Jamaica Plain News reports on a proposal for Flaherty Playground.
Taxpaying subsidizing doggies and no other animals is unfair to the rest of the animal companions of the area.
There's one in Dorchester
Town of Roxbury, then the Town of West Roxbury. Go on JPers claim it. The area north of Franklin Park between Humboldt and Blue Hill Ave was called Dorchester after the 1920's because the upper class Jewish community there did not want to mixed with their less fortunate cousins in Roxbury.
Nevertheless, Regardless of political leanings, once you point out to a dog owner the hypocrisy of them wanting taxpayer money for their animals to be able to run around, when they have these animals in their lives as a choice, they turn into the most heinous creatures on the planet.
Sebastian Gorka would make out with Jane Fonda and vice versa if they were both dog lovers and were trying to get a dog park built together.
Good enough for me. Why would JP ever claim the Zoo? We barely acknowledge Bourne, and they wish they were Rozzi.
The Post Office clearly knows where Newstead Montegrade starts and ends.
Made it part of Grove Hall Post Office in the 1940's, hence the Dorchester line but there was a concerted effort to call certain parts of Roxbury Dorchester in the 1920's to make the people there feel better about themselves. Sort of like realtors stretching the South End well into Lower Roxbury lately.
No one wants to be in Roxbury. I live north of the park and the city considers it Roxbury, despite what the zip code says. Used to near that hazy South End/Roxbury area.
Given how many residents have dogs, makes sense to create a park for them.
It's why you'll also see public basketball courts and not public pole vaulting facilities. Lots more basketball players in the city than pole vaulters.
Equating humans with dogs.
You must be a dog owner.
You can't see the point.
After all, all those fiction books are of no use to those who are completely devoid of empathy and thus unable to understand that humans may derive happiness from spending time with animals.
Good guy. Got him down on Clarendon Street.
He meows at me when I get up in the morning. I pet him. He likes to drink from the faucet in the tub so I turn it on for him with a slow trickle. He will knock off a mouse about once a year. I get pleasure from having him around the house.
However, I have never asked the government to subsidize me having a cat and the happiness I get from him.
It must be exhausting to be this cynical all the time.
If not, are you angry about the fact the city builds courts which have no use to you?
I used to play basketball at Walsh, Hemey, on Hanson Street, and on other courts.
I am however, not a dog.
PS - If you want to play a game of HORSE, give me some times and places. Bring cash.
Does he jump up on your chest if you're laying on the couch and not feeling well? My cat used to do that but he sadly passed away. Dogs exhibit the same kind of behavior minus the jumping on your chest part.
Just like basketball, tennis, swimming, and all the other speciality park amenities found in Boston.
The dog run/park is mostly for the enjoyment of the dog's owners.
And no, I don't own a dog. But I'm happy to see them on the street and in the park.
Not sure what the lifespan of a giraffe is, but given the number of times you have used this argument over the years the poor thing is either as old as Methuselah or you have had multiple generations of giraffes living in your basement waiting for the city to build the Costello Memorial Giraffe and Tired Argument Park.
About 15 years ago, there were these people who had something that you don't really need, especially in the city.
They are called cars.
The people wanted someplace to keep their cars and know their cars would be ok.
So they got together, bought a piece of land and created a condominium of parking spaces because they wanted something and the taxpayer didn't have to subsidize their keeping of it on public property.
Change cars to dogs and the good people of JP have their model for their dog park.
See how that works?
This argument would make sense if we didn't spend a lot of public resources on providing spaces for people to store their private autos. But....
This comment is actually funny.
Dog runs are a terrible idea and almost universally discouraged by dog training professionals. The opportunity for fights, negative behavior reinforcement, and transmission of diseases is hugely enhanced by dog runs. So many dog owners want an excuse to exercise and provide enrichment for their dog with the minimum amount of effort. Get a long lead and go to a quiet spot in the park. Professionally supervised day care is available if you truly want your dog to "run free". As a dog owner the dog park is a bad idea, and it's a good thing Boston doesn't have them all over the place.
I wasn't aware of this, but it makes sense. Do you know what the consensus is on the walkers who take groups of unrelated dogs to off-leash/long leash romps? This seems like it's done responsibly, with temperaments screened and whatnot.
I'm not sure if there is a consensus, but anyone running a business doing dog walks has a strong incentive to screen for behavior for their personal safety and their reputation. The benefit of a long lead is you can still get control at a distance if something happens. People breaking up dog fights is how some of the worst dog injuries occur, because fighting dogs often reflect aggression back to whoever is intervening, even toward their owner sometimes. I'm not sure anyone can fully control multiple dogs off leash at one time especially if the dogs aren't well known by the handler.
This dog run would take up a huge percentage of this park. They would eliminate a multi use field for this. Call me crazy but I think we should prioritize people over dogs. I say this as someone who regularly uses this park.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy