Mud hole at ‘Lost Animals’ park more than an eyesore

Dear Editor,

The east half of Lost Animals Park (appropriately named for reasons below) is a mud hole, not a “pond.”

Were it a pond, it would have water. Dennis Taylor says he has been enjoying the wildlife and “natural beauty” there, and, typical of a tree-hugging, blue-stater, says I suggested filling it in with cement. My suggestion was to fill it in, replacing it with a level, open green. A “green” is grass, not cement. And there’s little to “think about,” since our myopic mayor, who refuses to address this issue is only focused on downtown.

Eyesores attract litter; just look at our roadways. People don’t trash an area nearly as much when things are kept up.

The city will not maintain a pond at Lost Animals Park; they have not done so since 1986, and won’t, because the parks department didn’t consider flood-control when they built this nuisance. They keep it ridiculously dark at night to accommodate wars between the local packs.

Said mud hole and the surrounding, run-down picnic areas attract more wildlife than the spotted owl, or whatever it was that Taylor claims to enjoy. Examples are the bleary-eyed under-the-influence malmsey (BUM, for short) and the decadent alto eremite (DEALER) to name a couple.

Taylor can sit back and claim to enjoy this because his yard is not affected. However, several of us who are indeed affected are sick of two-legged park critters constantly leaving trash (not to mention occasionally urinating) in our front yards as they leave in their stupor.

If Taylor likes wildlife so much, I suggest he spend a few nights, when the packs come in, out at the mud hole once the weather warms.

Alan Viarengo, Gilroy

Leave your comments