somerville dog: a weblog

Via Boston Dogs

From: penny Date: Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:18 pm Subject: Dog recreation space update

Thanks to all of you who called, e-mailed or attended the Boston City Council Meeting on Dog Recreation spaces. If you haven't commented yet, there is still time. [ . . . ]

The council chambers was full of supporters and one group of dissenters. They were actually there to lodge complaints about a trial dog run in Peter's Park in the South End with very little comment on the pros and cons of this particular ordinance.

Councilor Mike Ross opened by explaining that the draft as presented was a starting point and the hearing was to open it to public comment and revise it as needed.

A number of city councilors, including Maura Hennigan, have signed on as co-sponsors. I had hoped to give you the official list here but my calls and emails on this topic have not been answered as of yet. I will update you when I have a complete list. Perhaps our turn out at the meeting has raised the number.

The first panel to testify was the city departments. It was obvious that the Parks Department is resistant to change. Our best hope of overcoming their opposition is to prove to them that dog families can be the best friends any park could ever have. So, when you support your park-- make sure they know you are a person interested in recreation with your dog. And a firm insistence that we are citizens who choose recreation with dogs and have to be treated equally with those who want playgrounds, tennis courts, basketball or skating.

I think the Pro-dog recreation contingent made a strong case. There are parts of the package that we feel are too hard on us and some folks addressed those.

The message that came through the clearest was that we are here, there are lots of us and we expect fair treatment.

[ . . . ]

Penny Cherubino

Via Boston Dogs

From: Stephen Fox
Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:54 am
Subject: Re: [Bostondogs] Dog recreation space update

The city-sponsored Boston Common off-leash program has been in operation for almost 3 years, and no less a personage than Henry Lee, the widely respected chair of the Friends of the Public Garden, no friend to dogs, testified at the hearing that the program "worked well..." and "..if it's not broken, don't fix it." He does not, however, want to see dog recreation spaces in the public gardens, a position no one anywhere disagrees with. So we actually have a real-life city-supported and city-maintained "programmatic" solution to dog recreation needs that, by all accounts, is working well.

Peter's Park, in contrast, is a product of pure grassroots effort based on a growing neighborhood need, similar to what is happening "informally" every day in dozens of Boston's neighborhoods. For Peter's there is no city infrastructure funding, no support, no on-going capital appropriation, no engineering studies, in sum, no city oversight, as there would be for every other city parks project. The Parks Department has from the very beginning stood on the sidelines of the Peter's Park "experiment" hoping, some have speculated, that it would die in its infancy and they would then have an "I told you it wouldn't work" moment. But the Peter's Park dog area users have refused to let it die, even as it is today, more than ever, being criticized for all its problems.

But people need to understand that because it is the only "fenced in" dog area in the city, the Peter's Park dog area has always been, since it opened, a "magnet" not only for all of the city's dogs, but to various dog walking services from several Boston suburbs like Arlington and Cambridge. It is absolutely no surprise that with no established behavioral norms, no access controls, no city support, and its status as the "only" fenced in city dog area, that Peter's was destined to have some problems.

The beauty of the pending ordinance is that it will address all of the "problem areas" now plaguing Peter's Park. Groups establishing dog recreation areas will be able to propose better management structures (time and space limitations), contracted maintenance services, access controls (such as keys and special dog tags similar to "resident only" parking). While none of these elements will independently solve all problems, the ordinance provides a legal framework for neighborhood groups to propose sane and responsible programs to meet a growing dog recreation need that is simply not going away. We can either continue to have dog owners "creating" their own "informal" areas throughout the city, tearing up grassy areas, and sometimes creating dust bowl spaces, with no responsibility for upkeep or problem-solving, or we can actually create a reasonable framework whereby dog owners can become invested in their own neighborhood dog recreation spaces, just as tot lot users, b-ball players and every other park amenity user, and help to establish both behavioral norms--as in the case on Boston Common--through the full participation of responsible neighbors dog owners and non-dog owners alike.

