The Mayor Glover Dog Park Case is moving into what is believed to be the final stages of appeal (at least for this round for the mayor). The District Court determined Glover should be required to comply with the determinations of the city council and accept Red River Waterway Commission donated funds in for the Charles and Marie Hamel Dog Park along the river. Glover has already spent in excess of $25,000 in city money fighting the case prior to the most recent month’s bills as reported in the Shreveport Times.
However, the mayor’s attorneys are using every solitary bit of time and money the city is willing to spend. They also want all of the court’s patience to repackage the mayor’s debunked arguments that he alone has the right to determine
1. what should be in a park
2. where it should be, and
3. how the money must be allocated
in paying for what should be an inexpensive off-leash park along the riverfront.
So, how did this simple task of a donated park get to be so difficult? Here is how a history professor explained it in a very simple analysis – simple and to the point.
Dr. Luke Boyd, of the the University of Tennessee, used to say that you needed clear simple answers, to the point, and not to feed him any “B.S.” As a matter of fact he had a very low tolerance for B.S. on an essay question. His tolerance level was so low that his rubber stamp was liberally used when students chose to pile on the B.S. A paper with this stamp was known to be short on factual data and long on fertilizer.
We believe the “B.S. quotient” has been excessively used by the mayor and his attorneys in litigating the dog park. Their repackaging of well-worn arguments of the mayor’s rights and prerogatives has been ruled unworthy. We pray the appeals court does more than just call his B.S. by adding additional weight that reinforces the message already given to the mayor.
That message, we hope, should be far more than a simple “NO, you are not entitled to rewrite the city charter.” We hope penalties are added to the mayor by either the court or the city council that require the mayor to pay his own way for the folly that he has forced the public to endure.The city charter seems to be clear on this matter, and the mayor only is allowed to recoup expenses IF AND ONLY IF HE WINS HIS CASE!
The thought of commemorating the mayor’s punishment of citizens through a fund-raising activity should probably be appropriate for the Shreveport Dog Park Alliance. The SDPA has a volunteer who has prepared a mock-up of a memorial dog “rest station” for citizens to remember the endurance test the park has to this point endured. The mayor’s face on this commemorative may be appropriate for the dogs who have also waited so long for their park.