Is Rosedale Conservancy run by NIMBYs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Danna-

Thank you for weighing in with this context. Our family regularly enjoys Rosedale, and it is an incredible asset to the community. The negativity here is unjustified.

I do want to acknowledge two points of partial agreement with the prior posts, though. First, Rosedale could be more transparent about the dog registration waitlist length and factors, like you have been here. Providing this type of information on the website would be valuable.

Second, I urge you to reevaluate how Rosedale balances preservation and dog friendliness and how it allocates slots. Is 300 the right number, or could Rosedale accommodate more without changing the feel of the space? Are there alternative approaches, like specific dog hours or open dog hours, that might accommodate more pups? Does priority for the closest neighbors or greatest contributors make this space less available to diverse people? Does the significant annual cost make this space less available to diverse people? Maybe the current approach is the best approach, but it sure seems like it would benefit from a rethink 20 years later. The world has changed in many ways.

--Your friend on Quebec

Thank you for posting this. It more diplomatically expresses my frustration that, even if we live in an apartment building within walking distance, only those who live in multimillion dollar houses a few blocks from Rosedale and make significant contributions are prioritized/ ever make it off the waitlist.

If you read what Danna wrote, she addressed your concern directly.

By saying that donors who live closest to the park would be prioritized, and it's hopeless for the rest of us? That doesn't address the concern. It corroborates it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Danna-

Thank you for weighing in with this context. Our family regularly enjoys Rosedale, and it is an incredible asset to the community. The negativity here is unjustified.

I do want to acknowledge two points of partial agreement with the prior posts, though. First, Rosedale could be more transparent about the dog registration waitlist length and factors, like you have been here. Providing this type of information on the website would be valuable.

Second, I urge you to reevaluate how Rosedale balances preservation and dog friendliness and how it allocates slots. Is 300 the right number, or could Rosedale accommodate more without changing the feel of the space? Are there alternative approaches, like specific dog hours or open dog hours, that might accommodate more pups? Does priority for the closest neighbors or greatest contributors make this space less available to diverse people? Does the significant annual cost make this space less available to diverse people? Maybe the current approach is the best approach, but it sure seems like it would benefit from a rethink 20 years later. The world has changed in many ways.

--Your friend on Quebec

Thank you for posting this. It more diplomatically expresses my frustration that, even if we live in an apartment building within walking distance, only those who live in multimillion dollar houses a few blocks from Rosedale and make significant contributions are prioritized/ ever make it off the waitlist.

If you read what Danna wrote, she addressed your concern directly.

By saying that donors who live closest to the park would be prioritized, and it's hopeless for the rest of us? That doesn't address the concern. It corroborates it.

Let’s not lose perspective, folks. Dogs aren’t people. Rosedale is open to people for free. They have to limit the number of dogs to prevent damage to the grounds. That’s their mission. There’s now a long wait list to register dogs. Why shouldn’t Rosedale give priority on the dog waiting list to dog owners who become Rosedale members (which helps to support Rosedale programs and upkeep) and who live in the community rather than in Chevy Chase or Bloomingdale? As has been pointed out, there’s also a free DC dog park a 5 minute walk away. That’s not exactly “hopelessness.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Danna-

Thank you for weighing in with this context. Our family regularly enjoys Rosedale, and it is an incredible asset to the community. The negativity here is unjustified.

I do want to acknowledge two points of partial agreement with the prior posts, though. First, Rosedale could be more transparent about the dog registration waitlist length and factors, like you have been here. Providing this type of information on the website would be valuable.

Second, I urge you to reevaluate how Rosedale balances preservation and dog friendliness and how it allocates slots. Is 300 the right number, or could Rosedale accommodate more without changing the feel of the space? Are there alternative approaches, like specific dog hours or open dog hours, that might accommodate more pups? Does priority for the closest neighbors or greatest contributors make this space less available to diverse people? Does the significant annual cost make this space less available to diverse people? Maybe the current approach is the best approach, but it sure seems like it would benefit from a rethink 20 years later. The world has changed in many ways.

--Your friend on Quebec

Thank you for posting this. It more diplomatically expresses my frustration that, even if we live in an apartment building within walking distance, only those who live in multimillion dollar houses a few blocks from Rosedale and make significant contributions are prioritized/ ever make it off the waitlist.