One final comment. I heartily reject as both silly and irresponsible the "head in the sand" mentality that embraces the notion that "no dog recreation spaces" is in fact a solution. The reason that there are no dog spaces in the city is not because of Peter's Park, it is in fact because the Parks Department has been completely unwilling to even consider the issue. As is true of much in Boston, change is a daunting mindset challenge perhaps more than anywhere else on the planet. I continue to be astonished at comments that seem to justify Boston's inaction. Boston today is the ONLY major metropolitan city in the entire US and Canada to have absolutely no sanctioned, designated and supported dog recreation spaces or framework. Manhattan alone has nine dog recreation spaces--all created through a public-private partnership. Check out any other city from Savannah to San Diego and you will find that Parks professionals throughout the country, with Boston as the sole exception, have been managing this issue with innovative and reasonable solutions for many years.

As Bostonians, we should all be ashamed at our status as the nation's lone hold out.

Via Boston Dogs

From: Stephen Fox
Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:15 pm
Subject: [Bostondogs] Dog recreation space update

[ . . .]

I am one of the closest abutters to a very small pocket park (currently only a dirt lot) in the South End (Hiscock Park) that is about to get a 120K renovation. It is a fact that there are abutters here that are far closer to this park than anyone at Peter's (one abutter forms one side of the park). For 15 years that space has been used exclusively by dogs, their owners, and scads of dog walkers. It is unfinished and has absolutely no amenity whatsoever--not even water.

When we held open community meetings to redesign the park, there was amiable and almost universal neighbor agreement that we wanted to continue to offer some space in our little park for neighborhood dogs and their owners. We also wanted some passive space off limits to dogs, and so together with the landscape architect and the Parks Department, we came up with a design that represents the very first time that a park was actually officially designed in Boston with a specifically designated multi-use "dog friendly zone." Keep in mind this park is only the size of two city lots, but despite its size limitations and its abutter proximity, we felt it was important to address the dog owner constituency in our redesign (instead of simply ignoring them and then inevitably inheriting misuse later). Because the dog friendly space is not large, it will be great for those who don't need the spaciousness of an African plain to exercise their dogs. Small space, small accommodation, reasonable design appropriate to the geography, and sensitivity toward park users and the needs of abutters (me included). That's the way it should be done. We've not walked into this blindly--we have 15 years of experience with dogs using the space almost exclusively as a de facto dog run.

[ . . . ] Yes, there are extremely rude and inconsiderate dog owners or keepers and they are a pain in the butt. One (of several) rules that we may post once our park is renovated is a notice that if your dog does not respond to a "no bark" command, he/she is not welcome to use this small and closely situated park. Over the years, particularly as new people move into the neighborhood, we have had some real problem barkers, and I have been pretty vocal myself in telling these fairly clueless owners that they need to train their dogs or don't bring them to a public place. It's about the same message I would give to a rude or bullying child abusing a park. It's simply not fair to responsible dog owners or to non-dog owners. The new ordinance specifically prohibits any dog keeper from bring more than 3 dogs into a recreation space at any given time. Not more than ten minutes ago, I watched a professional dog walker bring 12 dogs by herself into my little soon-to-be-renovated park; the dogs scattered and there is no way she could possibly monitor every conceivable opportunity for those dogs to relieve themselves.

[ . . . ]

Peter's Park, like all other parks, must find ways to manage problems, devise innovative solutions, including imposing restrictions or conditions on user access, and work with abutters and non-dog owners to create neighborhood specific solutions. In the aftermath of petitions and heated arguments, that's what dog owners and non-dog owners should be doing together. I know many of the Peter's Park users and organizers, and my experience tells me that the vast majority are both reasonable and considerate and do not want to create an untenable living situation for anyone, especially abutters. But there must be room for accommodation on both sides.

Call me crazy, but every other city in the nation (and pretty much in the developed world) has managed to work their way through this. Are we really so dramatically different or are we simply unwilling to compromise?