Residents urge council to keep MacArthur Park open to off‑leash dogs, criticize ticketing enforcement

Dozens of residents urged the La Mesa City Council on Nov. 12 to preserve and expand off‑leash access at MacArthur Park, saying the park now functions largely as a dog gathering place and that current enforcement has driven users away.

At the start of the public‑comment period, Martha Berles, speaking for the Friends of MacArthur Dog Park, said the park has been “resoundingly used as an off‑leash dog park” since closure of the golf course and urged officials to allocate more of the park for off‑leash use rather than reconfigure it into additional features. “The proof is in the pudding,” she said, arguing that routine observations and a city master‑plan survey support expanding the dog area.

Several speakers described frequent use by dog owners and safety concerns when animals are confined to small enclosures. Melody McElroy said smaller, highly confined dog parks can increase aggression: “We're seeing more dogs fighting because they're enclosed and they can't get out,” she said. Christine Bond and Zeba Acmei also asked the council to use the northern portion of the park and existing fencing to create a substantially larger off‑leash area, saying that would cost less than large master‑plan options and better meet current demand.

Other commenters urged changes to enforcement. Steve Bindell criticized the city's contract with the Humane Society for ticketing, saying the group's enforcement approach has discouraged park use and may be misdirected. “Contracting the Humane Society to do enforcement — you should be ashamed. That's not their mission,” he said, adding that issuing tickets where no public‑safety problem exists drove long‑time users away.

Speakers cited numbers and planning materials in support of their requests. Berles referenced a state pet calculator and local household allowances to argue the city supports a large dog‑owning population and that MacArthur Park is used accordingly; Kirsten Iverson of the Friends of the Library later noted competing library‑space needs in other portions of the city, underscoring that council will need to weigh uses across multiple facilities.

City staff acknowledged public concern and said Parks & Recreation has already met with users and proposed an increased footprint for the current large enclosure, but commenters said the proposal did not go far enough. The council did not take immediate action on the dog‑park proposals during the meeting; several council members signaled interest in further study and community outreach before any formal change to the park plan or enforcement contract.

The council requested that staff return with options that outline footprints, costs, and enforcement approaches for further public review.