If you read what Danna wrote, she addressed your concern directly.

By saying that donors who live closest to the park would be prioritized, and it's hopeless for the rest of us? That doesn't address the concern. It corroborates it.

Let’s not lose perspective, folks. Dogs aren’t people. Rosedale is open to people for free. They have to limit the number of dogs to prevent damage to the grounds. That’s their mission. There’s now a long wait list to register dogs. Why shouldn’t Rosedale give priority on the dog waiting list to dog owners who become Rosedale members (which helps to support Rosedale programs and upkeep) and who live in the community rather than in Chevy Chase or Bloomingdale? As has been pointed out, there’s also a free DC dog park a 5 minute walk away. That’s not exactly “hopelessness.”

That other dog park is actually about ten minutes away. While it’s walkable, it’s not that convenient, especially for anyone coming from the east (like the dense and less expensive apartments on Connecticut).

My concern is that Rosedale holds itself out as a public resource, but it isn’t for dog owners. It’s more like a country club. Not the kind of person who’s from here, connected, and can afford $175+ annual dues? Sorry. That’s not illegal or amoral, but it sure is hypocrisy. Let’s not pretend the current system is transparent or doesn’t have serious bias effects baked in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Danna-

Thank you for weighing in with this context. Our family regularly enjoys Rosedale, and it is an incredible asset to the community. The negativity here is unjustified.

I do want to acknowledge two points of partial agreement with the prior posts, though. First, Rosedale could be more transparent about the dog registration waitlist length and factors, like you have been here. Providing this type of information on the website would be valuable.

Second, I urge you to reevaluate how Rosedale balances preservation and dog friendliness and how it allocates slots. Is 300 the right number, or could Rosedale accommodate more without changing the feel of the space? Are there alternative approaches, like specific dog hours or open dog hours, that might accommodate more pups? Does priority for the closest neighbors or greatest contributors make this space less available to diverse people? Does the significant annual cost make this space less available to diverse people? Maybe the current approach is the best approach, but it sure seems like it would benefit from a rethink 20 years later. The world has changed in many ways.

--Your friend on Quebec

Thank you for posting this. It more diplomatically expresses my frustration that, even if we live in an apartment building within walking distance, only those who live in multimillion dollar houses a few blocks from Rosedale and make significant contributions are prioritized/ ever make it off the waitlist.

If you read what Danna wrote, she addressed your concern directly.

By saying that donors who live closest to the park would be prioritized, and it's hopeless for the rest of us? That doesn't address the concern. It corroborates it.

Let’s not lose perspective, folks. Dogs aren’t people. Rosedale is open to people for free. They have to limit the number of dogs to prevent damage to the grounds. That’s their mission. There’s now a long wait list to register dogs. Why shouldn’t Rosedale give priority on the dog waiting list to dog owners who become Rosedale members (which helps to support Rosedale programs and upkeep) and who live in the community rather than in Chevy Chase or Bloomingdale? As has been pointed out, there’s also a free DC dog park a 5 minute walk away. That’s not exactly “hopelessness.”

That other dog park is actually about ten minutes away. While it’s walkable, it’s not that convenient, especially for anyone coming from the east (like the dense and less expensive apartments on Connecticut).

My concern is that Rosedale holds itself out as a public resource, but it isn’t for dog owners. It’s more like a country club. Not the kind of person who’s from here, connected, and can afford $175+ annual dues? Sorry. That’s not illegal or amoral, but it sure is hypocrisy. Let’s not pretend the current system is transparent or doesn’t have serious bias effects baked in.

There’s also dog park by the apartments on Quebec St near Connecticut Ave. for those who don’t want to walk their dogs very far. Dog bias, really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Danna-

Thank you for weighing in with this context. Our family regularly enjoys Rosedale, and it is an incredible asset to the community. The negativity here is unjustified.

I do want to acknowledge two points of partial agreement with the prior posts, though. First, Rosedale could be more transparent about the dog registration waitlist length and factors, like you have been here. Providing this type of information on the website would be valuable.

Second, I urge you to reevaluate how Rosedale balances preservation and dog friendliness and how it allocates slots. Is 300 the right number, or could Rosedale accommodate more without changing the feel of the space? Are there alternative approaches, like specific dog hours or open dog hours, that might accommodate more pups? Does priority for the closest neighbors or greatest contributors make this space less available to diverse people? Does the significant annual cost make this space less available to diverse people? Maybe the current approach is the best approach, but it sure seems like it would benefit from a rethink 20 years later. The world has changed in many ways.

