Revisions to the People, Dogs and Park Policy - 2010
Update Background What does this mean for High Park? Communication Flaws Non dog-owners
Final Update - Jan 25th, 2010
City Council passed the revisions to the People, Dogs and Parks
policy on January 25th, 2010. There were several proposed amendments by various
City councilors but only one was accepted by City council. Councillor
Stintz ask for an amendment so that the annual report by the General Manger of
Parks, Forestry and Recreation provide an accounting of the number of type of
bylaw infractions that occur within each park. A full accounting of the
meeting and decision by City Council can be found:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/cc/decisions/2010-01-26-cc45-dd.htm
While we are disappointed that both City staff and City council have ignored the
need for proper community consultation and rushed through a series of ill
advised
revisions to an already flawed policy, we will still continue to work with the
City of Toronto to create a sustainable off-leash area in High Park.
Once again here are the words of City staff in specific regards to High Park:
“Parks, Forestry and Recreation
staff are in the process of developing a site plan for consideration of the
existing off-leash area taking into account amendments to improve entrance ways,
fencing and gates, signage, access to Spring Road and trail improvements which
will include redirecting some paths to develop a sustainable off-leash area.
This work will not proceed nor be finalized without public consultation and
opportunity for feedback. “
Previous Updates
Jan 18 -
2010
The Park's and Environment decision document is now online. It would
seem that the Park's and Environment committee had very similar concerns with
the document but have chosen to pass it along to City council with only minor
modifications. The committee advice and recommendation can be found at:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pe/decisions/2010-01-13-pe27-dd.htm
Here are some highlighted portions of the committee's requests:
Decision Advice and Other Information
The Parks and Environment Committee requested the General Manager, Parks,
Forestry and Recreation to:
a. Continue the provision for
dog owners' associations for off-leash applications and appeal mechanism.
b. Provide an annual report to
the Parks and Environment Committee on the off-leash incidents in off-leash
parks that are existing and pending
c. If the Parks, Forestry and
Recreation Division deems a site suitable where no dog owner association exists,
the Parks and Environment Committee can waive the provision for a dog owner's
association.
d. Add the words 'burial
grounds' to the section on Off-Leash Area Exclusions in Attachment 1 in the
report (December 16, 2009) from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and
Recreation.
While it appears the dog-owner association
and appeals process have survived (we're waiting on the final wording of revised
policy), there have still been no direct public consultations, cancellation is
still based on opinion and language of the document is still vague and
misleading.
We are still recommending rejection by City council.
Jan 15 - 2010
The proposed "refinements" have passed the Parks and Environment Committee and
will appear before City council in the next upcoming days. Based on serious flaws in the changes
(see below) and the complete lack of public consultation,
we are recommending that concerned citizens ask the City council to reject the
proposal and return it to the Parks Forestry and Recreation division for public
consultation and to fix the fatal flaws. This issue affects all park users
Background
On January 13, 2010 the Parks and Environment Committee received a staff
report containing proposed changes to the People, Dogs and Park policy, that
governs off-leash areas, including the High Park off-leash area. The
proposed changes, which lack any direct public consultation can be found at:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-26062.pdf
For comparison, the original People, Dogs and Parks policy can be found at:
http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/off_leashpolicy_dec2007.pdf
Communication
with the City
In order to ensure that dog-owners were aware
of these changes I sent out an email the day that I received notice (from
another concerned citizen not from the City of Toronto) of the impending
changes. The text of the email can be found at:
Due to the deluge of email, the City quickly responded
Unfortunately, the response was rather generic and didn't answer many of the original questions so I sent a 2nd email
Shortly after this 2nd email and after many of you started emailing councilors and City staff, I received a phone call from the author of the report, Carol Cormier. We had a long discussion about the revised changes and the basis of Carol's response is highlighted below. For High Park, Carol was able to offer the following statement:
"With respect to High Park, Parks, Forestry and Recreation staff are in the process of developing a site plan for consideration of the existing off-leash area taking into consideration amendments to improve entrance ways, fencing and gates, signage, access to Spring Road and trail improvements which will include redirecting some paths to develop a sustainable off-leash area. This work will not proceed nor be finalized without public consultation and opportunity for feedback."
Here is the complete text of her response
Unfortunately this response was also very generic and failed the appreciate the concern with, and flaws within, the proposed refinements. I sent a 3rd email
What does
this mean for High Park?
While City staff are very clear to verbally indicate "an off-leash
area will always exist in High Park", the City could easily fence off a small
area and still fulfill this promise. I genuinely believe that most City
staff would prefer to make changes to the existing off-leash area. However these
proposed "refinements" mean that the High Park off-leash area could be cancelled
at a moments notice, on little more than the whim of the General Manager and
without an appeals process.
Seven fatal flaws of the proposed refinements
The actual number of flaws and errors in
the proposed refinements number greater than seven but
I've collected together some of the worst transgression into an easy list.
Please note - this list does not include the fact that the proposed refinements
lack any direct public consultation and were pushed through the Parks and
Environment committee with little or no notification.
1. Cancellation of
any off-leash area (including High Park) would be based on opinion not fact
"Designation of an off-leash area may be cancelled by the General Manager of
Parks, Forestry & Recreation where in the opinion of the General Manager:"
The original policy, which also lacks a
fact-based requirement for cancellation, at least required the City to
attempt increased target enforcement before they closed an off-leash area.
2. There would be no appeals
process for the City's decisions
(reinstated by PE committee)
"The process to appeal a decision to
the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation to cancel an Off-Leash
Area has been removed from the policy."
Why no appeals process, because
"the ultimate conclusion reflects a unanimous
Divisional decision". In other words, City staff
never make a mistakes, their decision should not be questioned and given the
fact that a cancellation is not based on fact, we should just accept their word
that they are acting in the best interest of the citizens of Toronto.
3. Dog-owners associations
have been removed from the policy
(reinstated by PE committee)
"In the revised Off-Leash Policy,
staff are recommending removal of the requirement that a local Dog Owner
Association be established in order to apply for an off-leash area."
The original policy had established dog-owners associations to facilitate communication between dog-owners, park users and the Parks, Forestry and Recreation division. These associations were to be involved in negotiation of a Conditions of Use document and were integral to the policy. Staff claim the requirement of these associations have slowed down the process and although their comments section (not the final policy which becomes law) mentions the City "encourages and would continue to work with such groups", there is no obligation for City staff to recognize these groups.
4. Criteria for establishing
an off-leash area are too vague and poorly defined
"The following criteria will be used
in staff’s review of the suitability:
- Neighbourhood characteristics (adjacent land uses, population density, housing
types, licensed dog population, proximity of existing and other potential
offleash areas located within a 15 minute walk or 1 kilometre)
- Compatibility with the park’s design, established uses, features and
components
- Potential impacts on the park’s functionality, condition and natural
environment
- Proportion of park to be taken up by the proposed off leash area
- Proximity to residences and off-leash area exclusions"
Notice how the wording lack any concrete definitions and would rely solely upon the judgment of staff. Most of the staff that I have encountered working with the City are honest and open, however "absolute power corrupts absolutely". The parks are crowded places as it is, it would almost be impossible to find a portion of a park that doesn't already have an established use, feature or component. If the City intents to establish these criteria in greater detail in a later document, don't you think you have a right to know these details before this policy is engrained as law.
5. The only areas not excluded
in the policy would be flat open spaces devoid of shade.
I would have provided the list of excluded
regions but it is far too long to reasonably reproduce here. They can be
found on page 14,15 and 16 of the proposed refinements. Unlike
other activities, off-leash dog use, with some planning and maintenance is
compatible with types of landscape other than flat open spaces. The City can not
plant a tree, bush or flower in the middle of a ball diamond or soccer field,
yet most dog-owners would love to see these types of plantings within their
off-leash area, particularly trees, which provide shade in the hot summer months.
Not all areas of a park will be compatible with off-leash activities but the
list of exclusions is far too extensive.
6. There would be no
opportunity to fix or correct problems
Excluded areas include "Areas that
have undergone tree / shrub / wildflower planting or where plans exist for such
planting to occur"
For those familiar with High Park, you
know that certain divisions of the City have claims for plans to do plantings that
stretch years or decades into the future. In essence this type of
exclusion criteria would mean if City staff even think they might want to plant,
goodbye off-leash area. In terms of correcting existing issues, like the
almost decade long lack of maintenance within the High Park off-leash area, the
instant a replacement tree, shrub or wildflower goes into the soil, City staff
have a reason to cancel the off-leash area. Frankly this type of criteria
mean the more natural an off-leash area becomes, no matter if it is in
balance and properly maintained, the more risk it is of being cancelled.
There will be little push to build sustainable environmentally friendly
off-leash areas.
7. Always carry a spare
bag or your off-leash area may be cancelled|
Cancellation of an off-leash area can
occur where it is the opinion of the general manager that "repeated, ongoing
non-compliance with the Code of Conduct for off-leash area ..."
Yes, this is a ridiculous flaw but an excellent illustration of the lack of foresight that has gone into this document. By linking cancellation of an off-leash area to another document (not included with this policy but found here) which includes such generalities as "Respect other park users" and "Always carry a bag, a spare and one to share", the author of the document has ensured that any excuse, even the most laughable and ridiculous, can be used to close an off-leash area.
Other Flaws
There are many more flaws in this document like:
only unfixed female dogs are banned from off-leash areas while unfixed male dogs
can now romp around freely; commercial dog-walkers, many of whom walk your dogs
during the day, can be banned from any off-leash area without evidence, reason
or explanation; damage anywhere in a park, whether caused by dogs or not,
can be used as a justification for cancellation; specific branches of Parks,
Forestry and Recreation have greater say in determining where an off-leash area
can occur than others; dictating which side of a path you and your dog walk on;
...
Don't have a dog or think off-leash areas don't belong in parks.
Perhaps in reading this document you think
"Good riddance, most dog-owners don't obey the rules, they trash the park and
off-leash dogs are dangerous". Just remember these changes mean the City
can decide to put an off-leash area in your local park without giving you a
chance to appeal. Without dog-owner associations, there is no push for
dog-owners to take responsibility for their park. With such strict exclusion
criteria, there won't be a push for improvements, like trees and shrubs that
make an off-leash area less of an eye-sore and more enjoyable for all park
users. Furthermore, the lack of public consultation and the power vested with
City staff in these revisions set a dangerous precedent for how the City
interacts with its citizens.
Off-leash areas promote responsible dog-ownership, reduce non-compliance in
other areas of the park and even raise the property values of surrounding
houses.