Tim, Arleigh, Sandi, Scott, thank you!

Did I forget anyone?

This is really awsome Brian. I'm glad that they listened and changed their policy. Any idea what the new policy is?

Brian:

Don't forget the entire city council and city staff. They deserve a great deal of credit for working with the mall management to get a better solution for the community.

Watching Arleigh and Barbra work on this blog shows our community leadership is in great hands.

Scott

I think this is a great thing for the City and for the health of everyone who goes to the Mall. I know I will be going to the mall more often now that smoking will be banned. Now if we can only convince smokers that they should quit throwing cigarette butts out of their car windows and all over the place. Why don't they consider their cigarette butt litter?!

Okay, I'm really happy about the mall banning smoking, although the restaurants with outdoor seating may still allow it.

But I read in the Star's article that they will now allow pets on leashes. Do we really need to encourage people to bring their pets to the mall? What happens when they "take care of business" in public? Will the mall really ask them to leave or will they just hire staff to collect it? And let's not even talk about dog bite liability.

As a market researcher, I'd really like to get my hands on the results to their survey. More importantly, I'd like to see their survey instrument.

Grrrrr!!!

When you think about the policy change regarding pets, it becomes clear that this is even dumber than allowing smoking.

With smoking you have annoying second hand smoke and cigarette butts left on the ground. With pets you have urine, feces, and potential for dog bites. They're actualy going to spend more time and more money enforcing the pet policy than they did by allowing smoking.

I guess I'd much rather step on a cigarette butt than in, well you know.

I really have to ask the question, who is making the decisions over there? And what will the next survey say?

Alan,
I have to admit I did a real double take at the T.V. last night when Mayor Miller said "No smoking, but pets will be allowed". I don't get it either Alan. When I see people walking dogs the dogs are usually spraying everything they pass by and crapping when they feel the need. I assume the stores won't allow the pets so does that mean Rotweillers will be tied up outside the stores? Does this mean Simi has gone to the dogs?

It most certainly has gone to the dogs. Maybe this is the City's answer to a dog park. Brian, your thoughts?

As long as the dogs can't smoke I am happy.

I too await the long fabled Simi Valley dog park. I don't want Thousand Oaks to keep beating us.

I bet there are more people that would use a dog park then a new golf course. And you know once the old golf course is turned private there will be a move to open another golf course.

Just to be clear, the City Council hasn't approved the turning of the golf course into a private course nor the turning of the other course into multi-million dollar home lots. They've only given pre-screening approval which only paves the way (no pun intended) for approval to turn one of the golf courses private and the other into multi-million dollar home lots.

But let's get back to the real issue here. Should dogs be allowed to accompany their owners to the Simi Valley Town Center? And what about pet snakes, turtles, birds, hamsters, ferrets, chinchillas, monkeys, etc., etc., etc.?

Where does it end?

Brian, Alan,
Picture this. Your sitting outside at the Corner Bakery in the new mall enjoying a sandwich in the sunshine. A guy walks up with a 250lb Saint Bernard and you watch as 3 feet from your table the dog takes a crap bigger than a poodle. You then get to watch the guy pick it up and bag it. Sound appetizing?

As a dog, I am against other dogs crapping on people. Also, dogs should not smoke. I am REALLY against that!

I can't wait to poop and pee on "Anthropologie"...

Spot

Brian,
This blog is rapidly going to the dogs! My last comment is "Can't we just have a normal mall like everybody else?!"

Maybe I read the article wrong, but it said they had a survey that said that is what their customers wanted, but did they actually say they will be allowing dogs?

Home Depot and most pet stores already allow animals.

Brian,

I think its clear that they will be allowing dogs: "While cigarettes are now prohibited at the mall, pets are now welcome... (Simi Valley) Town Center visitors will have to keep their dogs on leashes and clean up after them."

As a market researcher, I'd like to see the questionnaire that they used to see how the question was asked.

Pet stores allows animals? That's crazy!!

Brian, Alan,
What if a majority had said they wanted public nudity at the mall?

Brian, Alan,
What if a majority had said they wanted public nudity at the mall?

Arleigh,
I think its very unlikely that people would say that they want something that is illegal. Smoking and pets are not "illegal" activities (although they may be banned in some instances).

This is why I really want to see their survey instrument. I want to know HOW they asked people about these things. The way a researcher formulates his/her question(s) can influence the way a person responds.

If you simply asked people to spontaneously name activities that they would like allowed (or not) at the mall, how many would actually say "smoking" or "pets on leashes" or "nudity"? My experience says not many; definitely not a majority (more than half).

However, if you ask them, "do you think the mall should allow...?", and you allow them to answer yes or no, you get completely different results.

Let's assume for a moment that they took the second approach. Did they ask about anything other than smoking and pets? What about nudity? We don't know because we haven't seen the questionnaire they used. And they've yet to give any statistics.

All I'm saying is that I'm highly skeptical about the results of their 350 person survey until I actually see the questionnaire and the data.

