For the past several months I have been following with mild interest, the proposal for an off-leash dog park at Martin Luther King Minneapolis City Park.
Of all the parks in Minneapolis, this park is not a park that I would use even if the dog park proposal were to be successful. It is not as near to my home as several other Minneapolis parks and I have a dog but I never take him to dog parks. I’m not interested in socializing with strangers who also happen to own dogs and as my dog is far more social than I am, I worry that he might opt to leave with a better human.
The latest article in Sunday’s Star Tribune about the dog park hit me with surprising force. It made me deeply sad to read about how a proposal for more people to derive greater joy and use of a public park could cause such pain to their neighbors.
The politics of social justice are of great interest to me. I think that public parks are a great example of how communities share a common good and I think Minneapolis residents make good use of the parks system.
I am confused at the vitriol being reported over the dog park proposal.
I get it, Spike Moss likes the spotlight, and he seems to be ready to inflame just about any issue in Minneapolis with his quotable remarks. I believe it may be the oldest reporting cliché come to life with this last round of articles “man bites dog”.
Really Spike? Young people should shoot dogs at Martin Luther King Park? This isn’t activism, Mr. Moss this is exploitative. Some people are afraid of dogs, some people are afraid of young people—especially urban youth, and a whole lot of people are afraid of guns. This statement is just preying on all of these fears. How does a statement that raises these fears serve the community?
It is sad to me that the proposal seems to be tabled. The park board will vote on it at the February 2 meeting. This tabling also seems wise. The racial tensions attached to this proposal have created an un-winnable situation. Even Minneapolis Park Board guru Mary Merrill Anderson does not see a solution to this deeply divisive proposal as she stated after a community meeting that she lead at the park “I think it made people realize how different our worldview in community was, how different we understood the reality of our community. And it’s like people were talking to each other, and we just were not able to connect at all.”
Again, this story just makes me terribly heartsick. Are we so far apart on racial issues that we are truly unable to connect? Or is it because people do not want to connect and it is easier to just change the subject or not talk to each other at all.
There are other public spaces that could host a dog park with less controversy. But with 90 percent of the people contacting the park board in favor the proposed use of this park, it seems this solution is counter to the spirit that the re-naming of this park in 1968 was trying to commemorate and to the social injustice Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. worked his life to heal.
The public art at this park is a sculpture that represents the outreach of friendship. And in that spirit, maybe I will apply for a dog park license. I will try to be more open to chatting with fellow dog owners when they strike up random conversations with me about the weather. Maybe it would be what Dr. King would want me to do.
