What about all of those soccer fields? I don't play soccer. Why can't those little kids just play in the street like I did when I was a kid? Baseball too. Kids get hurt playing those games anyway. That's child abuse . . right?

Heck, why don't we turn those big grassy fields into some income producing property? They could be . . uh . . hey I know . . they could be grass farms. Yeah, that's the ticket. Grass farms. Why didn't I think of that sooner?

Oh excuse me. Gotta go now. Time to take my meds.

Kids need exercise and one of those kids might grow up to invent a more powerful weapon than the hydrogen bomb or land on Mars. Some of those kids might be the next Hillary Clinton or the next John McCain.

Dogs will never change the world like the Wright Brothers did with their airplane. On the contrary, they are a burden and sometimes a danger. They bark and that is annoying. Some of them get out and bite innocent people.

Dogs are for the pleasure of only one person or family. The community should not be forced to support a person's luxury or one family's. It is just not American.

In the same American spirit, President Andrew Jackson's veto of the Maysville Road Bill told the citizens of the state of Kentucky, that the American people should not be forced to build a road that will only benefit a single state. Let the citizens of Kentucky pay for their own road building or internal improvements.

If I were to go sailing, I would not get on a boat with Obama. He does not know the winds and will get us sunk.

On the other hand, John McCain knows the winds and has the courage and the honesty to be a very good president, even a near great. Only problem is, he is not a navigator. He does not know the stars and will get us lost.

Hillary Clinton is our navigator, one who knows the stars and will get us to our destination. She will make a great president.

Now by the winds, I mean foreign affairs. By the stars, I mean the economy. McCain has shown no interest in the economy. He is off to Irag or is busy talking to veterans.
He is no comfort to homeowners or the unemployed or the working poor. However, he is a war hero and a good man. I just hope that I will not have to vote for him, because the Democrats insist on rejecting Hillary. That would be a crime!

Hillary has a wonderful plan for national health care and she has the endorsement of the California Federation of Teachers. I like her proposal for alternative sources of energy and for the return to a balanced budget.

On the war in Iraq, we cannot afford to finance it from an economic point of view. Not to mention that we are no closer to a working democracy than before. There will be democracy as long as there are U.S. troops. How are you going to pay for it? Raise taxes or increase the national debt? Do you know of any other way?

McCain might keep us there longer than I want to be there. On the other hand, the Arizona Senator has shown his independence from President Bush and will be a better president. At least he is a liberal.

However, America deserves the best. Hillary is the best! Why settle for less?

Well a couple of things. There are equestrian parks, but it's just for the mere pleasure of riding an animal. Taxes go to paying for crosswalks and signs for horse crossings all over Santa Clarita. We pay taxes for many things that we do not use, that's called redistribution of income...steal from those who make it, invest it and make more. I tie this in because you sir, want to vote for Mrs. Clinton, a redistributor of income if there ever was one. And if you're so keen on government healthcare, why don't you look at the veterans' administration and the dilapidated conditions therein....that's government healthcare! I understand that we are paying for it one way or the other, but the best way to cut down on healthcare costs is to have tort reform....but you can't do that because people like John Edwards, who became rich on suing Doctors and hospitals, wouldn't be able to make a living.....but then again Hillary is a lawyer and would never implement tort reform.

The problem with most liberals is that they don't understand that higher taxes actually bring in less revenue at a certain point....it is finding that point that is critical. Let me explain: When you lower taxes you generate business, that business generates jobs, those jobs generate income tax and employed people buy things so you get sales tax, property taxes, tobacco taxes, liquor taxes and these employed people spend money at stores of all kinds, creating even more jobs and more taxpayers. The problem isn't with lower taxes, it's with higher-inefficient spending. By the way, I by no means consider President Bush a fiscal conservative. On a note about the cost of the war, since you bring it up....part of the cost of the Iraq war would be incurred anyway. We would still have soldiers (paying them a wage, room and board depending on their deployment). We would still be doing military exercises, we would still be moving troops around the world so some of the cost would be incurred anyway. And who can put a price on having an ally that sits between Saudi Arabia and Iran and another on the other side of Iran in Afghanistan....there is too much at stake for the entire world, to pull out. Get off of the dependence on oil, and use nuclear, solar, wind, etc. and the Middle East would just become one giant solar collector with no exports. They would be so concerned with how to take care of their own, with no revenue, that they wouldn't have as much time for us.

