The February 12 meeting of West Hollywood’s Public Facilities, Recreation, and Infrastructure Commission left many community members frustrated, with some calling it a ‘total waste of time.’ The primary topic of discussion was the Phase 1 improvements for William S. Hart Park, but despite passionate public comments, residents felt their concerns were ignored.
Community member and vocal critic of the proposed changes, Bob Claster, described the experience as disheartening. “They held a public comment period, but no one seemed to listen,” Claster said. “Five of us said essentially the same thing, but the commissioners moved on as if we hadn’t been there.”
The proposed changes include splitting the off-leash dog area into separate spaces for large and small dogs, altering pathways for ADA compliance, adding a plaza, and modifying the AIDS Memorial and fountain. The city claims these plans follow years of outreach and input from advisory boards and commissions. However, park regulars dispute that the current design reflects community wishes.
A major point of contention is the reduction of usable space for dogs. “Medium and large dogs will lose 30 percent of their running area, while small dogs will lose 60 percent,” said Claster, who analyzed the plans in detail. “They’re taking a well-functioning space and making it less effective.”
Residents are particularly concerned about the decision to split the dog park into separate areas, a change motivated by a single tragic incident when a large dog fatally attacked a small dog years ago. Claster called that “an extraordinary record of safety,” arguing the incident stemmed from an irresponsible owner, not a systemic issue.
The plaza element also drew criticism. “Why is valuable space being given up for a plaza?” Claster asked. “The park works well as it is.”
Tensions peaked when commissioners dismissed residents’ attempts to correct misinformation. “One commissioner made a completely inaccurate statement, and when someone tried to correct it, they were told their comment time was over,” Claster said.
Architect Ric Abramson, who presented the design update, emphasized that the two concepts presented were preliminary. Commissioners were invited to provide input to guide future designs, but community members said their calls for more involvement were ignored. “They totally ignored our demand to be included in the process, with seats on committees,” Claster said.
The park’s trees also became a flashpoint. The redesign requires removing several mature trees to accommodate ADA-compliant pathways. While city officials have promised to plant new trees, residents worry about losing greenery and disrupting the park’s natural character.
Claster and his fellow parkgoers are calling for the city to display the design plans at the park and solicit direct feedback from regular users. “The city’s idea of community outreach is a sham,” Claster said. “We want a process that genuinely reflects the needs of the people who use the park every day.”
As the design process continues, the city’s next steps involve presenting the plans to the Disabilities Advisory Board and the Older Adults Advisory Board before returning to the City Council. Construction is tentatively set for 2026, but for Claster and others, the fight to preserve their park is far from over.
Pretty soon, you know, dogs will be addressing City Council Members at City Council Meetings and vote.
and why not? They’re all smarter than Chelsea – and they’re not antisemitic.
I was at the meeting and I agree with some of these speakers comments, particularly the need to keep the dog park as one unit and not divide into too much smaller parks. Specifically, I agree because West Hollywood and Plummer Parks will have substantial small and large parks and are so close there’s no need to split Hart. But I’m just really surprised at the reporting and the comments not having all the facts. The park can’t remain the way it is. it was deeded to the city of LA by the Hart family and is under constraints on… Read more »
I’m confused. You state you want a park for all yet you don’t want anyone whom is unhoused to use it.
Never said thst. We need much better care for the unhoused. But do I want to have lunch somewhere someone has slept? No. And gas lighting and virtue signaling aren’t attractive qualities and won’t help the unhoused
I’ll join in to say that its purpose is not as a place for the unhoused to loiter. If that’s all it’s to become, I suggest city funds can be better spent elsewhere.
First of all, the problem is with the public comments situation. Time is set aside for the public to come and make speeches (limited to two minutes at the Council meetings, three for committee meetings). These are not in any way interactive. The public can’t ask questions, and the committee members / councilpersons don’t respond. Then the public comment period is over, and the meeting goes on as if it never happened, for the most part. This can be very frustrating. I had a very productive conversation with Ric Abramson, who heads up the Architects on the project. He told… Read more »
These Commission (not “committee”) and City Council meetings are business meetings with set agendas. They are not a free-for-all cocktail party for anything you want to talk about. Get to know how to engage with government in a better way.
“Public Comment” is per California’s “Brown Act”. Before you complain about the unfairness of the process, please learn more about the legal requirements for that process.
The city loves to say designs are “preliminary”. Stop misleading the public. How many years have been dedicated to Hart Park’s efforts? West Hollywood doesn’t care about public opinion. They believe they know better and work to protect their high paying jobs. The only people they care to hear from our city council. Unfortunately we have a majority that only listens to their special interest groups.
What was the breed of the large dog who fatally attacked the small dog years ago? I suspect that the most irresponsible thing the owner did was to own that dog in the first place.
I have no idea what the answer is to your question, but I can tell you that it’s a mistake to blame the breed. There are lovely pitbulls, and Huskies, and Rottweilers out there, if properly socialized and trained. But if you live with a dog, you probably know it well enough to know if it is is a vicious dog or not. Some dogs, as a result of mistreatment earlier in life, don’t play well with others, and generally, the owner should know better.
There are stories in the news almost daily about a dog who permanently changed or even ended a life, and it is always one of these on lists as potential attackers. When i see a pit bull I don’t know anything about it as to whether it has been well socialized nor what its early life was like. Often dogs of these breeds attack for the first time when it was unprovoked, but its nature took control. When there are so many other breeds to pick from why would someone deliberately choose from a known potentially dangerous breed?