Category: Shreveport Dog Park

Glover: “It’s Not Over Till Its Over.”


“…No middle ground in developing the city’s first dog park…” – Shreveport Times, December 4, 2013

On_the_moonIf you have spent the last year and a half on the moon, you may have missed the ongoing battle over Shreveport’s attempt to birth a dog park. Tuesday, December 3, the battle continued.

There is a rule in competitive games: It’s not over until it’s over. As long as the game is still going, there is a chance that someone who started out not doing so well can “make a comeback” and do much better. Sometimes everyone is pulling for the underdog, pardon our pun.

statue_of_liberty_criesThe same applies to the life of governmental manipulations and legal battles. It’s not over until it’s over. As long as your bill, motion, proposal, assertion, case in court, whatever you are fighting to succeed has a Read more


Thanksgiving and the Shreveport Dog Park Alliance


Lucy tricks Charlie Brown AGAINTaxpayer money and city resources have been squandered in Mayor Glover’s unnecessary, ego-driven legal squabble with the Shreveport Dog Park Alliance (SDPA). Even when the City Council voted unanimously to compel Glover to sign for and initiate construction of a dog park on the river front, he refused.

At this point, Glover retained independent counsel, and taxpayers have covered the tab for over $35,000 as the mayor loses at each hearing in court. His next court date may result in a trip to jail or worse. So, Glover’s additional extension (more legal fees) on December 2 is just another waste.

Charlie Brown Christmas Lucy psych standLater, Glover recognized all reasonable channels of legal Read more


Changing the Course of Shreveport Dog Park



Mayor Cedric B. Glover has made history for Shreveport in his abject contempt for both citizens, representing the dog park alliance, and the City Council, in defying the will of a unified body. Now, with the Louisiana court system breathing down his neck for failure to comply with district court rulings and spending over $30,000 taxpayer dollars to justify his contempt, his last maneuver is to get the council to revoke their resolution in support of the dog park. King_Glover–the_Decider

With a revocation of the resolution, Glover intends to tell the court that the council never really intended to have “that” dog park. And, in defying the intent of the citizens, he has paid for attorneys, provoked citizen rage and pushed all city projects backwards at untold cost to all except those supporters who feed at the public trough.

3:00 Tuesday City Council!

Tuesday, November 26, at 3PM at Government Plaza many dog-park advocates and upset citizens will attend the masquerade of the mayor to justify the failures of his management of Shreveport. Shame, shame on those who would condone these practices.

Unhappy patrons...

Citizens deserve far better leadership, so perhaps it’s time to start picking the next mayor.


Glover’s “Poop-Doggle” – Total District Court Record


(Unofficial, of course – but these seem to be court documents[Click Here!]!)

It's only money (not mine)
It’s only money (not mine)

Mayor Cedric B. Glover and City Council Chairman Michael Corbin emerged from an executive session November 18, 2013, strongly hinting that there would soon be resolution to the Hamel’s Dog Park “poop-doggle.” No specifics were given, however, the record indicates the mayor must do significant “compliance” prior to any resolution. And, the record further indicated that the mayor’s signing hand must act in accordance with his words (sign the agreement!)

Complete records of the district court are now available for the public. These records clearly demonstrate that the mayor has used public resources and squandered ample opportunities to resolve the issues prior to the end of 2013. Citizens have donated significant money and time toward a recreational park that was originally fully funded prior to the mayor’s May, 2012 significant requirements to make a small park into a “Taj Mahal” theater.

From a chain link fence with a water well with doggie-disposal stations, the “Taj Mahal” became a public restroom, attendance park with major requirements of wrought-iron fencing, gated-subdivision entrances, water features and parking for the masses. Other cities have surpassed Shreveport by opening $8.000 to $100,000 parks. The Glover-manipulated park has gone from the $280,000 gift of the Red River Waterway Commission to a MILLION DOLLAR PLUS MONEY PIT.

The public should read and note the mayor’s many contradictions and foot-dragging position-changing tactics, legal screw-ups and other wasteful shenanigans. The whole record may be found here.

We look forward to this day!
We look forward to this day!



The Dog Park Endurance Test, September, 2013

It's not alive...
Court Case…it’s still dead…

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.

NO Bull StampDr. Luke Boyd, of the the University of Tennessee, used to say that you needed clear Read more


Becoming the Disabler!


   Mouse holeThe hole in the wall is the culprit, because without a breach in the wall, the mouse would not be able to steal the food. Allowing a hole in the wall is enabling the mouse.

Today, one small hole in the wall may have been temporarily blocked when Judge Leon Emanuel refined the leash of Shreveport mayor Cedric Glover in perfecting his initial ruling for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to define that the mayor‘srequirements to adhere more closely to his job as prescribed by the city charter. Glover has repeatedly refused to follow the city council’s lead as the legislative arm of government passed and then Read more


Truth, One-Sided Issues and Lies


by Marion Marks

ShreveportTimes Mast
Some issues have sides…

One major gripe I have with the Shreveport Times is that they expect all issues to have two sides and a second party to defend against all complaints. Some issues have no second acceptable side as there really are universally acceptable truths.

Edwin Abbott’s Flatland uses zero, one, two, three and four dimensional examples that mathematicians and teachers at many levels have used for years to bring to life important lessons. This factually based book has always been a source for educators.Flatland_Abbot_Very_Early_Ed

After World War II the evils of the Nazi regime were apparent to the world, yet today we find groups who challenge our sensibilities to question truths of the Holocaust. Issues of this nature have no acceptable “second” side to discuss, as our culture can never again allow such evil behavior.

Some have NO Reason.
Some have NO Reason.

Yet, media editors such as the Shreveport Times expect all issues they cover in politics to always allow “both sides” for equal coverage. The absurdity of this expectation can

Read more


Why The Law is THE Law

The law means what it says...
The law means what it says…

The question most Shreveport citizens have about the dog park squabble with the mayor is “Why is this an issue at all?” The answer is as simple as “Many problems with public officials and trouble the public has been forced to endure is because the requirements of the laws, as written, have not been followed.” In short, public officials and too many private citizens have been allowed to interpret the law to fit their needs. [COURT FILING!]

The Shreveport Dog Park Alliance has determined that the laws, with regard to Shreveport City Council, State Law and the interpretations given by the State Court need to be adhered to by the duly elected mayor of the city. And, along with the assistance of attorneys who understand the requirements of the law, all necessary steps are being followed to require Cedric Bradford Glover, duly elected twice as mayor of Shreveport, to carry out his sworn duties.Glover-Court-No News

The mayor should swing for this
Attorneys: “The mayor should swing”

The problem today is Glover and his attorneys are doing everything legally they are permitted to abrogate his responsibilities to the citizens of Shreveport. In refusing to follow the requirements of Read more


Contract Attorneys & HWY 3132 + Dog Park=$$$$$

Mayor's learned lawyers?
Mayor’s learned lawyers?

In the last 18 months contract attorneys for the city on two cases alone have racked up over $157,000 in legal billing. This number is astounding partially by the fact that the dog park could be built and operated for more than a year, based on numbers provided by the Shreveport Dog Park Alliance (SDPA) at no cost to taxpayers above the money donated to citizens by the Red River Waterway Commission. The park can be maintained for far less than the legal expenses the mayor has accrued, and that would be for several years!

Levee-hunt-dogThe dog park litigation has already cost, in payments alone that do not count outstanding bills, $24,781.50, And, the meter is obviously still running, even though the council Read more


RESPONSE: Glover right to raise questions…

by Marion Marks

The following is a response to a letter by Robert Bareikis: (Glover right to raise questions about dog park) in the August 5, 2013 Shreveport Times (Here is Original Letter, followed by Robert’s Letter of Response and below Marks’ response that we chose to publish). The Time “Response” appears to be different from the version published here. That may by in “digital translation of a cut-paste.”) Note: the upper right-hand column of the blog has daily updates on dog parks everywhere!

RESPONSE: Robert, I applaud you for keeping the discussion in the forefront for the public. What you label as my “attack,” I defend as not only not an attack, but rather a series of conclusions based upon systematic analysis of the record of the following data:

  1. The dog park was designed by land management and city planning professionals over a period of years.
  2. Elected officials from city, parish and state authorities, not to mention the Red River Waterway Commission determined this park qualified for support financially and politically.
  3. Years of study, including parks and recreation officials, determined this Read more