Was any reader of this blog surveyed or does anyone know someone who was surveyed? How do we even know they conducted the survey at our mall? Mall management has made it clear that they base their policy on what they've found to work or not work at other properties.

Alan, Brian,
The Daily News said 350 people were polled. In the article Glen Becerra said he had some concerns aout the pet issue. Also a mother was quoted about being worried over the smell of dog urine. I understand they have astro turf that kids play on, how do you get dog urine out of astro turf? It also said if people don't clean up after their pets that they had people standing by to pick it up. I wonder how much a job like that pays? Sounds like a crappy job to me.

Sounds like a "Dirty Job." Let's call Mike Rowe from Discovery Channel's, "Dirty Jobs," to have him follow them around all day while they clean up urine and feces! That will paint a very good picture of the mall. Is anyone at Forest City listening?

Alan,
The article also said that pets cannot be left unattended. That means people cannot shop and walk their dog (since I imagine stores will not allow pets), so then why would people feel compelled to walk animals in the mall when there are so many other places they could go? Also does a sampling of 350 people really reflect what the other 120,000 people in Simi want? I just want a normal mall that we can all be proud of, I've waited 38 years for it.

Arleigh,
From a research stand point, 350 interviews (a sampling) can be representative of all 120,000 Simi residents (the population). However, for that to be true, it would require that every single person in Simi Valley have the same opportunity or likelihood to be interviewed.

In the case of an on-site or exit interview, the sample becomes skewed towards those who frequent an establishment. Therefore, the opinions of 350 may not represent all shoppers at the mall; rather its most frequent patrons. Perhaps the mall's most frequent patrons have pets and don't smoke.

To know this for sure, I'd have to see how they interviewed people. I'd really like to see the questionnaire they used. Did the Council see it? Could they make it available to the public? Barbra, is this something you could assist with?

I was at Macy's yesterday and I saw a guy walking a cocker spaniel inside the store in the men's department. I didn't see anyone ask him to leave. I think some of the retailers are allowing pets.

Alan,

Do you support fast tracking a dog park in Simi Valley or do you support Thousand Oaks beating us again?

Have you ever been to the Thousand Oaks dog park? It has an amazing amount of users, second only to fields used by teams. I have never seen a park used by so many people. It is a load of fun and good for dogs to socialize there.

I am sorry your quest for fine clothes was ruined by seeing a dog. Was it upsetting because it was there? I assume it wasn't smoking or pooping.

I have lived in other places where people aren't so dog-phobic. In fact, in college people used to bring their dogs to class. As long as the dog was well behaved, nobody cared. I kind of liked dogs in lectures. If it ever got boring there was a dog there.

Brian,
This isn't about dog-phobia. This is about a business owner (Simi Valley Town Center) trying to be everything to everyone and in the process potentially alienating large segments of its customer base.

I don't currently own a dog (or other pet) because I live in a condo. My neighbors lock their dogs inside all day long (some even in cages in their condo). I refuse to do that to a pet.

As long as dogs are well-behaved they are not a problem. But that's not always the case. They are animals, not humans. The outdoors (hopefully) is their bathroom.

Alan, Brian,
I agree Alan, I like dogs also, but I don't think that means they should be anywhere people want to bring them. It's a sanitation issue.

I hear that under SB 404 dogs will be allowed in all public buildings ( city hall, libraries, fire stations) as long as they have their tags up to date and have been in a state approved training course.

Do you think Arnold will keep his pledge to sign it?

I was hoping that by now dogs would not be allowed in our mall just like smoking. Last weekend I walked the mall and saw 5 dogs, which isn't a lot, but one of them urinated on the astro turf and the owner padded him and said "goog doggie". Two other dogs urinated at the stone bench around the giant oak tree. Dog owners are supposed to cleaned up the mess. How can you clean up urine? So our kids play on the soiled astro turf. Wouldn't it better if just keep dogs out of our mall? The other thing that bothers me is that I have repeatedly heared the mall referred to as "The Dog Mall". I think we deserve better.

I recently moved to Simi and can't understand where this concern about dogs comes from. Dogs make communities more liveable, not less. I recently moved from the Seattle area which is much more dog friendly. They have a 40 acre dog park built on what would be prime real estate. Here I'm lucky if I can find an acre. Dogs are welcome in the new outdoor mall in Redmond, there was no question they would be. If you're outside, you can have a dog with you. The best places to live, in my opinion, are the most dog friendly. There are already enough restrictions, trying to make every aspect of a community pristine and stale will result in just that, a stale boring community. God formid some bumb-on-a-log might get offended when a dog acts like a dog, they might go storming out of the mall and not spend a penny.

I agree. Funny stuff.

I agree. Pets create happier environments not the opposite. I recently moved here from Manhattan and pets are allowed pretty much everywhere with you....and that is a major urban environment. Pet owners are generally concientious of cleaning up after and training their pets so that they can co-exist peacefully with non-pet owners. If there are complaints against pets, it is really against owners who have not properly cared for, trained, or cleaned up after their animals. That is unfortunate....but no different from parents who let their children run wild through the mall.