Is there anywhere we can view the plans for the park

So David you want a place to run your dogs...a nice place fenced area, but you don't want to have to pay any cost because you pay taxes already? Mork from Ork is calling to take you home . Nothing is free, and you pay for all the parks whether you use them or not. This is new and innovative for the area so if you don't want to pay the fee to use it, run puppy elsewhere...that's all I can say..!

There is a free dog park in homer glen. No kool aid served

Hi, Michael.

When you raised your concerns, I looked into them. While you think the rules are extremely clear, there are actually quite a few gray areas that have yet to be cleared up. I think that details will be ironed out in the days and weeks to come, and I'm certain that the Bark for a Park crew will ultimately abide by the rules of the contest.

Lauren

Lauren-What are the gray areas? Point to them, the rules seem to be very clear to me and others. What was the gray area about tax dollars being used to build the park? We were told by Laura Clemons that no tax dollars would be used and she even posted it on the article I pointed to. What is the gray area about the park being at no cost and open to the general public? It is in the rules of the contest.

What is gray about telling people who have paid for the park to be built with taxpayer dollars that they can not use it because permits are limited. You are a journalist, print the gray area, tell us where the confusion is or in what way i am interpreting the rules incorrectly. Tell us what PetSafe has said about the issues.

Ms. Traut, Maybe you should contact PetSafe and ask them to elaborate because I see no grey areas in the rule that says it is to be available for use by the general public at no charge. Like I said in the past, asking for a suggested donation, but not requiring it, wouldn't break the rules. I'm sure many users would be happy to donate to make sure it's maintained properly for the safety of their dogs. I don't live in Oak Forest and I suspect that residents will get the first chance to sign up for the very limited number of permits you're offering. I would understand limiting the number of dogs in the park at one time but not limiting access altogether. When I voted for Oak Forest in the contest I expected to have access to the park with few restrictions, like proof of vaccination. If I had known it would be so difficult to get in I would have voted for Orland Park, maybe they would have handled it better.

How can a community or town support something that will only be limited to a few? The town did support it, voted for it, and is paying for it to be built with taxpayer dollars. How much more support do you want from a community that will only allow 250 people to use it, and some of the 250 may not even be residence of OF or the county. 123,417 votes went to OF for the park, which 250 get a permit?

If you wanted to have all these limits and run the park outside of the rules of the contest then you should have secured private land and built the park with donations and you could make all the rules you want. But, if I, and others have to pay for your dog park with our hard earned money then we better damn well have access to use it.

Those other dog parks did not win a contest that has rules that prohibit charging a fee or limiting access. That is the difference.

She's already stated that vaccinations would be required.

I would add that fees involved with a permit will be used for the upkeep of the park, registration expenses and whatever is used to keep permitted dogs only in the park. This is necessary so people who are not using the park do not have to front the expenses, and as a dog park user, these fees are expected to use any dog park.

Does anyone read or follow rules anymore? The contest rules forbid you charging a fee!!! I find it ironic that you say that you have to follow the FPD rules, but you disregard the rules of the contest. If you do not want to follow the contest rules then decline the money, but if you want the PetSafe money, then follow their rules, the park must be open to the general public at no charge.

I also request that you post on here what the cost is to the taxpayers for building of the park. We have the right to know. Chuck, would you like to pay for something that you may not have access to use? Well if your going to use taxpayer dollars to build the park, then the taxpayers have aright to use it. If you want permits to track the dogs, then have them, but at no charge. WILL SOMEONE HAVE THE COURAGE TO ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUES!!! No one has been able to tell me why we do not have top adhere to the PetSafe rules, or how I am misinterpreting them.

Chuck this is a quote from Laur Clemons

Laura Clemons
10:55 am on Friday, July 29, 2011

"We have made mention of the fact at every meeting that this project would be 100% funded and maintained by the fundraising efforts of the volunteers, along with corporate donations and grants, in addition to the membership fees collected. No taxpayer funds will be used for this project." These are her own words and it seems that it is not true.

She describes how the park would be maintained, but as we all know, we can not charge a fee, so maintenance will have to be done by the other options she mentioned.

