The City has been reviewing adding a dogs’ off-leash area to Baird Park for a while now. The community had several concerns regarding the addition to the park include the location, noise, damage to the trees and the loss of playing fields.
Toronto Parks has released a letter with answers to the community concerns .
Summary
Hours of operation will be set at 7am to 9pm
Wood chips under the trees to protect the roots from stomping
No commercial dog walking
The entire letter can be found at this link. Feb 23 – Baird Park OLA
Loading ...
A huge mistake in urban planning! Definitely dola needs to be removed!
Yea a huge huge mistake
The city has followed proper protocol and made an excellent decision!
The letter from Brenda Patterson, General Manager Toronto Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division on the Baird Park Dog’s Off-Leash Area Review states:
“It was concluded that an off leash area at the eastern portion of the park was a suitable location based on the Off-leash Policy criteria… The Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division along with Councillor Perks recognize the importance of an off leash area to this community.”
Other communities with DOLA’s in their parks have been enriched by the presence of off leash areas. On the Seaton Village Resident’s Association web page, under Park Renewal from November 16th 2010 you will find a Vermont Square leash free dog brief from community meetings stating…
“Adults, who are there because of their dogs, have an impact. Young people are more careful to control their behavior when they see adults surveying the situation. This safety only exists because of the off-leash activity. Without the leash free time there would be no adults in the park after dark. A park without people present can lead to more vandalism and illegal activities. ”
The letter goes on the further say, “No system is perfect and meets all the needs of the community. There are always people in the community who want what meets their personal needs. While there are occasional issues and concerns that arise, they have been successfully managed through thoughtful acknowledgement that the park is there for the whole community to enjoy and people with dogs responsibly share the space in a respectful way.”
I think it’s important to note the city has also responsibly denied a long list of applications for off leash dog parks at other locations for environmental reasons, proximity to residences, ability for the park to be shared among community group activities. Our little friendly corner of the city passed muster with flying colours.
The Baird Park proposal was carefully reviewed by the city, cross-referenced with well thought out and practiced policy, and an off leash dog park was determined to be a GOOD IDEA at this location. The city… “recognize the importance of an off leash area to this community”… meaning that it is much much much more of a benefit to the community than you suggest. It’s inclusive of the whole community.
The city did its job very well….
Baird Park was always used by dogs. The DOLA did not change this. All it did was invite dogs from other communities into the park into a small inappropriate area. Delicate Norway Maples lost a great deal of their root system due to construction. The Baird Park DOLA was pushed through underhandedly and is causing problems with parking noise, etc.. The city did NOT do its job and continues to shirk its responsibility when it comes to policing and maintaining this park. Ridiculous to give a third of this small beautiful park to such a special interest group – haven’t seen any benefits so far.
U must either be from Gord Perks’ office, Parks, Rec & Forestry, the Dog Association Group representatives for that area, or those Dola users who don’t live near one of those enclosures. There are people who live a few streets away from there who hate it and feel that it is exclusive not inclusive.
Dola is better somewhere else not in parks such as Baird. Definitely not a benefit but a detriment. There are reasons that dola have been denied in certain areas and if a dola is good for a community why removal of Ledbury. There are avid dog owners that oppose such things.
Dola department from Parks, Recreation and Forestry just want to experiment with their dola pilot project anywhere they can. In the right location it might be ok if well built and sited property, while in the wrong location it does bring about community animosity.
Protocol/procedure was not followed in the approval of this compound. The west-side location only was under consideration at the two public meetings. Read the minutes – the east side was rejected as a possible location in the first meeting and not on the table at the second. Gord Perks and Parks/DOLA representatives slipped this one through, inexplicably – unconscionably – despite community objections, including a roughly 200-signature petition. An arborist report commissioned by concerned residents concluded that “the short and long term effects of the installation on the surrounding trees will inevitably hasten their decline.” Dog owners routinely ignore the posted hours; dog walkers frequent the DOLA, against regulations; cars park illegally so that dog owners from outside the area can use the DOLA; dogs are barking, fighting, howling, yelping, etc., almost continuously, scant metres from homes on Indian Grove; Animal Services staff are unable to control these violations; during the heat wave, Baird Park smelled like a giant toilet; residents have been threatened, subject to abuse, had bags of dog dirt thrown at their homes – all for objecting to dog owners violating the rules of the compound; these same residents are denied the use of the best part (shaded) of the park for family activities, now the exclusive preserve of a special interest group – need I go on? There may be great locations for dogs off-leash areas around the city – the east-side of tiny Baird Park is not one of them. It was a mistake to put it there. It must be removed.
