Dog owners response to proposal for Parks

The vision for Sydney
Sydney City Council's vision of the city being made of distinct urban villages is close to being successful in Pyrmont due to dog owners creating their own community and utilising public space in a safe and peaceful manner.

In the last few years a natural, healthy culture of dog owners and their dogs meeting has developed, first in Cadi Park, later Bowman St. Waterfront Park and more recently Pirrama Park..
Early morning ( 7.00 to 9.00 am) and after work ( 5 to 7pm or thereabouts) people from the community meet in Cadi Park and Pirrama Park and enjoy each other’s company along with their dogs.
Please click our link http://jacksonslanding.blogspot.com/

A mix of people from private and public housing gather with their dogs and have created a community. The personal stories of these dog owners who come from a variety of backgrounds (including disabled people), indicate that this informal network has improved their lives and given them a sense of community. Socialising of dogs is a by-product of these meetings which reduces bad behaviour of both people and dogs.

The recent recommendation, communicated by Mark Driver representing Parks & Recreation Planner has all but curtailed this social setting.
Jacksons Landing as a precinct of Pyrmont has the distinction of being the first city area to be legislated by both the City of Sydney and NSW State Planning as a pet friendly precinct BUT with the dubious distinction of NOT having a leash free park. Put simply our city planners and developers want residents to have pet dogs but will quarantine you from allowing them a leash free park (not very pet friendly).

Faults with the survey.
If the council members rely on this survey then there is every reason to believe they will make wrong decisions which they may regret at a later date.
The parks were wrongly named.

Research http://www.petnet.com.au/sites/default/files/PIAS_-_public_open_space_and_dogs.pdf

Out of a population of 11000, only 280 responded to the 6,200 letters sent. Yet registered dog owners were not targeted
The negative dog haters who responded exposed their aims by using the same arguments for every park, even though the facilities and current use of these parks were very different and on several instances did not match.
The survey ONLY interviewed people living in close proximity to the park, whereas this park probably services a much larger population, including dog owners who specifically travel to the park to allow their dog to be off leash. Therefore the results are skewed towards the immediate residents, and not all citizens of the City who aren’t lucky enough to have such a park in their backyard.


The City of Sydney lists Pirrama park as an off-leash area on their web- site (though in the survey it was named Pyrmont Point Park – but NOW we are aware is our designated leash free park), which is therefore considered to be a service that everyone living in the City can access, but the survey considers ONLY the opinions of a small resident interest group.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Residents/Animals/OffLeashAreas.asp

Safety in the City
CPTED: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
A principle of CPTED is natural surveillance, meaning that community safety is increased by more people using public space, and having surveillance over it. You could argue that the Pyrmont dog owners who gather in various public spaces (and at various times), help to make Pyrmont safer for everyone. The leash- free areas encourage the dog owner community to casually congregate in Pyrmont’s parks thus assisting safety, and at various times of the day, before and after most picnickers and other park users.
One instance was a toddler wandering to the other side of the park and in danger of falling into the water, being rescued and returned to her parents who were at the picnic table

Lend Lease sold apartments on the back of it being dog friendly. I think that carries more weight than the results of the survey. Just last Saturday, the SMH Domain section noted that pet friendly apartments and sold at an increased 15% appreciation over non pet friendly accommodation.

Conflict of Interest
The question needs to be asked, Does the Deputy Mayor have a conflict of interest in this matter?
Unfortunately a campaign started by Marcelle Hoff some time ago, to move the off- leash area of Pirrama park to a position that was further away from her home, exposes her to claims that she has a personal interest in the outcome

Dogs off leash in the children’s play area
As regular users of the park, I and my dog walking companions would like to say that we have never seen dogs in the play area. Some dogs, we believe to come from nearby public housing, have wandered the streets of Pyrmont for some years now and on the whole are friendly. Dog owners who take their dogs to Pirrama Park do not let them into prohibited areas. Nor have we had the pleasure of meeting our neighbour Marcelle Hoff to discuss dog or any issues.
Dog owners are concerned for the safety of the children in this play area and would recommend that it be fenced, as from time to time they wander across the central path/ bicycle track and may even get to the water’s edge which poses a significant danger. Unfortunately bicycle riders do not obey the speed limits, and ride on the boardwalk and the concrete surrounds of the ‘sheltered bay’. The design of the park does not allow them to see toddlers, small children or small dogs (leashed or not) until it is too late.
Probably 60% of dog owners have grandchildren and younger dog owners have babies of their own. Dog owners are conservative people who care for the community and are constantly on the look for danger for the pets and other members of the community. Broken glass and other discarded human waste are typically cleaned up dog owners in the interests of their dogs but also the community and the younger children that use the park.
Medcalfe Park is about 1.5 kilometres from Jacksons landing and is unsuitable as an off leash or community park for us. This park houses many homeless men and people recovering from the “Casino” and has no shade.