In response to your recent article on the proposed dog park in Blandair ("Residents split on proposed dog park in Oakland Mills," May 24), I see this as a great example of how people opposed to change suddenly find "religion."
This particular religion — NIMBYism — is the shared belief that things of benefit to the larger community are wonderful as long as they are Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY).
For years, many residents in Columbia have been clamoring for a dog park. The county comes along and offers to locate a dog park in Blandair. CA has offered to partner in the venture. Suddenly, NIMBYism is spreading. (Really? Residents on Sleeping Dog Lane are anti-dog?)
What's wrong with a dog park? (It's not a train yard, a chemical storage site, nor a nuclear power plant.)
For some, they say they are concerned about dog urine in run off getting into the local watershed — as though dogs will stop peeing if they don't have a park. Others are concerned about dogs barking and creating noise pollution. As though the dogs will somehow be louder and more annoying than the jets bound for BWI passing over head every few minutes or the children yelling and screaming while at the park.
Yet others are concerned about smells, even though a dog has to put his nose right into whatever it is he's smelling to get a good whiff. (A dog's sense of smell is far better than any human!)
The opposition really comes from NIMBYism. It's not rational. It's not about the greater good. It's simply anti-change. Like any religion, those who practice NIMBYism are entitled to their beliefs. They are not entitled to make policy for the entire community.
A dog park would be an asset to the community — regardless of location. So what's really wrong with Blandair other than the back yards?
River Hill representative
Columbia Association Board of Directors