By Coral Gables Gazette staff

Despite not being previously asked to weigh in on the prospect of establishing a new dog park across University Drive from the Coral Gables Library, the city’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is considering holding a public meeting for nearby residents who say they have not had a meaningful chance to express their opposition.

The board voted to direct Community Recreation Director Fred Couceyro to ask City Clerk Billy Urquia whether they could hold a special meeting with the public, after neither board members nor Couceyro knew for sure if such a meeting fell within the board’s purview.

Board Member Kirk Menendez proposed the idea of holding a special meeting so nearby residents could learn the details of the city’s plan and have “an opportunity to chime in, because it impacts them.”

Couceyro told the board that residents would have an opportunity to provide input on the park’s design, as they have for other parks the city has developed. Park typically go through multiple community-driven iterations, he explained.

Two neighbors who live near the proposed park attended the December 11 board meeting and expressed disappointment and a sense of helplessness when they learned that the commission had already approved moving forward with the dog park in their neighborhood.

Neighbors say they were blindsided

José Antonio Val Cohen, who lives in the 500 block of Cadima Avenue, said he was stunned to learn about the proposal only after the November commission meeting had already taken place.  “I don’t get it. I’m in shock,” he said. “Because one of the first and main reasons I moved here is because I know the city takes in consideration the input of the neighbors.”

He went on to say that none of his neighbors knew of the proposed park and, and by the look of it, neither did many board members. “What I notice is that you are as surprised as me.”

He acknowledged that Vice Mayor Rhonda Anderson was meeting with individual neighbors to go over details of the plan, but said that was not enough. “You’re going to go one by one to address our concerns about the design – it’s not about the design, but whether we want the park or not.”

William Rivenbark, who lives in the 3600 block of Harlano Street, echoed those concerns, adding that the process felt rushed and almost deliberately exclusionary.

“I started asking questions of our neighbors. ‘Have you heard of this?’ The answer was no, the city did not communicate with anyone (in this area),” Rivenbark said. As for the petition signed by over 200 residents who support the dog park, the resident felt it was misleading.

“I have gotten a copy of the petition that was signed. The addresses were blacked out. But  we recognize many of the names, none of them are in a short radius of this property,” he said, adding that one signer was a former elected official that lives on North Greenway, quite a distance from the dog park.

Both residents said they appreciated the Board’s willingness to reconsider how community engagement should unfold. Still, they urged members to ensure that any future discussions involve the full neighborhood and not just a handful of people meeting individually with elected officials.

Board member presses for meeting

Menendez asked Couceyro directly whether any formal public outreach had occurred before the vommission vote. Couceyro explained that, as with other park projects, staff had not yet begun public design meetings because the commission’s directive simply authorized the concept to advance into a planning phase.

“The community input happens at the design phase,” Couceyro said. “When we’ve put something together, then we go to the community… when we’re creating parks we  have to look at the entire community as a whole. In the past, we have given a little bit more credence to the adjoining neighbors and the affected neighbors, but we understand that it’s for the community to use as a whole, um, so we have to look at that, too.”

Menendez replied that even if the process technically followed the city’s usual sequence, the proximity to homes and the intensity of concern made early outreach essential. The former commissioner and mayoral candidate in the past election, also reminded the board that a previous dog park was proposed in the same neighborhood, directly across from the youth center, and it was summarily opposed.

Next steps

The concerns raised during the meeting, along with Menendez’s push for a dedicated public forum, have placed a spotlight on how the city communicates with neighborhoods about major park proposals and the continued snubbing of the park board on issues that it typically oversees.

“Again, it sounds like park decisions are being made and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is not in the loop,” Menendez said. Recently, he expressed dissatisfaction with park namings that had not gone through the board.

Couceyro acknowledged that he wanted the board to be involved whenever possible, but that the commission had the right to move forward as it pleased. “By all means, I like (the Parks board) being involved as much as possible, but the City Commission and the elected officials have the ability and they have right – they’re able to bring up any initiatives that they like.”

Whether a public meeting on the park issue held by the Parks and Recreation Board will be held is still in question. As of the publication of this article, neither the city clerk or city attorney had replied to a Gazette query asking whether it was allowed.