When we asked the Town of Cochrane to release the results of the West Valley off-leash dog park public consultation survey, we were expecting the results to be a close mix of support and opposition.
Even a slightly lopsided mix of support over opposition with the immediately adjacent landowners tipping the scales to motivate council to change the town’s plans would have been understandable.
To say we were shocked when the results arrived would be an understatement.
The survey, which was closed before the submission deadline, garnered approximately 150 responses. Of those responses, 32 said they had a problem with the location, some portion of the design, or the cost. Only 26 said they would not use the park.
Conversely, 106 people supported the park and 109 said they would use it.
While it is understandable the opinions of adjacent landowners with a sizable investment in their homes near a proposed development would be weighted heavier than potential users with no financial stake, there is a reason public consultation is done.
When it comes to urban planning, there will always be tradeoffs. Every public amenity will have its supporters and detractors and balancing the needs of the entire community and keeping everyone happy is not only tricky, it is practically impossible.
Judging by the survey results, council weighted adjacent homeowners’ opinion four times higher compared to other dog park proponents.
Depending on perspective that might be a fair weighting. While it might be speculative whether the park itself would have a negative effect on adjacent properties, some aspects of the plan – such as the parking lot – likely would have.
With that in mind, it makes sense that council would conclude the consultation and begin work on examining a new location in order to ensure a new dog park was in place before the end of the summer, as Coun. Jeff Toews explained.
Unfortunately, the off-leash dog park debate has become such a divisive issue that council might be faced with heavy opposition over the new location from those who preferred the old.
If so, town administration and council will have to come up with a park design and consultation effort that will appease those dog park supporters who are fighting for the first site.
It might just happen that the majority of dog owners who comment on the issue, simply want a new dog park and the location is secondary to fulfilling the need.
If that is not the case, council will have put itself in an interesting predicament. Comments made during the council meeting to investigate the alternate site, made it sound as though most councillors felt the first site was no longer palatable. That means council might be driving itself toward approving a location that has minimal support over one that had minimal opposition.
If that happens, faith in council’s public consultation process will take a seriously negative blow.
