IT Park: NO LONGER PET FRIENDLY!!!

[em_b]

inconsistency is beside the point, it is solely their discretion.

lahi lahi man gud ta ug idea sa recreation. if they featured it sa sunstar na it is for family, then i dont see any point why dili siya for family just because they dont allow pets. after all, not every family own pets.

and yes, tanan ta diri nagarefer man siguro sa open area sa IT park. hehehehehe. but mind you, kapila na me kakaon sa KFC ug mcdo with our dogs. sa tables sa gawas. but i wont make it as a precedent para me tugtan sunod, kay even wa me nabadlong, hibalo me dili siya pwede.

[em_b]

and it doesnt mean "they dont care about the rest of the people who , ent there". kay kung na pet friendly sila ug nagkataon na you dont like pets, you would have said the same. they cant please everybody. they need to create a market, a niche of their own. if the place is not to your liking, consider going to other places. because clearly, they are not addressing your kind of recreation.

and have you been to IT park yourself? everytime we are there, there are just like around 4 or 5 dogs, in the whole duration of our stay there, we brought 2. so give or take 2, 3 families with dogs. a small number to loose. they can pretty much afford na mawad-an sila ana na customer. hehehehe.

[babyjr]

btw brod & sis. maypa para walay samok,og waste sa time its btr sa cebu business park nlng,may man cla d2 ok.ra,dn f layuan gyd mo,mas mau walk ur dog in any places as u want bsta lng wlay mamadlong,.dle lng sa nice sa place ,importante ma exercise & socialize ur dogs....

[ilonggako]

@ts walk your dog at srp na lang, wag mo ng ipilit yung gusto mo sa isang lugar na di pwede, thats just being brat, plain and simple

[bullybreedlover]

Has anyone every contacted the IT Park Management? Petitioning is exercising our rights as protected by the Constitution of the Philippines. IRO can send them a letter to get the official policy as that is part of our mission and therefore we know exactly what the management policy is on paper and not leave it to the discretion of the security guards. If they are not interested in changing their policy and people in the community do not think it is worth fighting for, then so be it. The IT Park is not the only venue and hopefully IRO can negotiate with other developers to listen to the concerns of pet owners. The question lies whether people see the IT park as an important venue to bring their dogs. Yes, The Persimmon Plus is dog friendly but there is a need for a park like setting for dogs and their families to go to. IRO supports The Persimmon Plus and in fact is involved in upcoming events, like a Pet Expo with UPKC next month. If there is no interest in contacting the IT then that is not the place. How about Arecenas? That is a big field out there and could really be transformed to a park. Feedback please as IRO will be having a general meeting in a week to discuss other issues that need attention and advocating for a dog friendly park is in our minds.

[Ironwood_Cebu]

at the end of the day, it is the lot/property owners' rights and interests that will prevail.
if we are advocating for a "dog park" then let's go to the government to give that to us;
but i cant see the possibility for a private company like the cbp or arcenas to surrender to
us their open lots (it park and arcenas) just to be converted these into dog parks.

it was already a great gesture on the part of the arcenas estate to let dog walks and other dog
activities to be held in their property in banawa, but to expect them to give it up totally (for conversion into a dog park) is beyond my imagination, as of yet. let's just be realistic.

with all due respect mam nena.

IWC

[em_b]

at the end of the day, it is the lot/property owners' rights and interests that will prevail.
if we are advocating for a "dog park" then let's go to the government to give that to us;
but i cant see the possibility for a private company like the cbp or arcenas to surrender to
us their open lots (it park and arcenas) just to be converted these into dog parks.

it was already a great gesture on the part of the arcenas estate to let dog walks and other dog
activities to be held in their property in banawa, but to expect them to give it up totally (for conversion into a dog park) is beyond my imagination, as of yet. let's just be realistic.

with all due respect mam nena.

