Dear Editor:
Certain realities are obscured by the rhetoric that’s been thrown around the “pooches in the parks” issue. When we cut away the facts from the chaff, we find many points that all seem to agree upon, and one question we are debating. What we agree upon: There are currently two laws on the books regulating doggie behaviors; these laws are regularly ignored; a majority of residents surveyed want stronger dog control policies; and, dogs need a place to run, socialize and do their business. What needs to be decided is: Within what public spaces should dogs be allowed to do any of these?
The laws currently in place are not unreasonable, nor were they adopted to harass anyone. They protect the health and safety of our residents and the cleanliness of our public spaces. The hazards of dog bites and feces-borne disease are well documented, and the unpleasant experience of stepping in “it” is no doubt familiar to everyone. There should be some space where citizens can expect healthy, safe, clean conditions, and we all agree that parks are meant to fulfill these basic human needs.
Dog owners published in local papers and recent articles reveal that, despite efforts at “self-policing,” there has been no substantive change in the condition of our parks. Given this fact, there is no basis to believe that yet another ordinance which keeps dogs in the parks will have any influence whatsoever on the behaviors we are arguing over now. Dogs are accustomed to using the parks for their relief; if they’re in the park they will do what comes naturally.
Many have argued wisely for well-planned, attractive and comfortable dog runs. To this mix I would add “affordable.” There are some who urge that these spaces be included within parks. Again we should look at history. We’ve had a long experiment with unenforceable ordinances that allow dogs in the parks, and the result is the problem we currently face. The only sensible solution is to try not having dogs in the parks, and making available to our neighbors and their pets a space that suits their needs and the wishes of the community at large.
Creating another ordinance that is easy to ignore will not change the situation. No enforcement team the city could muster will be able to keep track of which dogs are out for a stroll through the park and which are out for real business. It would be much easier to enforce a total ban than another restriction that keeps dogs, and their owners, in the very spaces they have a history of misusing. Eventually, we will end up where we started. There is no lack of empty tracts that might be put to this good use, but this requires that the city provide more than some pebbles and a chain-link fence. Though our city coffers remain perpetually strained, we need to do better for this sizable minority of Jersey City dog owners.This solution also requires the cooperation of dog owners with the wishes of a clear majority of their neighbors.
Many urban communities have adopted such regulations, and there seems little point in arguing over a matter that has a proven solution. This isn’t about liking or not liking Buster, nor about persecuting dog owners, quashing rights, morality, or pooch appreciation, as we’ve read in recent opinions. It’s about quality of life for the entire community. The constant change in Jersey City’s demographics has made this a place where neighbors have created fair and successful ways to continue living together. We need to see a little more of that cooperation right now, so we can put this matter behind us and focus on the many larger issues affecting our city.
Carmine Simmons