Michael, I wrote that Laura has contacted the PetSafe people regariding those and other questions about the park. When we get the answer, and if it conflicts with what we need to do for the FPD, then we will have to make a decision at that time. We do not have that answer yet. I know Laura has invited you to talk to her on a number of occasions, but you do not take her up on it. Therfore, I think your only interest is causing a problem. You do not really have any interest in finding out what is going on. When we have the answers, I am sure you will be able to read about it here and in some other news releases. I saw an email from the PetSafe people, and they responded to Laura, that they will look at our total package, and they will get back to us. I cannot give you information that I do not have, nor can Laura and the committee. As far as paying for services I do not use, you and I do it all the time. I do not know the cost to the taxpayers from the County. Maybe they have a fund that is used for general upkeep of County property (they had several public meetings about it). Those fees would not go away if we had something that is good for our community or not. Just like the fees that go into capital improvement. You pay them regarless if they are doing improvements in your backyard, down the street or 100 miles away. Thankfully those funds will be used for something that is good for our community.

Michael the Dog Park Commitee is in talks with Petsafe about the clarification of the rules, you will know when they know. Nobody is pulling a fast one on anybody. Your rants about permit fees and dog limit restrictions need to go to the Forest Preserve. The Dog Park Commitee has raised funds for the dog park. They will be putting in amenities, like benches and whatever gets decided to do with the money. I know you were at the meeting the other night and you did listen to what Laura Clemons had to say, I believe she answered all your questions. From what we understand the Forest Preserve has allocated existing funds for this park they are not raising taxes to build it. You are not misunderstanding the rules you are reading what you want to read. Nobody is saying you are wrong they are asking Petsafe for clarification that is all you can do at this point. Permits are to ensure the safety of all dogs that visit the dog park. You wouldn't want to bring your dog there and somebody's dog bites yours then find out the other dog has not kept up with their shots, What else would you like to know?

Chuck, why are you always condescending to people? I am not causing trouble. Your problem is that you think we should shut up and do as we are told because you know better. I want to know how my tax dollars are used and what is going on in my community, I prefer to have all my information together before i speak to any one about anything so that I am sure of what i am talking about. I will meet with any of you about the dog park. As I have stated, I do not care if we have a dog park or not, but I care about the rules and the money spent. As for how much it costs; Stop with the patronizing statements that the money gets spent any way and all the time. The more that is spent on a project the less there is for the budgeted projects, and soon taxes are raised to make up the difference.

The real issue is that Laura posted and stated at meetings that taxpayer dollars would not be used, and yet they have been used. How can you tell any of us that we should pay for the park, but there is a great chance that we can not have access to it? The fact that tax dollars were used after we were told they would not ruins her credibility and makes all other decisions suspect. The same goes for all the talk about how the community will have a dog park, yet it will be limited to the few 250. It also struck me at the meeting about the talk to make sure certain people on the committee got a permit.

Mike, I do not try to be condescending to people. As in past posts, with you, I encourage people to ask questions. I answer questions that are asked of me. Whenever I answer a question for you, it is never good enough. I can only give you the answer I have. I cannot make something up that will pacify your confusion. I have reiterated several of the points that Alderman Clemons has given. Let the process come to a conclusion, and then find out what the final decisions will be. If we cannot accept the money we will come up with something else. If we can, then great. If PetSafe gives us the conclusion that we are within our rights, then everything is fine. That is the bottom line. They had our agreement with the County before they announced the winner. It was part of the rules that we give them the terms of our land use. Every question that Laura and I could answer were answered for you. Everyone coming to the park will need a permit, not some people. That is for the safety of those entering the park. If you have a specific question other than the two you keep posting and we keep answering, Please give me a call. I have given you my number numerous times.

Chuck-you have never given me your number. And I keep asking the same question because none of you will answer it. You alluded that I am confused. Tell me here in this thread where and how I am confused, let everyone see it. Yes there will be a conclusion, but we have to remember that the tax dollars have already been spent, PetSafe can not make a conclusion about that, but I have made my conclusion. Why will you not defend her about the use of taxpayer dollars and the post that stated they would not be used? There is no defense; say what you mean, mean what you say, and do what you say.

I'm sorry, "poor dog owners" as in people with little money? I find that very insulting. I wouldn't consider myself poor but I'm certainly not rolling in money. My dog's health is a top priority for me and, as someone who worked many years with dogs and their owners, I have to say that most of the "poor" people that I encountered felt the same way. Also, just because someone is a "poor dog owner" doesn't mean they are incapable of following rules. In regards to charging fees for permits, it is against the rules of the competition, it is to be "available for use by the general public at no charge." I'm so disappointed in the way Oak Forest is handling this.

