Growing up an Arkansas Razorback basketball fan in the 1990s, I held head coach Nolan Richardson in the highest regard.
Who could blame me? His teams were some of the best in the country during the decade, accumulating three Final Four appearances and a national championship before I turned 12.
But by 2002, Richardson’s teams were underperforming, and the coach had become increasingly angry with how the university treated him. He let that boil over into comments at a press conference about university leadership that got him fired.
The ensuing battle was ugly and very public. Richardson filed a lawsuit, which he lost. The basketball program fell into a decade of obscurity that it’s only somewhat shaken to date.
But if you go to Bud Walton Arena in Fayetteville today, Nolan Richardson’s name is on the court, as it should be. And Richardson attends games and functions as a tireless ambassador for the community and university, as he should.
While it took years for both sides to bury the hatchet — both believing they were entirely right and the other side entirely wrong — they eventually realized each side had a point and they needed each other.
More striking, Richardson never left Fayetteville, even during the worst of the conflict. He still lives there.
An ongoing conflict between the Lowndes County Recreation Department and users of its Bark Park near the Roger Short Soccer Complex embodies many of these same tenets.
On one side, you have a loosely tied together group of dog owners dissatisfied with the park’s condition and amenities. Yet, they still use it. More than that, they take ownership of it, developing community and camaraderie — whether through daily visits or throwing birthday parties there for the dogs.
Some “group” members appealed to park leadership for lighting, better water access and various other issues the past several months. When that didn’t render the desired result, they took the drastic and inappropriate (albeit hilarious) measure of really making the Bark Park “their own.” They brought their lawn chairs, strung lighting from tree branches and even hauled in a barrel in which they built fires and roasted marshmallows. This went on for six weeks or so, evidently, until the parks department disallowed personal items being brought to the park and sheriff’s deputies busted up the jocularity last Tuesday.
County recreation leadership, chiefly Director Jennifer Claybrook and Deputy Director Tom Velek, seem resolved in the righteousness of their position. In an interview with The Dispatch, Velek showed little deference to the Bark Park users, implying the group drank there and strewed liquor bottles on the property. Then he seemed to dismiss most of the group’s complaints as too expensive to address.
It’s obvious citizens can’t take it upon themselves to add amenities to a public park, especially when one of them is a jackleg fire pit. On that point, the recreation department is absolutely right. And Velek is no doubt right about budgetary constraints related to improvements there.
But he’s missing a key point in this conflict: Despite this group’s dissatisfaction with the park and its leadership, its members still faithfully use it.
Market research fundamentals will tell you most people have a low tolerance for a product or facility they don’t feel meets their needs or is too difficult to use. Especially if they feel their feedback is being ignored, they leave, either silently or with a nasty review on their way out.
The dog park group, on the other hand — while recognizing, even lamenting, what it sees as the park’s flaws — remain the facility’s most dedicated advocates. I figure that makes them a valuable focus group to whom the recreation department should pay more attention.
Instead, the department posted a notice for these folks to remove their personal items from the park. Then, when the barrel fire lit one more time, Claybrook sent the fuzz rather than her or Velek going to face their detractors.
Each side has a point, while acting ridiculously in trying to make it.
This shouldn’t be a conflict between two entrenched sides. This should be a conversation among stakeholders for how to improve the Bark Park in appropriate, cost-effective ways. Everyone should listen in good faith. Neither side should see itself as having all the answers or try to enforce its own will.
If this conflict continues on its current trajectory, all it will accomplish is slowly killing the Bark Park as its most dedicated users stop coming, then start telling everyone why. And if Claybrook, Velek and Co. want these folks to stop coming, they’re missing the point of what a “public park” should be.
Zack Plair is the managing editor for The Dispatch.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 40 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 40 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
Join the Discussion