Steve, you're joking about the dog park, right? I mean come on, kids aren't the only ones using the park so that example is just non-sequitur. My dog will never run for president (although considering the usual slate of candidates, might do as good a job given the same corporate puppeteers), but she won't invent the next bomb either. And kids are noisy too. See where I'm going with this?

Although "a" dog is for the benefit of "one" family, there are certainly many families that take their dogs to the dog park . . . many, many, many. And the same thing can be said for MOST of the kids at the park, that is, most of them will NOT make a notable contribution. What about couples who have no children? Are they forbidden to use the park? Can they withhold a portion of their taxes as a result?

I pay taxes. I should be able to use the park. Parks should cater to the community in general and allow for multiple uses. Many (many, many, many) people (taxpayers) in Santa Clarita own dogs. A dog park is a legitimate use of a public park. Which of these statements do you disagree with? If it's none, then your objection is just an emotional and empty non-issue. If there is one statement that you disagree with (other than the conlusion), then we can talk.

By the way, I'm at the park frequently and if you happen to observe who IS using the park when no one else is, it's dog owners (taxpayers). So I would argue that the primary times that dogs and their owners are using the park, are times when it is being tragically under-used. Isn't that a good thing?

The rest of your diatribe belongs on a different blog.

See what I mean about pork spending....A DOG PARK IS NOT NECESSARY! School books, fire equipment, police equipment, real lunches for our students, fix the roads, etc.

What a waste and disgrace...they have no shame when it comes to spending OUR money!!!!!

Wake-up people

So, SPS, since your list of what IS necessary did not include parks (dog or otherwise), can we assume you think that ALL parks are unnecessary? Or are non-dog-parks included in "etc?"

What else does "etc." include? Who decides what is included? Is it, elected officials? Isn't that how we do things here in America?

Hey, I'm really not THAT big of a fanatic on dog parks (really I'm not). But your point is poorly made and incomplete. There are multitudes of things that taxes pay for that I'm sure I never have or never will use. So, should I argue that none of those things should be funded unless all of the things I care about get funded first? Who is asleep here?

Oh and by the way, how can you start by saying "see what I mean . . . . " when there is no previus post to, uh, . . . see?

Wake up SPS!

A dog park has been one of the most requested amenities by residents that the City provides. While I dont have dogs, I have no issues regarding the City using funds for it. If you think about it, the infrastructure to contruct the dog park is minimal with some concrete and fencing. Including taxes collected by residents and by businesses, you're probably talking about pennies per taxpayer. By establishing a dog park you are also encouraging people to play with their dogs in a designated area which decreases people having their dogs off-leash in the remainder of the park where you reduce the potential for dogs running wild and potentially biting someone.

In regards to stopporkspending's post, the City does not operate the education system. You need to complain to William S Hart District and other elementary school districts about their lack of funding. Totally unrelated.

To sauguscheerdad on your April 24th comment:

I disagree with the statement that a dog park is a legitimate use of a public park. It is not. It is for dog owners, who should not expect the rest if us to pay a subsidy for their fetism. On the contrary, they should be grateful that dogs are not banned from the city, because they are a safety risk to the community and a public nuisance. They bite and they bark.

My other objection is emotional. I recently visited a dog park and left a large chocolate cake on the table, while I went back to my car for my jug of ice milk. When I returned, the dogs ate my chocolate cake. I lose more chocolate cakes that way. Good appetite to the dogs!