By the Coral Gables Gazette editorial board
The tension inside the War Memorial Youth Center this week was palpable. Residents filled the room to voice their opposition to a proposed dog park across from the Coral Gables Library. Many said they had never been notified before the City Commission approved the project late last year. Some expressed frustration not only with the park itself, but with what they saw as a failure of outreach. A lawsuit has followed soon after, ensuring the issue will now play out not only in public meetings but in court.
The controversy reveals a familiar fault line in civic life. It is easy, in moments like this, for each side to retreat into its own narrative. Residents feel blindsided. Officials insist they followed established procedures. Both claims can exist simultaneously. Both can be sincerely held. Yet the resulting erosion of trust serves no one.
Communication is a shared act. Government must strive to inform. Residents must choose to engage. When either side falls short, trust becomes harder to sustain.
From the city’s perspective, outreach is a structured process. Notices are posted. Agendas are published. Meetings are held. Coral Gables operates within a legal framework designed to ensure transparency and public access. These systems exist precisely to prevent decisions from being made in secret.
Yet process alone does not guarantee awareness. A notice posted online fulfills a legal requirement. It does not ensure it has been seen. A meeting held at City Hall provides an opportunity for input. It does not ensure attendance. In an era of fragmented attention and competing demands, passive forms of communication often fail to reach the people most affected by a decision.
Residents, however, also bear responsibility for participation. Civic engagement requires effort. It requires paying attention between controversies, not only during them. It requires monitoring agendas, attending meetings and remaining informed even when no immediate threat appears on the horizon.
This asymmetry of attention is one of the defining challenges of local governance. Officials must oversee hundreds of decisions each year. Residents live their daily lives largely unaware of those decisions until one touches their neighborhood directly. The resulting collision—between continuous governance and episodic attention—can create the perception of surprise even when formal procedures were followed.
None of this diminishes the legitimacy of residents’ concerns. Public opposition is a democratic function. The intensity of the response to the proposed dog park reflects something deeper than disagreement over a single parcel of land. It reflects a desire to be heard before decisions are made.
The city now faces a broader challenge. Restoring confidence requires more than asserting that outreach occurred. It requires demonstrating a commitment to ensuring outreach is effective. That may mean expanding notification methods, increasing direct neighborhood engagement, or presenting proposals earlier in their development, when public input can still meaningfully shape outcomes.
At the same time, residents must recognize that civic engagement is continuous. Trust in government is built not only through transparency, but through sustained participation by the governed.
Communication is a relationship to be maintained.
Government must continue striving to inform clearly, consistently and proactively. Residents must continue choosing to listen, to participate and to remain engaged.
Trust depends on both.
This Post Has 4 Comments
“Communication is a relationship to be maintained. Government must continue striving to inform clearly, consistently and proactively. Residents must continue choosing to listen, to participate and to remain engaged. Trust depends on both.”
Perfectly stated.
One cannot attain knowledge minus some type of good communication. And as we approach these nation’s 250th birthday it goes right to the wisdom of James Madison: “knowledge will forever govern ignorance”
Public reactions often lag behind local government actions. We see it time and time again. It’s admirable when planners go the extra mile to engage residents directly affected by such actions. In most cases, the dedication of a park property is a blessing, a lifestyle improvement with universal appeal. In the case of this dog park, attention must be paid to the resistance; serious attention to a serious challenge. What are the issues that would cause residents to raise stern objections? It’s time to listen — sincerely and objectively — and consider the consequences of moving forward in spite of heartfelt disapproval. Where is the balance between those nearby residents who support the dog park and those that oppose it? At what cost does the city move forward? What other sites might provide a better specific use? Talk. Listen. Consider. Balance. Adjust. Respect to property tax payer.
I tried to talk to the city about local concerns and I received nothing but crickets and platitudes. I’m engaged with government and my neighbors. The fault is the secrecy from the Lagos administration. And to be clear, he has earned his distrust time and time again. Recall Lagos!
Excellent observations.
When residents feel they’ve been left out of crucial conversations which directly affect them, it’s much harder to reestablish trust in our elected officials.
With open and honest communication, the trust isn’t lost in the first place.
And in a city of the size of ours, decisions made by our elected officials pretty much affect all of us, directly or indirectly, making honest communication crucial.