Council Actions Move Plans Forward for New Dearborn Dog-Park, Soccer Fields off Gulley Road
Plans call for Dearborn's first-ever dog park and four new soccer fields.
The Dearborn City Council Monday night approved a measure that paves the way for the city to continue to pursue a plan to add four new soccer fields and create the city’s first-ever dog park on a parcel of property along Gulley Road, just behind the Dearborn Racquet & Health Club and adjacent to Crowley Park.
The Council approved a land split in the Gulley industrial park area, giving the city permission to continue with its plans. In November 2008, city council approved purchase for $545,000 an “L” shaped piece of property that was part of the now-closed Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC) lot and a portion of property behind the Dearborn Racquet club. The health club owners purchased the MESC property as part of their long range planning and then sold a portion of it to the city.
Costs for the fenced dog-park, four soccer fields, proper irrigation, a parking lot and construction of a new access road off of Gulley to the park would be about $500,000, an amount City Council would still need to approve. The funding is currently budgeted in a draft of the city’s fiscal year 2010 budget.
The new soccer fields and the new access road to them from Gulley Road would take some of the pressure off of Crowley Park and neighborhoods on soccer Saturdays in the Oxford and Telegraph area. Currently, there is only one entrance to Crowley Park off of Oxford Road. It would also allow the city to rotate use of the soccer fields as a way to keep them in better condition. To alleviate some of the concerns area residents have about creating a new access road off of Gulley into this park (currently sealed with a brick wall), city officials say the road would be gated, closing at 10 p.m. The road will not be a pass through into Crowley Park, city officials said.
Separately, the Dearborn Soccer Club granted the city $100,000 to repair a comfort station at Crowley Park and build a new 40-foot x 40-foot picnic shelter. The refurbished comfort station and picnic shelter will be opened this summer.
We think the planned soccer fields and dog park would be a nice addition to Dearborn’s current 43 parks. To have so much green space in a city as old and as large as Dearborn really is unheard of and we residents are fortunate.
Dearborn City Planner John Nagy sums the value of our parks up best: “The parks are the lungs of the city.”
March 17th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I too think these soccer fields being built and other improvements will enhance our city’s base of parks and activities. But knowing that I spent most of my childhood athletic days playing rec ball in Crowley Park I have some concerns, perhaps unfounded about adding in an entrance to Crowley Park off Gulley Road.
There were many times friends and I would go to Crowley Park to swim at the pool instead of Summer Stephens which is closer to our homes. A number of times non-resident rowdies would cause problems outside that pool area with us kids and we finally stopped going. I also remember that before and after ball games at Crowley there were also issues at times with non-residents who bullied some kids in the baseball diamond areas.
Since the days when Hubbard left that area mostly trees and shrubbery along Gulley Road to the later days of industry and business parks being built there with a wall in the back , it has always served as a barrier to keep traffic and I’m assuming non-residents out of that park and it has worked pretty well.
Since this was back in the 50’s and early 60’s when times were better, I’m just a bit concerned that even if they close that Oxford entry off Gulley Road at 10pm, in todays world, there may be even more trouble in Crowley than our park rangers and police can handle.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I feel.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am
The city council and administration must have bee drinking a wee bit o the green beer. 500,000 for a dog park!!!!With the city facing budget cutbacks, violent crime out of control in east dearborn and a continued deterioration of the housing stock. Just down Hines is a dog park in Westland, not much farther considering the proposed site is in far far west dearborn. This is an outrageous waste of money considering the availability of one just a bit west. Also 73,000.00 for JCI to maintain a website until June! The whole Welcome Home Campaign is amateurish and way overpriced. Remember the tarps on the roofs for airplanes. Come on elected officials, get a grip on reality.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:54 am
now how does a dog park work? are parks allowed to run around more freely than in a standard park? are they allowed to poop wherever they like? do their owners still have to pick up the poop? is there a contradiction between the notion of letting the dog completely loose and free, and the notion of running after said canines wherever they may run, and picking up their poop? if i misunderstand the concept of a dog park, it may be because i am trying to imagine how dog, owner, poop, and poop smell all work together in a confined space specially relegated for these four associated components. on average, does a dog park smell more than a standard park? does it smell more than a standard doghouse? does it smell more than your standard dog-owner’s house?
March 18th, 2009 at 7:19 am
Below is the most detailed info I could obtain on dog parks:
http://www.apdt.com/po/park/default.aspx
March 18th, 2009 at 8:19 am
How about a combined dog/water park?