You plan on taking the money. if you take the money and charge a fee you are breaking the rules. if you limit access to the park you are breaking the rules. I ask again for someone to show me where I am wrong about the rules, so far no one has taken me up on the challenge to prove me wrong. I am going by what is posted on the PetSafe site, if they change the rules then that is on them, but when you change the rules it is on you.

Yes Michael we plan on taking the money - that's why we entered the contest in the first place - to win the money. Now, as I mentioned above, if after I receive the official information from Petsafe with all of the rules, regulations and requirements there are any problems, well then we will deal with it at that time. I'm perplexed after this explanation again you are saying "when you change the rules it is on you". How in the world can I change the rules?

Laura, how do you feel about telling us that tax payer dollars would not be used, then they are used? Once you started talking to the FPD, you should have let them know that you made a promise to the public that taxpayer dollars would not be used. You should live by your word because that is all that you have. you have violated that word. if things had to change then you should have come back to the people and told them about the channges and let us decide if we still wanted to support the project. Was this a budgeted item by the FPD? How much was that budget? Has anyone thought that maybe the committee could reimburse the FPD for the cost with the donations that have been made?

Let me just make this clear again - the FPD will be charging any fees, NOT the city of Oak Forest, and not the Bark for A Park volunteer group. You continue to say "if YOU charge a fee". The "You" is the FPD.. Neither the city of Oak Forest, or the volunteer group, made up of dedicated hard working volunteers will benefit AT ALL monetarily from this park. They will benefit by having an amenity to enjoy that they have worked very hard for. So, they are willing to do the work, not make a dime for their efforts, and raise the funds for any additional improvements - is that a bad thing?

Michael - I have nothing to be ashamed of. If you were involved a year ago, you would know that as the possibility of a partnership with the FPD became a possibility, that FPD BUDGETED funds would be used for the project. You came to one meeting Michael - just one. Let me just say this, the FPD has plans to build not just this one dog park, but other dog parks throughout the county. So, your FPD funds will be used for more of these down the road. The taxpayers of OF wanted a park in their community, and I am proud and excited that through their hard work and determination, along with the support of officials, the FPD recognized the commitment and chose OUR neighborhood to invest in. Again, I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Again Laura show me where I am wrong about the rules. You keep blaming the FPD, but the OF committee won the prize, so whoever is charging the fee is violating the rules. Why do you believe that is is right to only allow 250 permits, and exclude the rest of the thousands of tax payers from using the park? I can not believe that you asked about changing the rules. You and the FPD that you and your committee worked with are charging a fee, how does that not violate the rules? How does limiting access not violate the rules? Show me where it says that you can charge a fee or limit access and still take the prize money? Your committee made the agreement with the FPD or were involved in it so it falls on the committee. All I am asking is that people mean what they say and say what they mean, and do what they say.

Best move you could have made.

Of course you are out. You are not able to defend your position. I say we do have a meeting. A PUBLIC meeting, a conversation about this so that we are all on the same page. Again, I am not against the park, I am against the process and the changes that have occurred.

Let me simply put it this way; although I am not speaking for the Dog Park Committee, I assume if PetSafe says we cannot follow the terms set by the FPD and receive the prize, we will have to make a big decision whether we should take the money and start from scratch or turn down the money and go with the terms set by the FPD. I am pretty sure the monetary value of the land and the improvements the County is making is far greater than the $25,000 PetSafe is giving as the prize for equipment to be used in the dog park. We anxiously await the determination of PetSafe and those in charge. The 2nd fact is, there is a dog park going up off Oak Park Avenue and 159th Street in which the FPD is using their funds to develop regardless if Oak Forest wants to be the stewards or Tinley Park or whomever. We have reached an agreement with them to be the steward of "their" park. Hopefully we will be able to contribute an extra $25,000 to it, but if not, we will give them what we have and what we raise, and we will run the park within the rules set forth by the County.

