Chevy Chase dog park excessive barking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Another person who thinks that people with lots of money should be more free from life's annoyances than people without lots of money.

Do you understand the concept that most households in that area are paying a ton more in taxes than many other parts of the surrounding area? And since you don’t think people with money should get any benefit at all, I’m guessing you couldn’t have a problem with them not paying any more, right? And so where do you think that funding shortfall is supposed to come from?

I think that people who pay more for their housing get plenty of benefits. The Chevy Chase neighborhood offers many benefits from private policing, to wide shaded streets, to excellent schools, and short commutes.

I don't think that paying more for their housing, in taxes and mortgage payments means that they can impact the freedom of those around them. Owning pets is a pretty common thing in this country. Exercising those pets during daylight hours is too. Sometimes pets bark. Paying high taxes because you chose to buy a luxury property does not protect you from noise from a public park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People like this are the worst. If you want peace and quiet, don't buy a million dollar home in a CITY....move to the country.

Agree (only its more like 2.5 million). And definitely don’t buy next to an empty plot of land, hoping things will never change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petula steals all her article ideas from DCUM anyway. She should give us all a cut.

The Washington Post actually employs more than one woman journalist. This particular article was written by a woman journalist at the Washington Post who is not Petula Dvorak.

Where did pp imply that she thought Petula wrote this particular article?

This article was well-written, coherent and entertaining, which is a pretty good indicator that Dvorak had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

There is no expectation that a public dog park would need to follow the same rules as a residential home. Lucky for these people, this is a dog park. Imagine them attempting to shutdown a public park because the wrong children were using it too loudly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Another person who thinks that people with lots of money should be more free from life's annoyances than people without lots of money.

Do you understand the concept that most households in that area are paying a ton more in taxes than many other parts of the surrounding area? And since you don’t think people with money should get any benefit at all, I’m guessing you couldn’t have a problem with them not paying any more, right? And so where do you think that funding shortfall is supposed to come from?

I think that people who pay more for their housing get plenty of benefits. The Chevy Chase neighborhood offers many benefits from private policing, to wide shaded streets, to excellent schools, and short commutes.

I don't think that paying more for their housing, in taxes and mortgage payments means that they can impact the freedom of those around them. Owning pets is a pretty common thing in this country. Exercising those pets during daylight hours is too. Sometimes pets bark. Paying high taxes because you chose to buy a luxury property does not protect you from noise from a public park.

I agree with your second paragraph but I don't think that you've been to CC (1st para). The streets are super narrow and the house lots are really, really small. Those people are squeezed in like sardines. A lot of houses don't even have garages and the houses with no off-street parking mean that the narrow streets are lined with cars on both sides so you almost have to play Chicken to get from one block to the next. I can see why the dog park neighbors are upset. They must be practically sitting on top of the dog park. However, they had their chance to say something during the community impact and input meetings before the project was given the green light. It seems like it is a little too late for them to be upset now. Lack of preparedness (or knowledge) on their part doesn't justify dismantling the dog park, which sounds like it is getting a lot of use.

[Anonymous]

Wait. The dog park is mid block on Brookeville Rd. There is no parking on Brookeville. It isn’t like there are cars lining Streets all around to go to the tiny dog park there. Any time we go there MAYBE (and I am being generous) there are 5 dogs there. We do live in DC but we just walk there. Part of our regular route.

I am happy to not use the dog park as a DC resident if that means the CC people don’t use my street as their commuter highway. Fair trade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Another person who thinks that people with lots of money should be more free from life's annoyances than people without lots of money.

Do you understand the concept that most households in that area are paying a ton more in taxes than many other parts of the surrounding area? And since you don’t think people with money should get any benefit at all, I’m guessing you couldn’t have a problem with them not paying any more, right? And so where do you think that funding shortfall is supposed to come from?

I think that people who pay more for their housing get plenty of benefits. The Chevy Chase neighborhood offers many benefits from private policing, to wide shaded streets, to excellent schools, and short commutes.

I don't think that paying more for their housing, in taxes and mortgage payments means that they can impact the freedom of those around them. Owning pets is a pretty common thing in this country. Exercising those pets during daylight hours is too. Sometimes pets bark. Paying high taxes because you chose to buy a luxury property does not protect you from noise from a public park.

I agree with your second paragraph but I don't think that you've been to CC (1st para). The streets are super narrow and the house lots are really, really small. Those people are squeezed in like sardines. A lot of houses don't even have garages and the houses with no off-street parking mean that the narrow streets are lined with cars on both sides so you almost have to play Chicken to get from one block to the next. I can see why the dog park neighbors are upset. They must be practically sitting on top of the dog park. However, they had their chance to say something during the community impact and input meetings before the project was given the green light. It seems like it is a little too late for them to be upset now. Lack of preparedness (or knowledge) on their part doesn't justify dismantling the dog park, which sounds like it is getting a lot of use.

I don’t think you have been to the area of CC mentioned in the article. What you are describing is Section 5, which does have very very narrow streets. The Village, between CT and Wisconsin Ave. has wide streets and bigger lots. The article is not about the dog park on Brookeville rd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

There is no expectation that a public dog park would need to follow the same rules as a residential home. Lucky for these people, this is a dog park. Imagine them attempting to shutdown a public park because the wrong children were using it too loudly.

Dogs don’t equal children.

I love dogs so, so much but please don’t try to equate kids and dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Another person who thinks that people with lots of money should be more free from life's annoyances than people without lots of money.