Um, hi again!
A few comments in response to your posts:
• The off leash dog area does change the relationship a significant part of this community (responsible dog owners) have with the park. It fulfills a need for many, many, many Junction families.
• Concerns for the trees have been taken in to consideration, and modifications have been made. Only one tree is inside the fenced in off leash area. Wood chips were added to protect root systems and weeping tile was installed to control seasonal run off.
• The park was not pushed through underhandedly, two community meetings were held. The city carefully reviewed the proposal. All community concerns were considered, and plans were modified to accommodate. This is all publicly documented.
• The off leash dog area is not even close to a third of the park area.
• Many, many, many in the community have benefited this summer from the off leash area.
• I am NOT from Gord Perks office, or Parks, Rec & Forestry, OR a dog association group… I am simply a resident of the Junction who enjoys this park every day.
Many in our community do not share your point-of-view. The, as you say “community animosity” seems to mostly be coming from those like you who oppose the presence of the off leash area in Baird park. For example, your insinuation that I have an ulterior motive?
Please help keep our little corner of Toronto friendly
Sorry U you’re mistaken about a number of things:
• I am a dog owner, and while it does fulfill a need it is at the expense of the 70 to 80 year old trees in the park, and at the expense of residents living feet from the park. The east side is the worst possible location in the park. The members of the dog owner’s association have even publicly said as much.
• Parks itself at the very first public meeting said a DOLA in that area would harm the trees. And it’s not just the one tree within the boarder of the fence. Parks own plan admits ground compaction for all those trees just outside the fence is a concern. It’s call the critical root zone for the trees, and generally is an area under the leaf canopy. Parks now insists that 15 cm of mulch will prevent the problem, though they refuse to distribute the area evaluation that was supposedly done by Forestry, despite repeated requests. However, they have disregarded their own plans and only installed 5 to 10 cm of mulch. The independent arborist, who has himself been hire at times by the city, namely to look into protecting trees at Dog Hill, says that Parks plan’s are inadequate. And they aren’t even following that. Plus, their installation methods clearly violated the city’s own Tree Protection and Plan when installing the cement pads by excavated and having the heavy equipment so close to the trees. Too bad this is enforced by the very people who are violating it.
• The park was pushed through underhandedly. I was at both meetings, and spoke at both meetings. The public documents shows that at the first meeting, it was clearly stated by Parks staff that there would be no off-leash on the east side. The second meeting minutes show several options and opinions were being looked at including, a kids area on the east side, at double fence for a dog off-leash on the west side, even the lawn bowling green to name a few. Plus the minutes, and therefore those concluding remarks, were only published weeks after the east-side plan was announced. Convenient. More importantly the People, Dogs and Parks policy clearly states that:
At the meeting, park project staff shall review the proposed offleash
area with the attendees:
o overall project
o o size and location of area
o slopes and their sustainability
o tree or forest protection required
o amenities (lighting, seating, access to water for people and
dogs, waste and recycling programs)
o other landscape components.
Parks did not do this. Rather than have a third meeting to detail this brand new plan, as their policy says they should, they just announced their intentions, which were horribly lacking in any detail, and they took people’s feedback at an anonymous email address. There was no way to ask questions, or have a dialog about this new plan. And we did have questions, enough to warrant another meeting. But rather than face that headache they just pushed it though ignoring our concerns and a large petition asking for a meeting. How is that not underhanded? Sorry U you’re mistaken about a number of things:
• I am a dog owner, and while it does fulfill a need it is at the expense of the 70 to 80 year old trees in the park, and at the expense of residents living feet from the park. The east side is the worst possible location in the park. The members of the dog owner’s association have even publicly said as much.
• Parks itself at the very first public meeting said a DOLA in that area would harm the trees. And it’s not just the one tree within the boarder of the fence. Parks own plan admits ground compaction for all those trees just outside the fence is a concern. It’s call the critical root zone for the trees, and generally is an area under the leaf canopy. Parks now insists that 15 cm of mulch will prevent the problem, though they refuse to distribute the area evaluation that was supposedly done by Forestry, despite repeated requests. However, they have disregarded their own plans and only installed 5 to 10 cm of mulch. The independent arborist, who has himself been hire at times by the city, namely to look into protecting trees at Dog Hill, says that Parks plan’s are inadequate. And they aren’t even following that. Plus, their installation methods clearly violated the city’s own Tree Protection and Plan when installing the cement pads by excavated and having the heavy equipment so close to the trees. Too bad this is enforced by the very people who are violating it.
