loose park would be an ideal place.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (1:18 AM) : 

Although I feel awful about your dog park and hope that you will be successful in the end, it's always comforting to know that others have witnessed firsthand the kind of woman Aggie Stackhaus is! Without a doubt, this woman is mentally and emotionally unbalanced. She is a vicious liar who will create her own world to serve her own purposes, and her often vulgar and inappropriate language (and hand gestures) should be enough on it's own to ensure that she has no city responsibilities. Kansas City's new mayor made an unbelievably poor decision in appointing her to the Parks & Rec. Board. I've lost considerable respect for him! She, along with her political friends, who she controls by badgering and threatening them, will play their manipulative little games, and use their political connections to serve Aggie's own hidden agenda. Her agenda is often just to attack and retaliate against people who she believes have done something to offend her. She has made many enemies, and it's hard to understand why in the world KCMO gives this wacko so much power. Good luck on the dog park! We have one close to our home and enjoy it tremendously, along with many other neighbors. We view it as an asset to our community!

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12:20 AM) : 

As of today, the Aggie Stackhaus Extreme Loathing Federation has 200 more members.

 

post a comment
Google
WWW The Kansas City Post