--Your friend on Quebec

Thank you for posting this. It more diplomatically expresses my frustration that, even if we live in an apartment building within walking distance, only those who live in multimillion dollar houses a few blocks from Rosedale and make significant contributions are prioritized/ ever make it off the waitlist.

If you read what Danna wrote, she addressed your concern directly.

By saying that donors who live closest to the park would be prioritized, and it's hopeless for the rest of us? That doesn't address the concern. It corroborates it.

Let’s not lose perspective, folks. Dogs aren’t people. Rosedale is open to people for free. They have to limit the number of dogs to prevent damage to the grounds. That’s their mission. There’s now a long wait list to register dogs. Why shouldn’t Rosedale give priority on the dog waiting list to dog owners who become Rosedale members (which helps to support Rosedale programs and upkeep) and who live in the community rather than in Chevy Chase or Bloomingdale? As has been pointed out, there’s also a free DC dog park a 5 minute walk away. That’s not exactly “hopelessness.”

That other dog park is actually about ten minutes away. While it’s walkable, it’s not that convenient, especially for anyone coming from the east (like the dense and less expensive apartments on Connecticut).

My concern is that Rosedale holds itself out as a public resource, but it isn’t for dog owners. It’s more like a country club. Not the kind of person who’s from here, connected, and can afford $175+ annual dues? Sorry. That’s not illegal or amoral, but it sure is hypocrisy. Let’s not pretend the current system is transparent or doesn’t have serious bias effects baked in.

There’s also dog park by the apartments on Quebec St near Connecticut Ave. for those who don’t want to walk their dogs very far. Dog bias, really?

The bias isn’t against the dogs. It’s against the less affluent and more diverse owners.

No idea what you’re referring to, because Quebec ends before Connecticut.

[Anonymous]

How is it “hypocritical and biased” that Rosedale wants to cover its costs and manage a long waiting list for dogs? An earlier poster wrote that it costs Rosedale $80K annually to maintain the park. Dogs create a lot of wear and tear, and the membership and dog fees help to pay for the impact. It’s sad, the whiny sense of entitlement of those dog owners who expect to just walk in and let their dogs roam free, for free.

Rosedale is not out of line here. Congressional Cemetery, which allows a limited number of off-leash registered dogs, has a much longer dog waiting list and higher fees. See below: “K9 Corps membership is a privilege, not a right, and is maintained through an active relationship between dog owners and the cemetery. Members are required to submit a volunteer registration fee of $250 OR a non-volunteer registration fee of $340 with a $50 fee per dog (up to three dogs per family) annually.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Danna-

Thank you for weighing in with this context. Our family regularly enjoys Rosedale, and it is an incredible asset to the community. The negativity here is unjustified.

I do want to acknowledge two points of partial agreement with the prior posts, though. First, Rosedale could be more transparent about the dog registration waitlist length and factors, like you have been here. Providing this type of information on the website would be valuable.

Second, I urge you to reevaluate how Rosedale balances preservation and dog friendliness and how it allocates slots. Is 300 the right number, or could Rosedale accommodate more without changing the feel of the space? Are there alternative approaches, like specific dog hours or open dog hours, that might accommodate more pups? Does priority for the closest neighbors or greatest contributors make this space less available to diverse people? Does the significant annual cost make this space less available to diverse people? Maybe the current approach is the best approach, but it sure seems like it would benefit from a rethink 20 years later. The world has changed in many ways.

--Your friend on Quebec

Thank you for posting this. It more diplomatically expresses my frustration that, even if we live in an apartment building within walking distance, only those who live in multimillion dollar houses a few blocks from Rosedale and make significant contributions are prioritized/ ever make it off the waitlist.

If you read what Danna wrote, she addressed your concern directly.

By saying that donors who live closest to the park would be prioritized, and it's hopeless for the rest of us? That doesn't address the concern. It corroborates it.

