dano question for you
- Thread starter Robdawg
- Start date
Can I answer?
I would support it. I imagine if I lived in a city I'd want a park like that. I suppose that it would benefit lots of people and provide a healthier life for their pets. I believe pets are important to mental and physical well being of some folks.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
I would sell off parks to anyone or any organization who agreed NOT to charge people for using them. They would instead make their money from donations, (and/or if they needed to) fines or advertising like with benches.
That would probably result in some parks allowing dogs and some not, with fines from those who don't pick up after their dogs going to finance repairs and upkeep.
Someone responsible for them would also carry the extra benefit of actually caring about and stopping graffiti and damage to the playground equipment.
They would become much better for all.
That would probably result in some parks allowing dogs and some not, with fines from those who don't pick up after their dogs going to finance repairs and upkeep.
Someone responsible for them would also carry the extra benefit of actually caring about and stopping graffiti and damage to the playground equipment.
They would become much better for all.
Of course you would
then you'd have no parks
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Ok, I see the hole there, I'd add a requirement that they could not build on it.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Yeah and skip over the rest. This isn't that sinister, there are many roads owned privately that function just fine.
There is a church where we live that has a park in the back, it's been there for decades and surprise it has no graffiti, equipment in excellent condition and most of it funded by donations.
It's a very nice safe park.
well ive been talking to neighboring towns and most of the money will most likely be fundraised, i gotta figure out how i can make 20K in cash for about an acre of fence to be put in.
that sucks.. good luck with that. how many people without dogs will donate for that.