Do you understand the concept that most households in that area are paying a ton more in taxes than many other parts of the surrounding area? And since you don’t think people with money should get any benefit at all, I’m guessing you couldn’t have a problem with them not paying any more, right? And so where do you think that funding shortfall is supposed to come from?

I think that people who pay more for their housing get plenty of benefits. The Chevy Chase neighborhood offers many benefits from private policing, to wide shaded streets, to excellent schools, and short commutes.

I don't think that paying more for their housing, in taxes and mortgage payments means that they can impact the freedom of those around them. Owning pets is a pretty common thing in this country. Exercising those pets during daylight hours is too. Sometimes pets bark. Paying high taxes because you chose to buy a luxury property does not protect you from noise from a public park.

I agree with your second paragraph but I don't think that you've been to CC (1st para). The streets are super narrow and the house lots are really, really small. Those people are squeezed in like sardines. A lot of houses don't even have garages and the houses with no off-street parking mean that the narrow streets are lined with cars on both sides so you almost have to play Chicken to get from one block to the next. I can see why the dog park neighbors are upset. They must be practically sitting on top of the dog park. However, they had their chance to say something during the community impact and input meetings before the project was given the green light. It seems like it is a little too late for them to be upset now. Lack of preparedness (or knowledge) on their part doesn't justify dismantling the dog park, which sounds like it is getting a lot of use.

I don’t think you have been to the area of CC mentioned in the article. What you are describing is Section 5, which does have very very narrow streets. The Village, between CT and Wisconsin Ave. has wide streets and bigger lots. The article is not about the dog park on Brookeville rd.

Dp I drive by there quite frequently and I don't know what you are talking about. The pp is right. At that dog park the street is narrow. Personally, they made a mistake making a dog park because when it was open it was prettier. It probably was an unofficial dog park If I were them I would just take down the fences and then others won't want to come. I live in Silver Spring and while I have a dog she is not a good dog park animal so we just walk in my neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petula steals all her article ideas from DCUM anyway. She should give us all a cut.

The Washington Post actually employs more than one woman journalist. This particular article was written by a woman journalist at the Washington Post who is not Petula Dvorak.

Where did pp imply that she thought Petula wrote this particular article?

I think she implied it when she said “Petula.”

Did you read the post she was replying to?

[Anonymous]

Just read the article. It’s hilarious and I hope the people involved see how ridiculous they are. I'd take my suburbia middle class neighbors over this group of people any day of the week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Another person who thinks that people with lots of money should be more free from life's annoyances than people without lots of money.

Do you understand the concept that most households in that area are paying a ton more in taxes than many other parts of the surrounding area? And since you don’t think people with money should get any benefit at all, I’m guessing you couldn’t have a problem with them not paying any more, right? And so where do you think that funding shortfall is supposed to come from?

I think that people who pay more for their housing get plenty of benefits. The Chevy Chase neighborhood offers many benefits from private policing, to wide shaded streets, to excellent schools, and short commutes.

I don't think that paying more for their housing, in taxes and mortgage payments means that they can impact the freedom of those around them. Owning pets is a pretty common thing in this country. Exercising those pets during daylight hours is too. Sometimes pets bark. Paying high taxes because you chose to buy a luxury property does not protect you from noise from a public park.

I agree with your second paragraph but I don't think that you've been to CC (1st para). The streets are super narrow and the house lots are really, really small. Those people are squeezed in like sardines. A lot of houses don't even have garages and the houses with no off-street parking mean that the narrow streets are lined with cars on both sides so you almost have to play Chicken to get from one block to the next. I can see why the dog park neighbors are upset. They must be practically sitting on top of the dog park. However, they had their chance to say something during the community impact and input meetings before the project was given the green light. It seems like it is a little too late for them to be upset now. Lack of preparedness (or knowledge) on their part doesn't justify dismantling the dog park, which sounds like it is getting a lot of use.

I don’t think you have been to the area of CC mentioned in the article. What you are describing is Section 5, which does have very very narrow streets. The Village, between CT and Wisconsin Ave. has wide streets and bigger lots. The article is not about the dog park on Brookeville rd.

Are you sure? Because the dog park on Brookville matches the description and I know there's been talk and grumbling about restricting its use to those who live in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

There is no expectation that a public dog park would need to follow the same rules as a residential home. Lucky for these people, this is a dog park. Imagine them attempting to shutdown a public park because the wrong children were using it too loudly.

Dogs don’t equal children.

I love dogs so, so much but please don’t try to equate kids and dogs.

In this case, they are. The park is a public service for both groups. But the local community is attempting to restrict access beside non Chevy Chase residents are apparently undesirable. It's classism at best, racism at the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer Prize for this reporter!

Maybe as a humor article. So many local stories ignored (graft and incompetence in local government), but they focus on rich people's squabbles.

PP- you might be a little happier if you just unclench for 5 minutes. Give it a try.

[Anonymous]

Of course this is about the dog park on Brookeville Rd. I don't know why the PP thinks it's not, but she's wrong.

And that makes this whole thing so idiotic: Brookeville is a heavily trafficked north-south artery between the DC border and EW Highway. It's lovely and passes by many sweet houses, large and small, but it's hardly some bucolic area of MoCo. Houses are close together precisely because this is semi-urban. You want silence and distance from your neighbors, move to Potomac. But the fancy sections of CCMD & Bethesda are used to making their own rules for traffic & construction, etc, to the disadvantage of everyone else. So no wonder they thought they could just silence all the dogs!