I have to defend Laura on this, I have been working on the committee since the begining and she has worked so hard to bring this to fruition. You have no clue as to what has happened in the last year and are sprouting nonsense at this point. I for one am glad the FPD has decided to invest my tax dollars in my community and not just the north shore, etc. All dog parks have rules and regulations, they must in order to keep it safe. You obviously just wish to cause trouble, perhaps you would prefer if the FPD spent your tax dollars in a different community, whatever your beef is I don't really care. At this point you are just a bully, the FPD is doing a great thing and you should be ashamed of yourself.

EMM-Did you read the rules of the contest? Show me where I am wrong? I said I voted for the park. I have the right to question what happens in my community, if you think that is being a bully, then it is your problem. Do you believe that questioning something makes you a bully? I understand all the hard work that has been done, but it doesn't mean you can try to skirt the rules or make statements that turn out to be false. Again I ask anyone to show me where I am wrong or have made up any of this. If you want the park under the FPD rules then you can not take the prize money.

EMM, I love your post about Lacrosse. The fact that you do not believe that your taxpayer dollars should be used to fund another persons children's activity.

Here is your post-

EMM
4:16 pm on Monday, August 27, 2012
"That's great for you, but what about the taxpayers who have never had children? We do mind having to constantly open our wallets, it is ridiculous. I have no problem with paying taxes to educate your children, I have a big problem funding their activities. I really believe all sports, should be fully paid by the parents of the students and not my taxes. I mean, I belong to a bowling league, maybe the district should pay for that too since I don't use the school system, only fair right????"

You rail against taxes that benefit someone else, yet you do not mind me or others opening our wallets for your benefit. What about the non-dog owners whose taxes paid for the park, maybe the FPD should pay for their bikes they use on the path, only fair right???. You're a hypocrite. Or does that make you a bully?

Michael, this is the last I have to say, you are correct that I said I do not support lacrosse with my tax dollar because, silly me, I believe taxes paid to the school district should be used for EDUCATION. These funds for the dog park are coming from the forest preserve district. If the FPD was paying for lacrosse I would be fine with that. You can call me names all you want, I don't really care. I do care that for once there is going to be something built that I will enjoy, I have no children and yet I pay to educate yours and I'm fine with that. You basically called Laura a liar and for that I think you're a bully, not because of your views but rather how they are stated. Petsmart was given the info regarding the FPD and THEY decided we still quailifed for the contest, I'm done but I wish you the best.

Why is being ineligible a good thing? That's $25,000 that doesn't have to come from our pockets via spaghetti dinners and dog washes. So, you'd rather we all pay for YOU to use the park. I see. Free to you. But we have to pay for it.

Interested, it's not a good thing but neither is completely ignoring the contest rules but expecting the money anyway. I don't live in Oak Forest but I voted for it because I expected to have access to the park since the rules say that it is to be open to the general public. Also, according to the rules, it is to be free to use. Yes, I expect fundraisers and donations to take care of the park. That being said I would be happy to donate because I want it to be in good shape for the health and safety of my dog. That is, if I get a hold of one of the few permits being offered.

Violet,
Go to facebook and like "bark for a park" and you will get all the updates, even better send an email to Laura Clemens (I think it's above) and she will add you to the email blast. All great question but we don't yet have the final from the FPD, as soon as that happens there will be another meeting letting everyone know all the answers but the really good news is we have a dog park in thw SW suburbs and it is going to be awesome, you can check it out they have already started building, thanks!

Matt you are correct that it is up to PetSafe. My issue is that according to Chuck Toland in a previous post, the committee knew about these issues before the contest, but they failed to notify the community who would be voting. Do you think people would have voted for OF if they knew there would be a fee and limited access and that taxpayers dollars would be used after they were told they would not be used?

When did all of you other supporters know about the limited permits or even that there would be permits, and about the fee? When did you know that your tax dollars were going to be used after you were told they would not be used? Now your tax dollars may have paid for a park that you may not even have access to use.

"Your railings about the rules are a waste of time" - Matt Aggen

The purpose of these comment boards may be for people to share opinions and bring issues to light. That is what Michael was trying to do. The issues he brought forward are as valid as any other user's opinions.

By bringing forth the issue of the rules, he shared information and is contributing to the shaping of the dog park. This is a community issue and all members of the community should be able to comment on it and help shape it.

Michael brought important issues to light by discussing the PetSafe rules and the Oak Forest dog park plan of issuing permits for a fee. Perhaps others on this comment board (such as myself) were not aware of the incongruity.

