To the Editor:
I'm wondering if the current Victoria City Councilmembers realize that the entire northern section of Park Drive was vacated by the City of Victoria several years ago, with ownership given to the [Three Rivers] Park, as requested by the Park.  There were no strings attached. 
It was an outright gift of city/taxpayer property.  Today that section remains gravel and dirty and dusty for Park users.  Seasonal maintenance of that gravel section is by the Park; maintenance of the paved section is by the City of Victoria.
Since access to the Park's gravel road is only obtained by using the City's paved road (one that also serves as the only access to a City neighborhood), I'm won-dering if the City or the Parkside neigh-borhood has leverage in this regard.
Three Rivers Park is allowed to put up gates and control access to their roads, not to mention the quality of their roads.  In similar manner, is the City of Victoria allowed to control access to its roads?  I believe Mayor Bohn has asked in the past which governmental jurisdiction has more authority.  Does anyone have an answer to that question?  Is Three Rivers Park governed by elected officials or appointed officials?
As the longest residing homeowner and taxpayer in the Parkside neighbor-hood (since 1971), I see that a dog park provides no advantage to the neighbor-hood nor to the general populace of Victoria, but only to a select few inside and outside of Victoria, those who want to let their dogs run wild.
Instead, I only see disadvantages of a dog park, especially as it relates to our already unsafe intersection at Highway 5.  The addition of 100 extra cars per day is scary to me.
Since Victoria City Councilmembers have been made aware of the dangerous intersection, with public statements made to them at a public meeting, seems to me that the councilmembers of the City of Victoria in general could be incurring liability in the event of injury or fatality by approving - even implicitly - such an increase in activity at an intersection that already fails miserably.
Also, and not to make light of a serious situation, what is to prevent a horse park or a cat park in Carver Park?  It's already a deer park, as well as a dear park, and that's more in keeping with why it was created in the first place.
Twenty-seven acres fenced off for dogs???  I hope Victoria's elected people as well as our staff people in Victoria can do something to protect us.  What is the monetary value of 27 acres of land within the limits of the City of Victoria?
Sue Orsen
Victoria, Minnesota

To the Editor:
We would like to express our concern regarding the proposed dog park in Carver Park.  As residents of the Parkside Estates neighborhood, our concerns are:
1) Increased traffic on Park Drive, estimated at 100 cars per day.  Locating the dog park in an area with one city street - Park Drive - as entrance and egress does not consider the safety of the neigh-borhood.  Adding traffic for the dog park would be dangerous.  Park Drive does not have sidewalks and residents routine walk, run, and ride bikes on the street.  Park Drive currently provides the only access to the existing trail parking area, group camp, and Lake Zumbra access.  An additional 100 cars per day, or 200 including entrance and egress, is not acceptable.
2) Close proximity of the dog park border to the biking/walking trail.  This reduces the tranquility of the trail and it is likely dogs will run to the trail boundary and bark or chase at bikers and pedestri-ans.
3) Adequate parking for the estimated 100 cars per day.  We are not in favor of having overflow cars park along Park Drive or in our neighborhood.
4) Adequate park patrol coverage for increased traffic, parking, and dog park permits.  Currently the park patrol is not able to adequately cover prohibited snow-mobile traffic in the park.  We are not confident there will be adequate park patrol to monitor a dog park.  Additiona-ly, we don't think providing park patrol for a dog park is a wise use of the Three Rivers Park District budget.  Surely, the maintenance of existing infrastructure within Carver Park and other Three Rivers parks could use the budget dollars.
5) View of dog park from the neigh-borhood.  The view of the park as green space and parkland is valued and a primary reason for choosing to be a resi-dent in the neighborhood. 
As dog owners we appreciate the popularity and benefits of dog parks.  Car-ver Park consists of 3,000 acres and surely there is a more suitable location for the dog park that would mitigate the above concerns.
We request the Park board reconsider the location of the dog park in Carver Park.  County Road 11 would provide a safer and easier access. 
Ken and Mary Fischer
Victoria, Minnesota