Let’s not lose perspective, folks. Dogs aren’t people. Rosedale is open to people for free. They have to limit the number of dogs to prevent damage to the grounds. That’s their mission. There’s now a long wait list to register dogs. Why shouldn’t Rosedale give priority on the dog waiting list to dog owners who become Rosedale members (which helps to support Rosedale programs and upkeep) and who live in the community rather than in Chevy Chase or Bloomingdale? As has been pointed out, there’s also a free DC dog park a 5 minute walk away. That’s not exactly “hopelessness.”

That other dog park is actually about ten minutes away. While it’s walkable, it’s not that convenient, especially for anyone coming from the east (like the dense and less expensive apartments on Connecticut).

My concern is that Rosedale holds itself out as a public resource, but it isn’t for dog owners. It’s more like a country club. Not the kind of person who’s from here, connected, and can afford $175+ annual dues? Sorry. That’s not illegal or amoral, but it sure is hypocrisy. Let’s not pretend the current system is transparent or doesn’t have serious bias effects baked in.

There’s also dog park by the apartments on Quebec St near Connecticut Ave. for those who don’t want to walk their dogs very far. Dog bias, really?

The bias isn’t against the dogs. It’s against the less affluent and more diverse owners.

No idea what you’re referring to, because Quebec ends before Connecticut.

There’s a dog park by Quebec House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Danna-

Thank you for weighing in with this context. Our family regularly enjoys Rosedale, and it is an incredible asset to the community. The negativity here is unjustified.

I do want to acknowledge two points of partial agreement with the prior posts, though. First, Rosedale could be more transparent about the dog registration waitlist length and factors, like you have been here. Providing this type of information on the website would be valuable.

Second, I urge you to reevaluate how Rosedale balances preservation and dog friendliness and how it allocates slots. Is 300 the right number, or could Rosedale accommodate more without changing the feel of the space? Are there alternative approaches, like specific dog hours or open dog hours, that might accommodate more pups? Does priority for the closest neighbors or greatest contributors make this space less available to diverse people? Does the significant annual cost make this space less available to diverse people? Maybe the current approach is the best approach, but it sure seems like it would benefit from a rethink 20 years later. The world has changed in many ways.

--Your friend on Quebec

Thank you for posting this. It more diplomatically expresses my frustration that, even if we live in an apartment building within walking distance, only those who live in multimillion dollar houses a few blocks from Rosedale and make significant contributions are prioritized/ ever make it off the waitlist.

If you read what Danna wrote, she addressed your concern directly.

By saying that donors who live closest to the park would be prioritized, and it's hopeless for the rest of us? That doesn't address the concern. It corroborates it.

Let’s not lose perspective, folks. Dogs aren’t people. Rosedale is open to people for free. They have to limit the number of dogs to prevent damage to the grounds. That’s their mission. There’s now a long wait list to register dogs. Why shouldn’t Rosedale give priority on the dog waiting list to dog owners who become Rosedale members (which helps to support Rosedale programs and upkeep) and who live in the community rather than in Chevy Chase or Bloomingdale? As has been pointed out, there’s also a free DC dog park a 5 minute walk away. That’s not exactly “hopelessness.”

That other dog park is actually about ten minutes away. While it’s walkable, it’s not that convenient, especially for anyone coming from the east (like the dense and less expensive apartments on Connecticut).

My concern is that Rosedale holds itself out as a public resource, but it isn’t for dog owners. It’s more like a country club. Not the kind of person who’s from here, connected, and can afford $175+ annual dues? Sorry. That’s not illegal or amoral, but it sure is hypocrisy. Let’s not pretend the current system is transparent or doesn’t have serious bias effects baked in.

There’s also dog park by the apartments on Quebec St near Connecticut Ave. for those who don’t want to walk their dogs very far. Dog bias, really?

The bias isn’t against the dogs. It’s against the less affluent and more diverse owners.

No idea what you’re referring to, because Quebec ends before Connecticut.

Not true- Quebec is also east of Connecticut, right next to Adas Israel.

[Anonymous]

Cleveland Park people: Rosedale is an amazing and unique park for our neighborhood.

Also Cleveland Park people: but isn’t this other small, crummy, and out of the way park good enough for everybody else?

This is peak NIMBY right here. You literally don’t want other people to be able to fully enjoy Cleveland Park’s self-described “village green.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park people: Rosedale is an amazing and unique park for our neighborhood.

Also Cleveland Park people: but isn’t this other small, crummy, and out of the way park good enough for everybody else?