Thank you Rizzo, you are 100% correct that everyone should have a say. Don't kill the messenger. I would think bringing the issue to the attention of everyone would be better than finding out from PetSafe that we get no money because of a violation and they pull the money after we have spent a bunch of money. I do believe I said that at the meeting also.

I think Tracey D illustrates my point.

..cont.. It was fun to win but I think we should give the money to the humane society. Petsafe would probably accept that deviation. The people of Oak Forest won the money and they have the right to say what happens with it, not the politicians. I don't care how much time was spent on this by certain individuals at the helm. I'm sorry if some of this offends some but this was a project to benefit the all.

Jim Peterman, you said it better than I did.

Those that have been part of the process and have been on the committee, working to raise the money and find a suitable piece of land, which has been quite a challenge, have been privy to the details. I have been on the email list and have received updates. The PetSafe site contained all the materials that were submitted, including the location and details of the site. I think all of a sudden that it is becoming a reality, people are paying attention to the details. Where were you all a year ago? Don't cause trouble. That's what this forum has become. Those that did the work for the park deserve to make the decisions regarding how it is built. Because the towns people don't want it as part of the park district or pay taxes to support it, the public doesn't have a say. It belongs to the committee and now an agreement with the County FP to decide what happens to the park. There have been MANY meetings to be involved along the way.

Interested-Are you speaking for the committee?

What I voted for did not come to fruition. The more I read, the more it becomes apparent. I'm sure that the information is out there, all over the place. All the people who voted, were easily given certain info through various media to make it very appealing. The votes roll in. Now all this other stuff comes to the front page with impecable timing. It almost seems by design. This is more of a hassle than it is worth. The 25 is more worthy of a cause it can do more good. I stick to my earlier thoughts of where I would direct it if I had the option. PS: Open forum is where opinions are expressed and if you consider it trouble, then I suggest reading a good book instead. Causing people to think is sometimes the best of things especially if it spurs challenging what they feel is wrong. Good night.

Where was I a year ago? I didn't even know about the whole thing until the beginning of June this year when I happened to see an article about it in the SouthTown waiting at the doctors office! Where was Oak Forest? As usual, a day late and a dollar short...

Hi, Tracey D.

Actually, Oak Forest Patch has had coverage of the dog park plans since June 2011. We have covered almost every planning meeting, most fundraisers, and progress on picking a location. The Southtown's coverage began when OF was competing in the PetSafe competition against Orland Park. If you search "Bark for a Park" or "Oak Forest dog park" on Patch, you'll find dozens of stories on the topic, beginning with this one: http://oakforest.patch.com/articles/bark-if-youre-interested-in-an-oak-forest-dog-park

Thanks.
Lauren

I kind of agree with you about that because some people have both small and large dogs and might want them to get to play together. The main problem with it though is that the small ones may get hurt during play. I've experienced it, while playing in the yard my 90lb dog dislocated my 30lb dog's elbow, luckily I was able to quickly pop it back in place. I'm not saying large dogs couldn't hurt large and small couldn't hurt small, I'm just saying there is more weight behind it so one playful pounce from a large dog to a small one could cause more damage.

My point is that because its not tax dollars being used, it is donated money, fundraised money, because the people DONT want tax dollars used, people had to go out on their own and fund it. They have the right to spend it the way they want to. Of course now that there is an agreement with the county, the FP has some jurisdiction. So it is certaintly a public/private cooperative situation. Every dog park has strict limits and rules. The ones that are free, are supported by taxes I suspect.

The point is that when the FPD got involved, it stopped not using tax dollars. We all pay for the FPD through our taxes. While it is great to receive use of the land for the dog park from the FPD, the very fact that it is public land makes it a taxpayers concern.
interested, your opinion, " Those that did the work for the park deserve to make the decisions regarding how it is built. Because the towns people don't want it as part of the park district or pay taxes to support it, the public doesn't have a say. It belongs to the committee and now an agreement with the County FP to decide what happens to the park.", may have had some validity until the committee decided to accept the FPD's offer of the use of PUBLIC land for the park. I believe that the public should have some say in how our assets are used.