IWC

[Brainfreeze]

Has anyone every contacted the IT Park Management? Petitioning is exercising our rights as protected by the Constitution of the Philippines. IRO can send them a letter to get the official policy as that is part of our mission and therefore we know exactly what the management policy is on paper and not leave it to the discretion of the security guards. If they are not interested in changing their policy and people in the community do not think it is worth fighting for, then so be it. The IT Park is not the only venue and hopefully IRO can negotiate with other developers to listen to the concerns of pet owners. The question lies whether people see the IT park as an important venue to bring their dogs. Yes, The Persimmon Plus is dog friendly but there is a need for a park like setting for dogs and their families to go to. IRO supports The Persimmon Plus and in fact is involved in upcoming events, like a Pet Expo with UPKC next month. If there is no interest in contacting the IT then that is not the place. How about Arecenas? That is a big field out there and could really be transformed to a park. Feedback please as IRO will be having a general meeting in a week to discuss other issues that need attention and advocating for a dog friendly park is in our minds.

you dont need the constitution to guarantee your right to ask (or petition); it is a basic human nature. what is guaranteed in our constitution is the right of each citizen to life, liberty and property. cbp & arcenas estate, having juridical personalities, cannot be "forced" to give up portions of their properties just so certain private individuals (or orgs) can have a park for their dogs.

imo, you're taking it too far out. let's just enjoy our dogs.

[bullybreedlover]

@Brainfreeze: But that is precisely the point, people have complained in this venue that they do not have a place to enjoy the dogs, and that is the reason this thread was started. I agree with you that private entities have jurdical personalities and we are not talking about a "taking" or "eminent domain" as it is not for governmental use. We are saying why not ask, as simple as that. The government does not have the funds to barely support a dog pound, therefore they would definitely no have one for a public dog park. What IRO is merely saying is to ask, in a very diplomatic way, what the policy is as in the case of other private entities. You would be amazed what mere asking does. I do not see the correlation between asking in the interest of advocating for those who want it and equating it with "forcing" which would be unconstitutional. I disagree with your statement that "we dont need the constitution to guarantee your right to ask (or petition); it is a basic human nature. . . ." I am mature (some people say "old") enough to remember when even with the constitution whether here in the Philippines and in the United States when people's civil rights were violated and a mere "petition" would get someone in jail. So the Constitution is important because that is the highest law in the land that protects you, me, everyone else, including private entities. Obviously, this polemic is not getting anywhere and maybe this is not the venue to have legal/constitutional arguments with you. Nevertheless, I will still send the letter next week and to other private establishments in order to be clear what is their policy regarding dogs rather than relying on mere hearsay as that is exercising my constitutional right to free speech. Will keep others posted in Istorya, Facebook, and IRO website as to our survey. In Peace. Nena Hernandez

[Brainfreeze]

@Brainfreeze: But that is precisely the point, people have complained in this venue that they do not have a place to enjoy the dogs, and that is the reason this thread was started.

who are these people? their numbers? now mam, put that same "complaining people" side-by-side with those who wouldnt want dogs in the same premises. which do you think is bigger in number?

The government does not have the funds to barely support a dog pound, therefore they would definitely no have one for a public dog park.

on the contrary, you should be pointing your guns towards the government; petition them no end on putting up a decent dog-walk park area. tho as far as i remember, there is still no law or policy which requires government agencies to provide such.

What IRO is merely saying is to ask, in a very diplomatic way, what the policy is as in the case of other private entities. You would be amazed what mere asking does. I do not see the correlation between asking in the interest of advocating for those who want it and equating it with "forcing" which would be unconstitutional.

if you go through your previous post again mam, you can find that you were short of saying that - force. you talked about boycotting and such, just to make them give-in to your "request" of letting some people walk their dogs in the park... that at least how i see it previously.

I disagree with your statement that "we dont need the constitution to guarantee your right to ask (or petition); it is a basic human nature. . . ."

im sorry when i typed that post i was at a loss for a better word. but what i meant by that is - "anybody can ask anything under the sun, we dont need the constitution to guarantee that for us; it is human to ask" but what is in the constitution is the right of each and every individual "to life, liberty and property", that im sure is within the phil constitution.

Nevertheless, I will still send the letter next week and to other private establishments in order to be clear what is their policy regarding dogs rather than relying on mere hearsay as that is exercising my constitutional right to free speech. Will keep others posted in Istorya, Facebook, and IRO website as to our survey. In Peace. Nena Hernandez

the debate notwithstanding, i still hope you succeed in this undertaking. i am just not in tune with what you want to happen with each and every private establishments that you feel should provide dogparks for cebu dog owners.

"...How about Arecenas? That is a big field out there and could really be transformed to a park..."

i believe, this effort should better be channeled towards the government, not on private companies; as we all know how much cebu properties cost nowadays. no sane businessman would give up a valuable property just so some peeps have a place to walk their dogs with.