WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT, GARLAND? Listening to and respect for our citizens always should be the mantra of our city leaders, not the option of last resort

Instead of paying more money to take up the old foundation and parking lots at Garland's former Armory, some wonder, why not figure out a creative way to use it in the city's plan for a dog park where the armory used to be?

The citizen-input meeting on the dog park proposed for Garland's Central Park on Thursday night, June 28, proved one thing if nothing else: how difficult would it have been for our city leaders to listen to citizens in the first place?

Two very valid and workable solutions were proposed at the Thursday meeting—either of which would be miles and miles better than the previous proposals that created such political havoc in our city and gave non-Garlandites a very bad impression of our community.

One of the key choices in the concept drawings presented by Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers on Thursday night was how wide a buffer should exist between homes in the surrounding Embree neighborhood and the park itself—the question that should have been part of the original proposal to start with. And the solution about whether the choice should be A or B? Simple. Ask the neighbors whose homes are most affected. Is a small row of trees on a parking lot enough, or should the rows of trees be thicker? Who knows this answer better than the neighbors? Borrowing an expression today's youngsters have mastered, Duh.

The proposed 3-acre dog park at Central Park will go where the old Armory used to be. This is one (Plan A) of two concepts presented by Pacheco Koch at a citizens input meeting last week. The main difference in the two plans is at the top of the drawings, where  Plan A leaves a small parking lot with landscaping to protect the neighborhood to the north. Plan B eliminates the parking lot and adds more landscaping as a visual and sound barrier.

The dog-park proposal Thursday night also was separated from the more controversial idea of building a skate park in Central Park, too. Last year the two were lumped together, along with an unacceptable proposal to take out a baseball field that had been there for years and was valued by neighbors and the Little League leaders and parents.

In the midst of the tumultuous political dogfight that ensued on city council, Garland lost its sizable armory building to a bulldozer without a thorough evaluation of whether the building truly could be and should be saved.

Plan B, like Plan A, for  Garland's first dog park will incorporate land where the foundation still exists for the old National Guard Armory that was torn down amid fussing and squabbling on Garland City Council last year. Plan B removes the small parking lot (at top) and adds more landscaping.

What it took to get to that point Thursday night—a district in crisis, a recall petition against a city council member, a mayor's resignation, a city council race in which the armory issue was the springboard, and then one sitting city council member stepping in and redrawing a more citizen-friendly and citizen-endorsed plan, with some other councilmembers quietly saying they wish there had been a way out earlier before it got so contentious—was totally irrational and destructive to the goodwill so desperately needed in our city.

Was it really a hill on which to die, Garland? Was it really worth all the heartache that ensued?

The current discussion provides a choice about how much to landscape this area north of the proposed dog park to protect the nearby Embree neighborhood from the noise and visitors the city expects to draw to the proposed new dog park at Central Park.

If they had it to do over again, I'd bet that deep in their hearts almost every member of council at that time wishes he or she had acted differently. Unfounded rumors, impacted friendships, destructive statements—just some of the fallout. Respect for our leaders was severely harmed. The destruction was devastating to our city's reputation. So much of it was totally unnecessary. Listening to our citizens should be the mantra of our city leaders, not the option of last resort.

What seemed like a vendetta against the mayor that the majority of council didn't like or support turned into a nasty divisive and highly publicized feud that brought embarrassment to an entire town. We heard this loud and clear as we went door to door to campaign during the recent mayor's race. The topic of Garland's loss of respectability surfaced repeatedly as citizens voiced concerns. Let us hope that never happens again. Reasonable people ought to be able to hold rational, candid, open conversations without it exploding so unnecessarily.

The question now is, will it be difficult for our current city leaders to continue to listen to citizens? 

Interestingly, some of the key players in the fight last year were not present Thursday night as they had been last December when the dog park was last publicly discussed and political civil war was raging.

Some citizens who spoke on Thursday night still had concerns about pets' behavior toward each other once inside the park, about proper monitoring of the park, about hours of operation, about what happens if a party at a possible rental space gets out of hand, etc. Will these concerns be taken seriously and weighed as the final decision is reached? At the Thursday meeting citizens were asked to put colorful dots on posters containing examples of styles of shelters, water features, seating, etc., that they prefer. Will these remarks be taken seriously and will citizens have a chance to review the final product and continue to provide input? I certainly hope so.

And of course the ongoing concern about the Garland animal shelter predictably raised its head briefly during the meeting. While a majority of those present clearly didn't want to make this a part of Thursday night's discussion—and indicated they didn't want to hear from the one Garland citizen who tried to raise the issue—will citizens continue to have a voice in this matter also? Will discussions be allowed to continue and elected officials be responsive to our citizens? The contention expressed Thursday night was that if the city cares enough to spend possibly $900,000 on a dog park, will it care enough to continue to address ongoing issues at the animal shelter as they arise?

As I've said repeatedly for years, Garland desperately needs a new animal shelter. Questions such as how it should be paid for and funded, where it should be situated, and how it should be operated, are all matters that require public input. Nothing about those discussions should be threatening or frightening to our leaders. Will council simply push forward with its "tax-and-borrow" practice, of the past or will it rationally sit down with concerned citizens, listen seriously to all proposals, and hammer out workable, creative solutions for all concerned? Many of us who want a better Garland will be watching the style of this discussion very closely!

And to knock costs down for the proposed dog park, will our leaders and employees seriously study whether the existing concrete (the foundation and part of the parking lots of the old controversial armory) can be used in some creative fashion—thus keeping the simple three-acre dog park from possibly costing $300,000 an acre? Again, I hope beyond hope a serious study of this will occur.

Most folks attending Thursday night's meeting may have missed one rather interesting tidbit: Richardson, our next-door neighbor to the west, is winning major accolades for its new dog park opened in 2015 because of the creative way it was designed using what some would call unusable land underneath highway bridges. Congratulations to Richardson for displaying such leadership and creativity.

The renewed, revised discussion about the dog park in Central Park gives us a chance to start over and do it right in every way.

The 3-acre proposed site is currently surrounded with fencing as a result of City Council's haste to eradicate the former armory once located at the site where the City's new dog park may go.