Retraction: Location suggestion for temporary dog park voted down by Hance Park committee


To our readers:

At about 2:55 p.m., the Downtown Devil took down an article published March 7 called “Location suggestion for temporary dog park voted down by Hance Park committee.” The piece included a number of errors of fact, including the very impetus for the article. During its Wednesday meeting, the Margaret T. Hance Park Master Plan Steering Committee approved a temporary location for the dog park within the park between Third and Fifth avenues. Our article reflected the conversation about and reaction to the rejection of the First Street area, but the overall outcome of the committee meeting was included incorrectly.

We sincerely apologize to any readers who were misled by the information provided in our article, and we are working to correct the errors for publication of a future version of the story. The issue of Phoenix dog park proposals is especially important to our community, and the immediate feedback on the article has helped us to better understand the issue. We hope to continue serving the interests of the community, and we will continue to strive for perfection in our reporting of downtown stories.

Managing editors of the Downtown Devil


  1. What can you say about an article that gets nearly every fact – including the main point of the article – totally wrong? The committee did approve the temporary location at Hance Park, in the 3rd Avenue location.

    The article omitted discussion of the heart of the Committee’s recommendation: That a permanent location for a dog park be found within Hance Park (consistent with the Parks board recommendation and the recommendation of the Dog Park Committee), and that the permanent location be determined by professional designers upon consideration of the park as a whole, and in accordance with the guidelines for development of the park that will be proposed by the Committee.

    The Committee also recommended that areas surrounding the park – such as the 1st Street area discussed in this article – be considered for future expansion of the park. So, the outright rejection of the 1st Street expansion (as is implied by this article), just didn’t happen.

    With respect to the temporary location, all but one member of the Committee supported a temporary dog park within the boundaries of the current park. The Committee discussed, at length, three different locations within the park and took comments from the Committee, community members and parks staff before voting on the location. The article does not mention the discussion of these other locations, or the reasons for their rejection.

    To the extent that it does discuss the community input, the article gets that wrong as well. Mr. Knuckles is a resident of Roosevelt, and while he supported a dog park within Hance Park, he objected to the particular 3rd
    Avenue location because of its proximity to residences (including his own). The article also omits the fact that the Japanese garden board has come out strongly against a dog park near the Japanese Garden, and that the Parks staff at the meeting objected to a dog park location on the East side of the park abutting Moreland. Thus, each proposed area had its supporters and objectors, and the location chosen for the temporary dog park was approved with a very narrow margin. This is a complex issue, with many interests and logistical factors to be taken into account. This article apparently misses that point, as well.

  2. Dear PhxDowntowner – The Committee engaged in a lengthy discussion of the various locations for temporary dog park. In the end, the 3rd Avenue location was motioned and approved. It was a close vote.

    As to the Moreland location, there were some legitimate objections. First, it is a small area – much less than 2 acres – and not easily divisible into separate sections for large and small dogs. There was also a discussion about whether blocking that area off would impair DOT access to a necessary mechanical area. And, there was discussion about whether the dog park in that location would impair the use of the area for festivals.

    As with all the areas – there were pros and cons. In the end, the 3rd Avenue section had enough votes to pass.

  3. Temporary? Hog wash, I think everyone on your committee has stated at one time or another that: “it’s a known fact that what starts as temporary becomes permanent”. So all of you actually voted to ruin the quality of life for the residents of Culver 3rd to 5th permanently. I think the taxpayers of Phx would be up in arms if they knew their iniative money that they voted in was going to the dogs and not their kids. I find it ironic that the issues that the Culver residents are concerned about are the very issues that Lynwood residents are actually dealing with. Maybe we should work together to resolve these issues.