Morning Peter (Raynes),
Thank you for writing down the issues raised during the meeting by Cr Milne regarding the survey.
Honestly Peter yourself and Cr Milne are making this just too hard.
A survey was conducted and even if you ask more questions to determine if they own dogs or not there is no guarantee that they will be honest about that.
Talk about wanting to complicate what can be a simple process.
The simple democratic way to address this is by a normal survey where all have the right to place their view.
To actually address the entire project there is a need to weight areas of the project to get the best outcome.
I explained how staff did this and why when building a house you simply would (not) go for the lowest quote, you want to ensure you are getting value for money.
The survey was one aspect of many for consideration by the council.
I understand this does not appear to matter to you however it is an important part of appropriate project evaluation.
You fail to represent what I actually said in the meeting regarding large dogs.
I asked where are the dobermans or great danes?
I also pointed out that I did see a cattle dog cross with kelpie but that most of the dogs were what I called fluff dogs – small dogs that if they ran to the other side of a 2000m2 block, they would be tired.
The room agreed that there were mostly fluff dogs in Tin Can Bay.
It would help the discussion if factual recounting was done.
Cr Milne clearly stated during the meeting that she was the owner of a greyhound (and a fluff dog) and indicated to the room that was one reason why there needed to be a big dog area.
I would not class a staffie as a big dog but I do notice that you also include greyhound in your email.
I feel if you apply the same principle that you are stating should be followed, that popularity determines the outcome, something I don’t agree with in this instance, you would have to agree that the overwhelming majority of dogs in Tin Can Bay are not large dogs and therefore by popularity you should agree that the small dog park is most appropriate in size.
I also explained to the meeting that there were more things to consider than just popularity – cost, land tenure, location and proximity to residents etc.
I did explain how staff prepared the report and how they came to the decision.
I mentioned the issues with Chooky Mallet Park around tenure infrastructure, talked about Norman Point, and highlighted what I feel was the point that separated Norman Point from Wes Mitchell Park, location and proximity to residents.
Wes Mitchell does not require the use of a motor vehicle for people to get themselves and their dogs to the park.
I am sorry the details I gave during the 30 minutes of discussion were not sufficient for you.
Is there anything more that I could add to assist you in this matter?
I hope I have helped clarify the points you raised.
– regards
Glen Hartwig, Mayor
