Cats definitely do have their benefits. Cleaner, cheaper (generally), easier, just as amusing and entertaining, not as needy. Except litter boxes. Ugh. My dogs try to 'help' me with that duty ... *shudder* I do see your point about not having -any- use for the dog park, not wanting to use your tax money to pay for it. With as much as we pay in taxes, there are other things it could be going towards. Especially with all of the cutbacks yet tax increases that keep happening, they turn around and spend on 'luxuries'. I would LOVE to see more go towards our education system, even tho I don't have kids. I'd like to see more money go towards the people who serve and protect us. I have two dogs, and I probably won't use the dog park. Personally, I don't particularly like them. Dogs are social beings, but they are also pack animals ... throw a whole bunch of strange dogs together that don't know each other, haven't been well socialized and don't get introduced properly .. and you have an accident waiting to happen. Dogs read body language and signals very carefully. One dog enters who doesn't understand how to translate body language .. one who left it's mother and siblings too early, for example ... and you have trouble. They can be useful if carefully supervised, for socialization and training. If people watch for the signals and introduce the dogs as they are forming 'a pack'. Then, they can be fun for exercise and playtime. As a selling point, I like that it's something Clayton can boast about. It makes us sound more 'family friendly', and progressive. Maybe people will quit letting their dogs roam in their neighborhoods, and take them to the park (yeah, I know, that's not gonna happen). I like what it will hopefully do for the community, even if I don't plan on using it and don't like the chaos behind them. We need more 'progressive' attractions to attract more business to get more of that yummy tax money ...
this is probably the best argument FOR the dog park. i suppose one could argue that any expenditure would be offset by future attracted tax base.
My dog doesn't pay taxes. True, but I do pay taxes on the things I buy for my dogs. That 300 dollars a year I pay at the vet, I pay taxes on it. The 50 dollars a month for dog food. I pay taxes on that. The collars, dog beds, treats, heartworm meds and flea and tick meds. I pay taxes on that. My dog doesn't pay taxes, however all the things I need to feed and care for my dog are taxed. I'm glad to see some of my taxes going to provide outlets for mental and social stimulation for the creature that provides that income. Should it be spent in the wake of the current recession? Probably not, but if it is a crime deterrent as the Like Wheeler Road park is, then I think that is a valuable asset to the community at large. Do you have to have a dog to enjoy the dog park? No, you can go socialize with humans and watch the dogs play even if you don't have a dog. It is a great outlet for the dog lover that currently doesn't have the resources to provide a dog with the things it needs (be it financial, time constraints, or even landlord issues). You could possibly even volunteer with the local shelter and bring a shelter dog to the park and help it find a home! So, no, you don't have to have a dog to enjoy the dog park any more than I have to love to play basketball to enjoy watching a group of kids shooting hoops.
No children here either, but I don't object to school taxes, just wish they wouldn't whine about those services I do use.
When I was in my 20's back up in New Jersey I had a woman jumped down my throat saying I had no business commenting on education since I had no kids. I was stunned so I did not have any come back till a few minutes after she walked away. I hold now as I held then. 1.) I pay my taxes and part of my taxes goes to education so I have every right to comment on education. 2.) Kids will grow up and be the doctors and nurses taking care of me when I am elderly. So I dern well better speak up when it comes to their education cause they will be taking care of me. And my kids all have three or four legs. I refuse to have the two legged kind of kids just for the fact is I still like toys and refuse to share. . That goes back to the days when my mom gave away my baseball cards and comics on me. And made me give my matchbox cars to my cousins. All of which would be worth something today.
I also like that social aspect about it -- I do like going to the dog park WITHOUT my dogs, just to socialize with other dog people. I like watching the dogs (I'm a dog voyeur .. *grin*), and observing the pack behavior .. it's a great opportunity to learn. I agree with you about not playing basketball but still being able to enjoy the hoops ... it's nice to see kids .. adults, even .. outside, away from computers and electronic games and tv sets .. playing in the fresh *cough* air. I, myself, spend way too much time in front of computer screens (work .. school .. ). With a new dog park, maybe I'll get over there to just hang out now and then, even tho I won't have my dogs with me.
i'm sorry, there's no way your dog is going to generate enough sales tax to be in the same category as what my kid generates now and will into the future. i mean really. comparing spending tax dollars on a dog park to spending tax dollars on public education? y'all really want to be making that argument? as if dogs = children? and do y'all really think people will just go there to hang out and watch other people's dogs? sounds a little far-fetched to me. pun intended.
No offence intended, but according to the foodstamps thread in the Political Pit, your kid could cost the taxpayers more than the dog park ever could. :jester:
:iagree::iagree: AND we wont be using the dog park either. Buddy is very "vocal" and I wouldn't want another dog to try & hurt him because of it. Buddy wouldn't hurt a fly but I don't trust other peoples training of their dog(s).
Is it just me or does it strike anyone else funny that we pay only county taxes but complain about access to a park funded by the taxpayers of the town of Clayton?
The dog park is Clayton's Choice I see your point, Gomer. Folks that live in the 40/42 area and beyond are complaining that the location of the dog park on Glen Laurel Rd. will be inconvenient to THEM. Clayton is building the park primarily for folks that LIVE in Clayton. Non-Claytonians will probably be welcome to bring their dogs, but have little ground to gripe about the distance from their homes. (The Town of Clayton CAN also elect to have ONLY dogs of Clayton residents use the park by issuing permits or tags for their exclusive use.)