March 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
it is about time that the city of dearborn have a dog park. we are not allowed in ANY city of dearborn park and why? I pay taxes and I’m never going to have children so why can’t I bring my “children” to the park? Anyone who is against a dog park should think about how we feel when the city spends money for a new swing set.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I totally agree becki kain and it would be a wise enhancement to have that dog park there for the west end of town. Although it would be open to all residents, I also think though to be fair, if/when this park is completed, the city should also have a convenient located dog park for citizens in the east end.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I agree with Becki that it is infuriating that those of us with dogs are prohibited from using any of the city’s park. But a dog park is not the answer. ALL of are parks should be open to dogs. There is no reason to build a dog park when there are already many parks available in our neighborhoods. If our parks can be used by nonresidents, then they should be open to our residential dogs. I can assure you that my dog will never assault you, will never rape you, and will never rob you. I pick up after my dog, and my dog is well behaved. She is certainly better behaved than the two-legged animals who constantly litter my corner lot with bottles, candy wrappers, and other refuse.
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 am
Core, the reason most cities do not allow dogs in regular parks is common sense. Surely most people are like you in that you take care of control of our dog. But as it is in life with everything else, a few ruin it for the majority by not picking up their doggie doo, letting their dogs urinate on the grass and trees, allowing their dogs to roam and sometimes attack people, etc.
With lawyers today who are so sue happy, the city takes a big risk even having one dog park, let alone allow dogs in all parks. It’s just plain common sense and sad that we all have to suffer for the few that don’t play by the rules, but that’s the way it is. Hopefully I’ll be able to take my dog to that new dog park someday, which I’m really looking forward to.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
It is about time that we can have a dog park. I hope the idiot dog owners that can’t follow rules won’t spoil it for thse who do. Always remember that you can walk your dog anywhere else in the city on public property as long as thay are licensed, leashed (held on to) and picked up after.
March 27th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Nope, Deputy Dawg. Common sense dictates that the owners who don’t control their dogs or pick up after them be prosecuted and/or banned from the parks. Dog owners should be encouraged to properly train and socialize their dogs. A dog that can pass the Canine Good Citizen test has shown that it is properly trained and socialized. And Dearborn should allow the CGC dogs in our parks. These dogs have earned the privilege. To encourage owners to pick up after their dogs, Dearborn should install Mutt Mitt dispensers. That would be a lot cheaper than a dog park. Put-In-Bay does this and its park is clean and dog friendly. With what I pay in taxes here, I shouldn’t have to drive to a dog park to walk my dog.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Core,
Thanks for informing us of what works in other parks and/or cities. These were things I didn’t know and perhaps our city should consider…
March 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Hi Michael!
In Phoenix, dog owners who are formally training their dogs for competition are permitted to take them off leash in the parks. Here is a link about the ordinance: http://phoenix.gov/parks/leash07.html
Notice the reference to CGC. Although the CGC program is under the American Kennel Club, it is open to ALL dogs — purebred and mixed breeds. CGC is the first step to becoming a therapy dog or a service dog.
Dearborn should adopt a similar ordinance. Put up the Mutt-Mitt dispensers. Charge an annual fee for use of the parks, if necessary. Require proof of training or CGC evaluation to get a special tag. This would be a lot cheaper than a $500,000 dog park. With the additional fee and strict enforcement, this idea would MAKE money for Dearborn rather than COST a half-million dollars. There are so many fenced-in parks now in the city that would provide safe exercise for our dogs. This is a win-win proposal.
March 28th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I really think “core” has a good idea. Why not use existing parks–maybe even languishing parking structures–to give dog owners a place to exercise their dogs. Maybe we could even get the Dearborn Commission on Disabilities, the Dearborn Police and firefighters (Dalmations??) to buy in to the idea as it would be a resource for future service dogs.
Who knows–there may be stimulus money available for this type of venture, which almost falls into the “green” category because we are using existing land.
Best of all, instead of costing us money, it would be making money for the city.
Should I send my invoice for consulting to “Welcome Home Dearborn?”
March 29th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Interesting that the Dbn. Raquet Club would flip some of this land to the city, after all the Raquet (or should I say racket) club is co-owned by a Bldg. & Safety administrator. I wonder if there was a generous markup ala Ward’s & Talal Chahine.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
emanon,
FYI
The co- owner of the raquet club is the uncle ( same name ) of the person you refer to- not the city employee.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Thanks for the correction, I wasn’t trying to spread any false info. I’m sure it didn’t hurt to be related to someone in city hall, but Dearborn’s only so big–I don’t see a conspiracy or conflict of interest behind everything. $500k seems a bit steep, but what do I know…
April 27th, 2009 at 8:57 am
If dog owners are granted the privilage of a dog park, they have the responsibility to keep it poop free. This means picking up your own dog’s pooh and any other dogs pooh that has not been picked up. I think the dog park is an idea whose time has come. As originally proposed, dogs would be allowed to walk on a leash on the paved area. Now a fenced area is proposed-great idea. Keep up the good work.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:04 am
People don’t clean it up when they walk their dogs down Westwood, why would they bother in the dog park?