Re: Sobczak’s commentary
To the editor,
We agree totally with the Guest Commentary written by Charles Sobczak in your Feb. 12, 2009 issue.
To reiterate, Sanibel Gardens Preserve is not the place for a dog park. The two main points made by Mr. Sobczak were:
Putting a dog park in a wildlife preserve is unconscionable. We frequently bicycle on Island Inn Road and have seen marsh rabbits, a bobcat and numerous birds. It is difficult to imagine their habitat not being severely impacted by the presence of a dog park.
Allowing a dog park in a wildlife preserve sets a terrible precedent. What will the next exception be? Taxpayers spent a lot of money to create the preserve for a purpose; to provide a safe haven for flora and fauna.
Just read the words of the Charter Amendment: “Do you approve the removal of approximately 1.42 acres of land from the City’s Environmental Sensitive Lands Conservation District.” Removing environmentally sensitive lands? What could we be thinking? What could be further from the Sanibel Vision?
Vote no on the “Removal of land from the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Conservation District for dog park use.”
Ann & Dan Moeder