You are wrong. Tax dollars are being used to build the park. Laura Clemons knowledge that fact in an earlier post. So the promise made by Laura that tax dollars would not be used did not come to fruition. So as a tax payer, you and I have supported the dog park, as a tax payer you and I should have access to the dog park and be able to use it for its intended purpose, but that will not happen because only 250 permits will be allowed. So which taxpayers are going to be told that they can not use the park that they paid to have built? Who will make that decision? Everything else discussed has to do with the rules set by PetSafe, if we want the money from them, then we have to follow the rules, which means it has to be open to the general public and free of charge, again that is not happening. If you want to charge a fee and not have it open to the general public, then we have to turn down the prize money and that removes some restrictions. Then we would have to deal with the permit issue and the FPD, it is just not right to force taxpayers to pay for something and then exclude them from the use of it.

We were told that we were buying an apple, yet they are delivering an orange.

Hi again, Tracey.

I understand your concern. OF Patch is not affiliated with the City of Oak Forest, but we do try to relay information about what's going on in town, including the spraying for gypsy moths. http://oakforest.patch.com/articles/planes-buzzing-the-city-are-spray-for-gypsy-moths

Feel free to bookmark the page for the latest on what's going on in town.

Lauren

Just a reminder that Laura Clemons and the dog park vlunteers all did this on their own time and the city has nothing to do with it except putting support behind this organizatioin. Thank you Alderman Clemons for going above and beyond what is expected of you as a civil volunteer. And thank you to the Mayor and the rest of the city council for your support. This will be a great asset to the City of Oak Forest.

And I might add that the dog park committee can still use your help if you would like to volunteer your time as well.

We did help we voted for the dog park multiple times, but we may not be able to use it.

If the city accepts the PetSafe money, there will be NO, I repeat NO, limitations as the rules state. If they turn down the PetSafe money, and they use the FPD land, there will be limits placed. We don't know what that limit is yet. I don't think I can answer you again with the same answer again wirtten differently. You must be able to understand at least one of my answers. Take a break, and get some ice cream from Jack Frost. That always makes me smile. I like Snickers Blizzard with chocolate ice cream. MMMMmmmm!!!

Bobbo, you are lost in a haze, but your almost right about one thing. If they decline the contest money then they do not have to follow the rules of the contest. I think we agree on that. But, it brings up the issue of tax payers paying for something and not being able to use it, having limit of 250 for example, leaves out all the others who paid but do not get a benefit. What they should have done was use private land, private money and they could do whatever they wanted, but once you use public funds, it must be open to the public. Would you like to pay for something and not be able to use it or get the benefit?

If they do accept the money, and Laura Clemons has confirmed this at the meeting, there will be the limitations on permits and a fee imposed because the FPD is imposing them. So you are wrong on that. Either get the FPD to follow the rules of the contest, or do not use the FPD.

Michael, with all due respect, I think you are the one lost in a haze. I will at least wait to see what the answer is until I rant and rave about not being able to use the park. I think I wrote at least 3-times, the FPD is reviewing the number of permits. I guess even if there were 1000 permits and 1001 people would want to use it, they would have to address the situation at that time, but I see no point (for my own mental stability) worrying about something until I know what the answer is. I can't imagine the County turning down any permit fees to tell you the truth as long as there is not a problem with overcrowding and safety of those using the parks. Perhaps there will be something in place to monitor the use. In my own opinion, I doubt there will be too many people signing up for permits than permits allowed. Perhaps the FPD came up with the 250 number based on the dog parks they already own and operate. I do not know where they came up with that number, but regardless, the dog park committee has already seen that as a potential problem, and they are addressing it. Lets give them kudos for that.

Why is the Cook County "FOREST PRESERVE" paying $77,108.70 to decimate open space so 250 people can bring their dogs there to defecate?

I think there is a point you are missing with your argument. The FPD was always going to build this park, just not in our location. Your taxes were always going to be used for this project (by the FPD), just not in your neighborhood. We are very lucky that we were able to partner up and get the park. I get it, you're angry and that's fine. This project was approved by the FPD way before the committee partnered up with them. Again, it's a done deal and it's going to open regardless.

So the bottom line is it will cost each Cook County resident 1.4 cents/person or 3.5 cents/household to build this dog park in our backyard instead of somewhere on the Northshore, Evanston, Arlington Heights, Elgin, Schaumburg, Elmhurst or anywhere else they could have built it that we would still be paying 1.4 cents/person for. Also I heard the dog park committee had already talked to the FPD and they will be increasing thenumber of permits. Let's just wait and see what happens. It is great that we have this going here which will increase our home's values instead of the houses in Highland Park.

Michael, although I support your opinion and your right to post it here, I think you miss the point. I see several comments trying to explain to you that the contest was entered prior to the FPD offering the land to the committee. In the original effort, the park was going to be located on city property. At that time Laura said no tax dollars would be used. Since that time, the FPD offered the land because in their many public meetings held at the Oak Forest Hospital, they asked for input on uses for land they had, and they were interested in having a dog park. It is amazing how quickly they approved the land use for a dog park as we all know the County usually moves at a snails pace. Oak Forest was already in the PetSafe contest. When the land was approved, the information regarding it was submitted to PetSafe. Now that we won the contest, there is a process that needs to be done in order to receive the funds. Laura wrote that she is in contact with the PetSafe people and the hurdles we face if we use the County land. If they choose not to give us the prize in the event we use the FPD land and their rules, then the committee will have to decide whether it is best to use the $25,000 from PetSafe or to take the land and improvements the FPD is willing to give. From what I have read, the money had not been awarded yet, and they are awaiting final decision from PetSafe. Since there are two options, we are not sure at this time if tax dollars will be used or not.

So by your logic, everyone should ride the bus and train for free, use the pool, take classes at the parks. Every one of these requires payment and a ticket or pass.

The point is I can use all of those, I am not restricted. The dog park will only allow a certain number of permits. When they run out people can't step foot in it. Even if I want to pay to use the park they will not have enough permits and according to the FPD policy if you do not have a permit you will be fined or arrested.

Here is where people are not agreeing with you. I just wrote that the FPD is reviewing the 250 permits as the committee has put it to them that it is a very low number. I understand that the FPD is willing to change that number, but like most dog parks, there has to be some limits, and 250 was their starting point. I am not on the dog park committee, but I think it is fair that those 20-25 people get a permit for their efforts. I also believe what was written earlier that if there are no issues with overcrowding, the amount of permits can be reviewed, as the FPD is already doing. Why can't we wait for final answers? We might be arguing a point which is mute or it might be a legitimate argument in the future when the final decision is made. If there are only 250 permits, I will strongly agree with you that it is too low a number. If the County property is turned down and city property is used with the winnings from PetSafe, then there cannot be a limit or fee as you point out. I don't think anyone is really arguing with you. You just are not listening to the explanations given and continue to ask the same questions over and over although it has been said, those answers cannot be made at this time. I am sure we will hear soon. I hope you have a wonderful Labor Day weekend, and I hope you go to the Old Times Picnic as your tax dollars are being used for it regardless if you show up or not.

You are not listening. Where in the rules of the contest did it say that the winners could impose a fee and limit the use if the FPD became involved? It doesn't!! As I explained, the committee should have come back to the public and said "hey things have changed, we may need to do this a different way". The they could let us decide if we wanted to do it, we were not given that chance. We were led to believe that if we had the park we ALL could use it. Taxpayer dollars are to be used to benefit the general public, the general public has access to all the things that taxpayers pay for, sometimes a fee is implemented, but it is not limited to a certain amount of people. How about the fire department stops going to certain sections of the city because people do not have a permit, hell people who don't even pay taxes get fire and police service.

The old times picnic- At least i have a choice to show up or not to show up. people won't have that choice with the dog park, they may not be one of the lucky few to get a permit. Would you like it if you were not allowed to go to the picnic because only 250 people could go? Would you be happy spending the money you worked for on the picnic, but not be able to go to the picnic?

I'm sorry, you will need to explain that one to me. Who/where do people who do not pay taxes get the fire and police services? People in apartments pay rent which surely includes the taxes the owner/landlord pay, and unincorporated homeowners pay a fire protection district. When people purchase a house in an unincorporated area or refinance (anyone who has a mortgage) they must prove they have homeowners insurance, and in order to obtain home owners insurance, you must have police and fire services. If your fees are not up to date, you must pay them prior to attaining a mortgage or home owners insurance. If they live in an unincorporated area, they pay county taxes and get county police service.

