City in the Sights-Chula Vista
While the economic effects of AB1634 are being compiled, we take this side trip to visit that shining example of a south bay city, Chula Vista, to point out a glaring deficiency in serving citizens.
There are no dog parks west of I-805 in the city of Chula Vista.
Is this because it is the older part of town, and dog parks did not exist when it was planned? Is it because the dog parks are all provided by the contractors building the new subdivisions, and the cost to the city is initially nothing? Is it because there may be many more homes in the older part still under Prop 13 and yielding lower taxes? It is probably not that there are fewer dogs in the older section of town, despite the higher density of apartments. It has to be caused from something, doesn’t it?
We suggest that the city take a long hard look at the bay front property being considered for re-development. This is a perfect opportunity to make visits to hotels even more attractive to tourists, who are increasingly taking pets with them. A well designed dog park on the west side of town, one with beach access could be the deciding factor for folks who travel with their dogs. And it will not bother those without dogs, who have no use for it.
And, if Ab1634 does pass, such a park used by travelers with dogs immune to AB1634 results, could function as a mini zoo for local folks to come see what dogs look like. The particular dogs there would change from day to day, and folks would come to see, pet, and pine for the days when they could get a healthy locally bred dog of their choice.
Say, is Assemblyperson Mary Salas running for re-election? You know, she supported AB1634. Do you need an Assemblyperson like that?
Entry filed under: Uncategorized.