Update — September 14, 2026: Solution submissions have closed and community voting is now open. Voting closes September 27 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Observations and petition signatures remain open. See the current ballot.
HAMILTON, ON — August 26, 2026 — What began with a successful petition for a dedicated small-dog area at Hamilton's Hill Street Dog Park has developed into a second community campaign after the permanent fence was installed and many regular park users became dissatisfied with the resulting configuration.
That dissatisfaction led to a second petition calling on the City to reconsider and reconfigure — not remove — the small-dog area, and ultimately to the formation of the Hill Street Dog Park Community Coalition.
Since then, community members have collected hundreds of observations involving thousands of dogs, held community meetings, sought answers from the City about how the current layout was determined, and launched a public process inviting residents to design alternative configurations.
The coalition supports maintaining dedicated space for small dogs. Its position is that the current configuration should be reconsidered using broader community input, actual park-use data and practical alternatives.
One petition led to the small-dog area. A second asked the City to reconsider the result.
The story began in September 2025, when a resident launched a petition seeking dedicated space at Hill Street Dog Park where small and shy dogs could socialize more safely.
The proposal attracted substantial support. By the time the matter reached Hamilton's Public Works Committee in February 2026, the City recorded 457 petition signatures.
On February 23, the committee unanimously approved a motion authorizing up to $25,000 from the Ward 1 Capital Re-Investment Reserve for fencing and signage to establish a small-dog area within the existing park.
The committee motion established the project, but did not itself specify how much of the existing off-leash area should be allocated to small dogs or the precise location of the dividing fence.
On February 27, the Ward 1 office reported that Parks staff had evaluated the site and that approximately one-third of the west end of the park would be designated for small dogs.
That description was repeated on June 5, when residents were told construction would begin June 10 and was expected to take less than a week.
The installation of the permanent fence in mid-June was the turning point.
Once regular users could see and experience the new configuration on the ground, concerns emerged about the amount and shape of the remaining general-use space, movement through the park, access to entrances and water, and how the particular layout had been determined.
By June 19, the Ward 1 office reported that the park had reopened with the new small-dog area.
Those concerns led to a second petition, this time asking the City to reconsider and reconfigure the small-dog area — not remove it. As dissatisfied regular users began organizing around the issue, the Hill Street Dog Park Community Coalition emerged.
The reconfiguration also created tension within the park community. Some supporters of the original small-dog initiative initially understood the second petition as an effort to undo what they had advocated for and eliminate the new area.
That was not the coalition's objective.
There was legitimate community demand for dedicated small-dog space. The question is whether the particular configuration that was built was the best way to provide it — and whether broader consultation before construction might have produced a layout that worked better for everyone.
What exactly was built?
Questions about how the configuration was determined have been compounded by conflicting information about the physical reconfiguration itself.
Before construction, Ward 1 communications twice described the planned small-dog area as approximately one-third of the park.
After construction, the June 19 Ward 1 update described the completed small-dog section as occupying 20% of the original park.
The City subsequently provided the coalition with a reference drawing labelling the small-dog area as 0.26 acres and the main area as 0.80 acres — approximately 24.5% and 75.5% of the 1.06-acre off-leash area.
But the dividing fence depicted on that drawing does not correspond with the location of the fence as it exists on the ground.
The coalition has sought clarification and accurate information from the City about the current configuration. Until that information is available, the coalition is not presenting the labelled 0.26- and 0.80-acre figures as confirmed measurements of the park's actual as-built division.
The unanswered questions are straightforward:
How was this particular configuration selected? Who was consulted about the layout? Why was the small-dog area described as approximately one-third before construction and 20% afterward? And why does the drawing subsequently provided by the City not correspond with the installed fence?
Park users started collecting their own evidence
Following the reconfiguration, community members began systematically documenting how the two sections of Hill Street Dog Park are actually being used.
The observation project has now produced hundreds of observations involving thousands of dogs.
The results show a substantial difference in use between the two areas. The main/general-use area accommodates the large majority of observed dogs, while the small-dog area is frequently lightly used or empty.
The coalition has published its data and methodology so residents can examine the evidence themselves.
The data is not intended to suggest that small dogs do not need or deserve dedicated space. It raises a different question:
Can Hill Street Dog Park be configured in a way that preserves a safe, useful small-dog area while making better use of the limited space available to everyone?
From disagreement to solutions
The coalition is now asking the community to help answer that question.
Its Share Your Solution initiative invites residents to propose alternative configurations for Hill Street Dog Park rather than simply choosing between keeping the existing fence and removing it.
Participants can propose a different dividing fence and consider gates, entrances, seating, trees and other park features, accompanied by a written explanation of what their proposal would improve and who would benefit.
No design experience is required, and residents can submit more than one proposal. Submissions close Friday, September 11.
After submissions close, proposals will be prepared in a consistent format so the community can compare them. The coalition plans to identify the most supported alternatives and bring them to the City for consideration.
A bigger question than one fence
For the coalition, the experience at Hill Street Dog Park now raises a broader question about how Hamilton makes permanent changes to neighbourhood public spaces.
The first petition demonstrated genuine demand for dedicated small-dog space. The second demonstrated significant dissatisfaction with the configuration that resulted. Those positions do not have to be irreconcilable.
Rather than asking the City to choose one group of park users over another, residents are trying to determine whether better consultation, real-world evidence and community-designed alternatives can produce a configuration that works better for both.
The experience also raises a question that extends beyond Hill Street Dog Park:
When a public space is permanently reconfigured, how should the people who regularly use that space be involved in deciding what gets built?
Media contact
Robert DeRosa
Hill Street Dog Park Community Coalition