By way of introduction, I have been a citizen of what is now the City of Wheat Ridge since 1963. I am and have been a resident of the Fruitdale area, now District IV, since 1964.  As the city was being formed and the following few years, we in District IV formed what was known as the Fruitdale Civic Association.  The organization’s purpose was to protect the interests of those of us in the Fruitale Valley, particularly from excessive high density residential and undesirable (appearance, noise, and dirt) commercial and industrial. 

Although we were not totally successful, we had an impact. It looks as if we may have to become active again. One would like to believe that District IV Council representation would be more attuned to Fruitdale voters.

I believe the now infamous dog park constructed in Fruitdale Park is a terrible mistake. I totally disagree with the installation of the dog run on several levels.

First, dogs are the property of the owner. It is not the responsibility of the city to provide for the individual care of personal property of a citizen. I am a dog lover, and have owned a dog for years. As with my other property, it was my responsibility to care for my dog, not the responsibility of other citizen taxpayers. I, as most all other dog owners, provided our own exercise area for our dogs. I dare say that you will not find a person of my generation who believes he/she is responsible for caring for other citizens’ dogs. This installation is, among other things, the consequence of high density residential zoning within the city. As a taxpayer of Wheat Ridge, I protest paying any cost of capital construction of facilities for, or of caring for, the dogs of others. 

Second, at council meetings, most every, if not every council person, during 2011, has addressed concerns about the very tight budget of the city. How the members of the council could justify the installation and associated frivolous costs of a dog park is a real mystery to me. There are just too many citizen needs to be giving dogs the attention. Unfortunately it tells us where we citizens stand in relation to the dog population. Where is the City’s Cat Park? I wonder what will happen if our next City Manager is a horse lover. Which Park will we fence for a Horse Park?  Did any voting member of Council consider the impacts when they voted for this thing? 

Third, Fruitdale Park has, in the past, been an area utilized for car shows, gun shows, civil war reenactment battles, and a place for school marching bands to practice their routines.  These functions were well attended by the citizens of the city. The functions used the prime area of the park, unfortunately that prime area now is a dog park. So again, the dogs reign, citizens lose. Actually the park is large enough to have supported a dog run and still remain intact for the other established functions. But the Parks Department chose to install an oversized dog run in the prime area of the Park area, thus precluding repeat of previous uses. 

If there was an official request for a dog park at the Fruitdale park, it was not well advertised. There was a “public meeting” regarding the planning for the dog park but, I am told, park staff claimed that the drawings they had with them were incorrect.

This appears to be a total “inside job” initiated by the City Government.  I suggest we rename the Park “DiTullio Dog Park” so that he gets the proper recognition when the area turns to dust/mud and the stench becomes unbearable. 

Gerald D. Birney