People who visit from out of state that use the fire and police do not pay taxes here. Which is a ironic, I was at the site on Monday, and there were two guys walking a dog inside the fenced area. They cleaned up after the dog and we started talking about the park, turns out they are from Ohio!!, Our first visitors to the park didn't pay a dime for that park, but used it already!!!

People who visit from out of state most often do not bring their houses with them. If they are provided ambulance service, they are charged. If they are using police services because they committed a crime, they are charged. If they are using emergency services they are paying taxes somewhere, but I guess you got me there. I don't think space aliens pay any taxes when they come to earth, but they are afforded comfy services in Area 51. Mike, now I understand why people have stopped answering you. You would argue with me that 2 does not follow 1. I know there is an infinate amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but the fact sill remains, somewhere after 1, 2 will follow. There is nothing that is 100% black and white. There are exceptions to every fact and issue, but the people here are trying to answer you. You are correct that the dog park people cannot get their cake and eat it too. A decision must be made. Until that point, I will wait for the answers. Being suspicious of everything will be a hard way of living. I will say a prayer for you that you will find peace sometime in your life. Mine is too short to argue with you anymore. I'm on my way to Jack Frost right now. Did you know they close after this weekend?

Your hopeless. You never address the real issues. The issue is that no one should be turned down, they all paid for the park. What about that do you not understand? Hey, will there be a limit at the old times picnic? Are they going to turn people away? No they wont, because everyone paid for the picnic.

No you can't use all of those. Many park district classes have a class size limit. The basis of your argument, as I understand it, is, if there are tax dollars used for something, it should be free and there should never be a permit required. If you are going to have a group picnic in the forest preserve, you have to apply for a permit. There are a finite number of permits available. Having limits is not new for a public venue. The goal here is to have a nice amenity for the many dogs and dog owners in the Southland. The support for it has been overwhelming. We are grateful for everyone's hard work and look forward to using the park.

Thanks, Bobbo! I may re-use that one.

Hey Bobbo, I did a lot of work too. I never knew about this until the last few months. My husband & neighbors didn't know. The businesses I went to didn't know either. I got all of the rescues I work with involved, some vet clinics & a couple of animal shelters involved too, plus FB friends to amount to a few thousand votes worth. I made my own signs up. I didn't get any thank you for it. My reward was the chance to win this dog park. So don't go telling me to thank Clemons & I should've helped more. I work 35hrs a week, I'm a pre-med student, have a house & 3 dogs to take care of on top of a immunosupressed husband yet I still made time to get the word out everyday. I didn't have a chance to go to any meetings since I'm so busy. That's why I TRUSTED my city officals to make the right decisions, which was sheer stupidity on my part. I actually expected there to be permits with a fee required for this park plus some of this to be tacked on to my taxes because lets be real, the city can say no but they will always mean yes. My beef is the fact that I pay for a school system for which I have no kids. But I have dogs, have to pay for a park for them and then not be able to use it because OF wants to be exclusive & only allow 250 permits on a dog park thats about 3 and a half football fields big. Rules are rules. The park is supposed to be for ALL to use! Why can't they do daily permits instead? Go to city hall & buy a pass for the day or the following day.

Tracey D- I think Bobbo is one of our elected officials, using another name. Just not willing to put their name to their beliefs.

Are you planning on visiting the heritage site when it is complete?

How will you feel if they say that only 250 permits would be issued for the heritage site and you can not go to or use the site because you do not have a permit. That would be excluding you, but yet you have paid for it. I am not against a fee, except that the conditions to accept the prize money precludes us from charging a fee, therefore the prize money should not be accepted.

The point is that he is a member of the community and is trying to express his concerns before the decision is made so he can try to be a part of that decision. I'm not saying I always agree with him but I appreciate that he is getting involved and raising questions. Allowing something to come to fruition without knowing the facts is completely irresponsible.

I have a feeling OF knew about a possible permit limitation beforehand & chose to "wait and see' if we actually won first before dealing with the situation, as well as the committee members not seeming to be too interested because they've already secured permits for themselves....

Yeah. I'm not buying that one. I'm sure there is a "waiting" list floating around already with the committee members names on it.

I was at the meeting on the 27th, and Laura Clemons was asked is she could be bribed to get the committee members their permits. I think it was said as a joke. But, Laura did say she would do what she could to make sure the members got a permit. I took that as a serious statement.

I haven't heard anything either. Why am I not surprised???