Letter to the Editor

I am not opposed to a dog park because of noise, traffic, parking or environmental concerns. It barely seems to be a P&Z issue. I am opposed to it because I think it’s a moral and ethical issue, and questionable appropriateness for a rural town like Norfolk.

Dogs have had a dog park as long as they have been associated with human beings. It’s called their home. I’ll bet you most Norfolk dogs who would use the park have better homes than many people. I suspect those dogs are well fed and cared for in every aspect of their lives. If dog park supporters have an extra $200,000 to burn, maybe they could put it toward building a couple of tiny houses for locals, or real support for the food pantry, or a hundred other things the world needs right now. 

We live in the most rural part of Connecticut in one of the most rural towns. There’s plenty of room already for dogs. And being a rural town do we really need more suburbanization in Norfolk? For dogs? All dog parks in Connecticut are located in larger population areas with the exception of Salisbury. While they’re both tiny, Salisbury has more than double the population of Norfolk. Locally, only Salisbury and Egremont out of dozens of rural towns in the region have fallen into this trap. Talk to people who have lived in the southern Berkshires for a long time. The perception is now it’s finally becoming ruined due to a kind of suburbanization. That sense of place is becoming lost. 

One dog park won’t ruin Norfolk, but it’s another step in its untethering. 

Lawrence Davis-Hollander