• The park was pushed through underhandedly. I was at both meetings, and spoke at both meetings. The public documents shows that at the first meeting, it was clearly stated by Parks staff that there would be no off-leash on the east side. The second meeting minutes show several options and opinions were being looked at including, a kids area on the east side, at double fence for a dog off-leash on the west side, even the lawn bowling green to name a few. Plus the minutes, and therefore those concluding remarks, were only published weeks after the east-side plan was announced. Convenient. More importantly the People, Dogs and Parks policy clearly states that:
At the meeting, park project staff shall review the proposed offleash
area with the attendees:
o overall project
o o size and location of area
o slopes and their sustainability
o tree or forest protection required
o amenities (lighting, seating, access to water for people and
dogs, waste and recycling programs)
o other landscape components.
Parks did not do this. Rather than have a third meeting to detail this brand new plan, as their policy says they should, they just announced their intentions, which were horribly lacking in any detail, and they took people’s feedback at an anonymous email address. There was no way to ask questions, or have a dialog about this new plan. And we did have questions, enough to warrant another meeting. But rather than face that headache they just pushed it though ignoring our concerns and a large petition asking for a meeting. How is that not underhanded?
Sorry U you’re mistaken about a number of things:
• I am a dog owner, and while it does fulfill a need it is at the expense of the 70 to 80 year old trees in the park, and at the expense of residents living feet from the park. The east side is the worst possible location in the park. The members of the dog owner’s association have even publicly said as much.
• Parks itself at the very first public meeting said a DOLA in that area would harm the trees. And it’s not just the one tree within the boarder of the fence. Parks own plan admits ground compaction for all those trees just outside the fence is a concern. It’s call the critical root zone for the trees, and generally is an area under the leaf canopy. Parks now insists that 15 cm of mulch will prevent the problem, though they refuse to distribute the area evaluation that was supposedly done by Forestry, despite repeated requests. However, they have disregarded their own plans and only installed 5 to 10 cm of mulch. The independent arborist, who has himself been hire at times by the city, namely to look into protecting trees at Dog Hill, says that Parks plan’s are inadequate. And they aren’t even following that. Plus, their installation methods clearly violated the city’s own Tree Protection and Plan when installing the cement pads by excavated and having the heavy equipment so close to the trees. Too bad this is enforced by the very people who are violating it.
• The park was pushed through underhandedly. I was at both meetings, and spoke at both meetings. The public documents shows that at the first meeting, it was clearly stated by Parks staff that there would be no off-leash on the east side. The second meeting minutes show several options and opinions were being looked at including, a kids area on the east side, at double fence for a dog off-leash on the west side, even the lawn bowling green to name a few. Plus the minutes, and therefore those concluding remarks, were only published weeks after the east-side plan was announced. Convenient. More importantly the People, Dogs and Parks policy clearly states that:
At the meeting, park project staff shall review the proposed offleash
area with the attendees:
o overall project
o o size and location of area
o slopes and their sustainability
o tree or forest protection required
o amenities (lighting, seating, access to water for people and
dogs, waste and recycling programs)
o other landscape components.
Parks did not do this. Rather than have a third meeting to detail this brand new plan, as their policy says they should, they just announced their intentions, which were horribly lacking in any detail, and they took people’s feedback at an anonymous email address. There was no way to ask questions, or have a dialog about this new plan. And we did have questions, enough to warrant another meeting. But rather than face that headache they just pushed it though ignoring our concerns and a large petition asking for a meeting. How is that not underhanded?
It’s nice that the park is convenient for you, U. But how is it friendly to ignore the discomfort of your neighbours just because it makes your life easier? How is it okay that you’re stressing 80 year old trees because the park is close? How would you feel if you did everything “right” and were not even given the courtesy of being listened to? How would you like to never sleep in past 7am on the weekends again? Because I can’t. If I’m so lucky that my 20-month-old actually stays asleep, I can be assured that there will be at least one dog owner thoughtless enough to be at the park bright and early to have his dog barking. My bedroom is right up front, and I thanks to the auditorium-like acoustics I can hear people talking in the park from my bed, (and no this is not an exaggeration) so how can I sleep though a dog barking at 7? And that’s just from the jerk who is following the rules, there has been quite a number of times that there has been dog owners in the park after 9. Long, long after 9. It’s tempting to want to take your dog to the park in the cool of the evening after a hot day, it happen all the time.
