RON DAVIS -- Through my eyes

Ron Davis

To many people, the term “pooch kick,” is football slang referring to

a short punt of a football that lands at corner of the field, barely

inside the field of play. Victims of this kind of strategy find

themselves buried at their own end zone in poor field position.

Some residents of Huntington Beach feel they’ve suffered a “pooch

kick” of a different kind.

A few months ago, in response to the complaints of several neighbors,

the Huntington Beach City Council severely restricted the hours at Dog

Park, which is located within Central Park near the intersection of

Goldenwest and Talbert avenues. After some hounding by the neighbors in

close proximity to the park, a majority of the City Council agreed that

the field position of the dogs was such that it interfered with the

neighbors’ peace and quiet. So the council cried foul and made the park

out of bounds during early morning and evenings hours.

Recently, some of the pet owners who frequented the park have asked

the City Council for an instant replay, arguing that the penalty of loss

of hours is unwarranted.

So far the council has properly denied the request, but responded by

approving the use of considerable city staff time to review a proposed

new location.

Even though I suspect that the park will eventually be moved to a new

location, which will allow for extended hours and, which will bother no

one, it’s my guess that we’ll hear more yelping from the pet owners. I

doubt that they’ll complain about their new digs, but suspect that

they’ll bark when the city requires the pet owners to defray the cost of

moving enclosures and water to the new location.

The pet owners argue that they’ve already incurred the costs of piping

water, building enclosures, and landscaping at the current location and

shouldn’t be required to pay these costs again.

While I have some sympathy for the argument, those disgruntled pet

owners should remember that it was they who put pressure on the city to

speed up the process and install a doggie park. At the time the City

Council approved the initial park, city staff members had real

reservations about the proposed location and would have preferred to wait

until sidewalks and parking areas were constructed near a more desirable

spot (doggie pun).

Regardless, at the urging of dog owners who insisted on a dog park,

the council approved the current location with the caveat that things

might change if the park interfered with the neighbors’ quality of life.

Indeed, that is precisely what happened. This is a clear case of buyer

beware.

Those who object to once again incurring the expense of providing

water and enclosures at any future location, should be mindful that

they’ve had the exclusive use of public property at the current location

for almost six years without any charge by the city.

In the case of Frisbee golf, people pay to play. In the case of

camping in Central Park, there is a toll to tent. I’m not suggesting that

there ought to be a pay-per-pooch, but merely that given the free use of

public park land for a very narrow purpose, I don’t think it’s unfair to

ask those who use the new doggie park to incur the costs for

infrastructure at any new location.

In my view, the pet owners who frequent doggie park ought to be

grateful that the city is considering dedicating another location for

that use. While I certainly don’t object to creating a pooch paradise,

those who use the facility ought to remember that Central Park is public

property and is supposed to be open for all of the public to use. That

certainly won’t be the case when areas are fenced off so that dogs can

run free.

* RON DAVIS is a private attorney who lives in Huntington Beach. He

can be reached by e-mail at o7 RDD@socal.rr.com.f7