Sunday, August 14, 2016

Buehler Park: Perfect site for a dog park

First today, let's take a look at a local issue: the possibility of a dog park in Rolla.
A couple of meetings ago, the Rolla City Council heard a presentation from Kent Bagnall, a prominent local businessman,  and a woman who I did not know. They laid out the need for a dog park and the cost of it. How it was to be financed was not clear to me; perhaps I dozed off when they were talking about that. No action was taken by the council. I'm not sure what the next step is to be. I didn't make much of it in the paper; perhaps I should have, but I figured if it meant anything, it would come back before the council. I haven't taken a look at Monday night's agenda; maybe it's coming back then.
The only controversy was the location. Bagnall mentioned Buehler Park as a possibility. During the public comment section of the meeting, local activist Tom "Yusha" Sager jumped up to complain about the possible location. He said Buehler Park is not an appropriate place for dogs, and then he described how that park near the junction of I-44 and Kingshighway (Business 63) is used by motorists as a rest stop.
Well, that seems to me to be a reason to put a dog park there. Owing to the number of motorists who use the park, along with the number of dog owners in Rolla, it needs to be a really big dog park. Motorists who travel with their dogs--and I'm sure there are many--will love having a dog park there. It would be nice if the city would use some of that tourism tax they give to the chamber of commerce to play with and use it to build a nice, lavish restroom facility for the motorists. Heck, use some of that transportation tax to pay for the dog park that will be used by so many travelers.
I think the city needs a dog park. I used to pooh-pooh that idea, but many transplants from cities that have dog parks have moved here and they want one here, too. I'm married to one of those transplants, and she really would like to have a dog park here. I don't mind having one, just so it doesn't cost tax money to build. Actually, we are using tax money to pay for Kohl's. We actually raised the sales tax to pay for the construction of the new Price Chopper and renovation of the Forum Plaza. We're going to raise the sales tax to pay for the new Menard's and other stores out by the traffic circles on Kingshighway. I don't want to raise taxes to build a dog park, but I don't know why we couldn't make the case that it is for travelers and use that tourism tax money.
That's why the dog park must be at Buehler Park.

Now, for a comment on a national issue: I'm about sick of people who are so-called conservatives telling me that they are not going to vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, so no one  else should either.
Someone very close to me has declared that he will never vote for Trump, and he doesn't understand how any Christian can do so. I'm not a very good Christian, but I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he, Jesus, died as an atonement for my sins and rose again and then ascended into heaven. He's coming back to judge me. Maybe he will judge me harshly for supporting Donald Trump for president in 2016.
"Lord," I will say. "Let me explain it to you." Then I'll tell my savior this:
We have been given a democratic republic by our Founding Fathers. We have the opportunity to vote for our officials, and the one who gets the most votes wins. We have developed into a two-party system, so one of the two nominees will win. If you usually vote, but you miss one election and don't vote at all, you are giving an advantage to the nominee of the party you usually oppose. If you usually vote, but you vote for a third party, you are doing the same, helping the candidate in the major party you would usually oppose.
So the self--righteous Republicans who say they are not voting at all or who are voting for a third party are helping Hillary Clinton. I guess you could say they are giving her either a half vote or maybe a full vote by not voting for her major opponent, Donald Trump. Now how righteous is that? We know from news reports that the nation's law enforcement officers think she was at least negligent in her handling of her electronic mail service. That is enough to get either a non-com or an officer in the military kicked out, maybe court-martialed. Why does she get a pass? How is voting for her, or failing to vote against her, being a good steward?
What righteous candidate is there? The libertarian? Libertarians believe in the absolute right to abortions and drugs. Evangelicals who oppose same-sex marriage because it is a sin but declare they will vote for the libertarian candidate who believes that it is a right are being hypocrites if they declare Trump is too sinful to support.
So, summarizing, I have been given two choices, Trump and Hillary.  The third-party candidates are non-factors to me. I am a citizen of this nation, and the right to vote has been won for me by people who gave their lives. I am not going to piss that away. I will cast a vote for president, based on the choices laid before me.
"So, Lord," I will say on Judgment Day. "I voted for Trump because he might have been offensive but he had not done anything as bad as Hillary.
"And, Lord," I will add. "Christians who refuse to vote are like the Quakers who refused to help with the American Revolution because they were pacifists, but who took advantage of all the rights and benefits of citizenship in the new country afterwards, rights won for them by the blood of other people. That is hypocritical."

No comments: