(Thomas Whittemore)I would support off-leash areas on suitable surplus city property i.e. city light property, or non-city property at convenient sites. I would discourage the devotion of older park land to exclusive use by off-leash areas though new open space might be designed with such use in mind, if sufficient funds were available to maintain the site, stewardship was in strong evidence and environmentally critical areas were avoided. Permanent status could be granted if these conditions are met, a rigorous and thorough environmental determination of non-significance is reached and the evidence of dogs off-leash in other adjacent areas ( "spillage" ) diminishes. See answer to question 6.
(Curt Firestone)Yes. I would vote to support off-leash areas.
(Peter Steinbrueck)Yes, depending on the appropriateness of the location and the availability of funds to support off-leash areas. As a councilmember I have supported off-leash areas in the past, including Magnuson Park. I recognize that parks are for the enjoyment of all, and the interests of different user groups needs to be fairly balanced.
(Alec Fisken)Yes, I will support off-leash areas.
(Margaret Pageler)Yes. I have a strong track record of support for off-leash areas and have consistently voted for them.
(Heidi Wills)Yes. Many dog owners live in small homes or in apartments and their dogs need off-leash areas. Dog owners in urban areas must have outdoor places where their dogs may run free for exercise and for recreation. This also allows opportunities for community connections and interaction between neighbors.
(Dawn Mason)Yes, I will vote to support off-leash parks and expand public participation in the discussion for funding and siting.
(Cheryl Chow)I voted for off-leash areas when I was on the council and would have no problem with continuing my support.
Continue to Question 8