By the Coral Gables Gazette editorial board

At its core, the controversy surrounding the proposed dog park across University Drive from the Coral Gables Library is about trust—how it is built, how it frays, and how it is tested when residents most directly affected by a decision believe they were heard too late, even if the city followed its established procedures.

City officials maintain that notification requirements were met before the City Commission voted on Nov. 18 to move the project forward. Under the city’s standard sequence, public engagement typically occurs during the design phase, after the commission authorizes a concept to advance. That framework matters. Coral Gables operates within formal rules designed to balance efficiency, transparency, and citywide priorities.

Yet the events that followed the vote suggest that procedural compliance alone did not produce procedural confidence.

Roughly 15 to 20 residents living closest to the proposed site gathered Dec. 20 to organize their opposition and express frustration over what they describe as a lack of meaningful engagement before the vote. According to Dr. Sara Cortes, whose home directly abuts the triangular parcel between Riviera Drive and Cadima Avenue, every resident in attendance opposed the park. “Around 15 to 20 people, and nobody was in favor,” she said.

That unanimity, even within a small and localized group, signals something more than routine dissent. These residents do not describe themselves as anti-dog, nor as reflexively opposed to public amenities. As José Antonio Val Cohen, who lives on Cadima Avenue, put it, “We love dogs. Most of us have dogs. We use the park to play, to picnic with our kids. This isn’t about being anti-dog. It’s about location and quality of life.”

That distinction matters. It reframes the debate away from whether Coral Gables should build dog parks—a question that has already been answered affirmatively by voters and commissioners alike—and toward how, where, and with whom such decisions should unfold.

Coral Gables Commissioner Melissa Castro, who attended the neighborhood meeting, appears to recognize that distinction. Absent from the November vote—after she and Commissioner Ariel Fernandez left a meeting extended by a police memorial service—Castro has since asked city staff to place the item back on a future agenda. Her question distilled the residents’ concern: “How do you approve a park without asking the neighbors, especially when it’s essentially in their backyard?”

The city’s position—that neighbors were notified and that broader community input is appropriate at the design stage—should be evaluated carefully and factually. But notification is not the same as engagement, and engagement is not the same as confidence. A mailed notice, a posted agenda, or even a well-attended commission meeting can satisfy formal thresholds while still leaving immediate neighbors feeling removed from decisions that reshape their daily environment.

That tension becomes sharper when competing petitions enter the record. Supporters presented a petition with more than 200 signatures at the commission meeting. Neighbors closest to the site now question how many of those signers live within the immediate area. Cortes said residents have begun circulating their own petition, deliberately starting with homes adjacent to the parcel. “We want to be very specific,” she said. “These are the neighbors who deal with the traffic, the parking, the library patrons, the youth center. Do you really want to add more strain to this area?”

Val Cohen echoed that concern after learning that addresses on the original petition were redacted. City Clerk Billy Urquia explained that the clerk’s office blacked out addresses “in the interest of providing the requested records promptly and at no cost,” noting that verification could be provided for a fee covering staff time. The explanation is reasonable. The effect, however, has been lingering doubt rather than clarity. “We had no idea where those signatures came from,” Val Cohen said. “My house is right in front of the park. I have coffee outside every morning. I know who comes and goes.”

Traffic, parking, noise and safety concerns further complicate the picture, particularly along Harlano Street and Cadima Avenue—streets residents describe as already strained by library and Youth Center activity. “I don’t want my life to be going outside every day telling people they can’t park here or to slow down,” Val Cohen said.

Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson, who sponsored the item, has emphasized her willingness to meet individually with residents and has pointed to prior dog park projects where design changes addressed neighborhood concerns. She has described early design concepts for this site that include planted buffers, concealed fencing, and landscaping intended to preserve privacy. Those efforts reflect experience and good faith.

Still, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board’s reaction suggests that something in the process misfired. Board members acknowledged they had not been consulted before the commission vote and explored whether a special public meeting could be held so residents could better understand—and respond to—the proposal. As former commissioner Kirk Menendez put it, proximity and intensity of concern warranted earlier outreach, even if the usual sequence was followed.

This is where trust erodes because affected residents feel decisions were made about them rather than with them.

Coral Gables has long prided itself on neighborhood character, careful planning, and civic engagement. When those values come into tension with efficiency or momentum, the remedy is not defensiveness. It is openness. A pause, a reset, and a structured public forum—whether through the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board or a dedicated neighborhood meeting—would not undermine the city’s authority. It would reinforce it.

As Cortes said, the issue is ultimately about process, not politics. “If the city is going to make a decision that affects our daily lives, we deserve to be part of it.”

That principle has guided the City Beautiful for a century. Reaffirming it now would strengthen both the decision—and the trust that sustains it.