It’s easy to feel that there are a bunch of people being unreasonable, because their complaining about something you enjoy. But for the greater good isn’t that good when it’s your life that’s being stepped on. How neighbourly is that?
Peter
I second what Peter wrote. I am also a dog owner, and I do not share the sentiment that this park is a good thing. It is very easy to say the park is wonderful when your everyday life isn’t directly affected by it. It has changed our street, our neighbourhood and the way we live our lives. I’m glad U like it, but U obviously don’t live nearby. You can quote the Parks letter all you want, but they aren’t going to publicly admit they did anything wrong. Your reasoning is faulted. Be neighbourly and think of us, instead of yourself.
Just a quick note to refute the previous comments: As I stated, the arborist report commissioned by concerned residents was unequivocal in its conclusions. Even with the “modifications” the installation will “inevitably hasten” the decline of the trees. This includes the trees bordering the DOLA. The report quoted Forestry’s own requirements for wood-chip mulch (15cm – to be replenished as needed)to lesson the impact of human and canine traffic. Much less than that was put down and it has largely disappeared. The compaction of soil interferes with the root systems’ ability to provide nutrients to the trees. If you care about the park, I would be happy to send you a copy of this report.
I would also be happy to direct you to the records of the two public meetings (available online), at which a proposal to construct a DOLA on the west side of Baird Park was discussed. The east side was not included in this proposal. As such, there was no debate on the merits of this location and community concerns were not considered. There is no public record of the alleged City review of the site. We have only their word, which we have shown to be worthless. I think your choice of the word “underhanded” best sums up the nature of the process.
The off-leash area, under the canopy, is the best part of the park, comprising almost half the open green space. This area was used by families for many, many different kinds of activities. Many, many, many in the community have benefited in the past from the use of this area. It is now off-limits to the community and is restricted to the use of a special interest group, who have only to walk a few minutes down the road to High Park to use its massive dog zone.
The “animosity” you mention is largely directed towards the people responsible, Gord Perks and various Parks/DOLA functionaries, who foisted this abomination on a community, ruining Baird Park and destroying the peace and tranquility of our neighbourhood. We are also upset that irresponsible dog owners use the DOLA at all times of the day and night and Animal Services seem incapable of enforcing regulations. I think you would agree that animosity seems perfectly understandable under these circumstances.
Many people in the community do not share your point of view!
I believe due process has happened. I was at the public meetings too, I have read the minutes-reports-letters and I see it differently. I see the addition of an off leash area as thoughtful, considerate, inclusive, and supportive of the peace and tranquility of our neighborhood. I see that environmental concerns have been heard and addressed.
Baird Park has a fenced in lawn bowling club, a fenced in playground, and now a fenced in off leash dog area… none of those areas are exclusive by the way… and still there’s room left for a kids splash pool, walkways, picnic tables, and plenty of green space including an open field often used by a local school for recreation. Dog owners are no more a “special interest group” then families with kids, or lawn bowlers, or people who picnic, or school gym classes, or anyone.
The park is PUBLIC property, and responsible dog owners respectfully share Baird Park with you! There may be a few who don’t obey the rules, just as there are some people who litter, loiter, and cruise when they shouldn’t… but not many. Baird Park is a clean, safe, well used, and well loved space in the 5th largest urban centre in North America. Aren’t we lucky!
I am sorry you feel it is now “destructive”, “stepping on your life” an “abomination”, and “ruined”. I don’t agree, and I don’t think your animosity is at all reasonable. If you are not happy there anymore, Lithuania Park is only 500 meters away.
ps… I haven’t slept in past 7am 6 days a week for 2 years either Peter because I live across from a condo construction site. Annoying, yes. Legal, yes.
The enclosure is self entitlement at its best; I bought a dog, but because I, the owner, am too lazy to walk a couple of blocks south to Toronto’s greatest park, I’m going to cop out and have something built right under my nose. Bravo.
If you don’t have the time and effort to take your dog it on a proper walk, don’t own a dog. Spending the short time you get outside running around a small enclosure like the one in Baird Park is a pretty sad existence!
I think the park looks great and is a great addition to the neighbourhood. I just live the next street over on Indian Rd Cres and had no idea there was a dispute about this dog park. I don’t have a dog, but it looks great, is really civilized and is safer for children, like mine. There is plenty of space left in the park for playing.
This park has never been overly crowded. I am also happy to meet dog owners from other parts of the Junction who bring their kids and dogs over to Baird Park!!!