This is peak NIMBY right here. You literally don’t want other people to be able to fully enjoy Cleveland Park’s self-described “village green.”

NP. I'm an occasional Rosedale visitor from Tenley, so while I don't have much stake in this, I hope the locals understand how badly they're coming across. You're perfectly welcome to a semi-exclusive park! Please just don't act like Rosedale is charity. If I could get a tax deduction for the lawn where my dog plays, I would too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park people: Rosedale is an amazing and unique park for our neighborhood.

Also Cleveland Park people: but isn’t this other small, crummy, and out of the way park good enough for everybody else?

This is peak NIMBY right here. You literally don’t want other people to be able to fully enjoy Cleveland Park’s self-described “village green.”

NP. I'm an occasional Rosedale visitor from Tenley, so while I don't have much stake in this, I hope the locals understand how badly they're coming across. You're perfectly welcome to a semi-exclusive park! Please just don't act like Rosedale is charity. If I could get a tax deduction for the lawn where my dog plays, I would too.

You dog people are too precious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park people: Rosedale is an amazing and unique park for our neighborhood.

Also Cleveland Park people: but isn’t this other small, crummy, and out of the way park good enough for everybody else?

This is peak NIMBY right here. You literally don’t want other people to be able to fully enjoy Cleveland Park’s self-described “village green.”

NP. I'm an occasional Rosedale visitor from Tenley, so while I don't have much stake in this, I hope the locals understand how badly they're coming across. You're perfectly welcome to a semi-exclusive park! Please just don't act like Rosedale is charity. If I could get a tax deduction for the lawn where my dog plays, I would too.

You dog people are too precious.

"You people" pretty much sums up the problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Danna-

Thank you for weighing in with this context. Our family regularly enjoys Rosedale, and it is an incredible asset to the community. The negativity here is unjustified.

I do want to acknowledge two points of partial agreement with the prior posts, though. First, Rosedale could be more transparent about the dog registration waitlist length and factors, like you have been here. Providing this type of information on the website would be valuable.

Second, I urge you to reevaluate how Rosedale balances preservation and dog friendliness and how it allocates slots. Is 300 the right number, or could Rosedale accommodate more without changing the feel of the space? Are there alternative approaches, like specific dog hours or open dog hours, that might accommodate more pups? Does priority for the closest neighbors or greatest contributors make this space less available to diverse people? Does the significant annual cost make this space less available to diverse people? Maybe the current approach is the best approach, but it sure seems like it would benefit from a rethink 20 years later. The world has changed in many ways.

--Your friend on Quebec

Thank you for posting this. It more diplomatically expresses my frustration that, even if we live in an apartment building within walking distance, only those who live in multimillion dollar houses a few blocks from Rosedale and make significant contributions are prioritized/ ever make it off the waitlist.

If you read what Danna wrote, she addressed your concern directly.

By saying that donors who live closest to the park would be prioritized, and it's hopeless for the rest of us? That doesn't address the concern. It corroborates it.

Let’s not lose perspective, folks. Dogs aren’t people. Rosedale is open to people for free. They have to limit the number of dogs to prevent damage to the grounds. That’s their mission. There’s now a long wait list to register dogs. Why shouldn’t Rosedale give priority on the dog waiting list to dog owners who become Rosedale members (which helps to support Rosedale programs and upkeep) and who live in the community rather than in Chevy Chase or Bloomingdale? As has been pointed out, there’s also a free DC dog park a 5 minute walk away. That’s not exactly “hopelessness.”

That other dog park is actually about ten minutes away. While it’s walkable, it’s not that convenient, especially for anyone coming from the east (like the dense and less expensive apartments on Connecticut).

My concern is that Rosedale holds itself out as a public resource, but it isn’t for dog owners. It’s more like a country club. Not the kind of person who’s from here, connected, and can afford $175+ annual dues? Sorry. That’s not illegal or amoral, but it sure is hypocrisy. Let’s not pretend the current system is transparent or doesn’t have serious bias effects baked in.

You sound like one of those dog owners who feels entitled to bring your animal to all public parks, restaurants, and shops. I hope you can learn to understand that dogs in grass parks can easily destroy the land and make it unusable, especially when the dogs off leash are present, for people. Humans are greater than dogs, okay crazy lady? I'd rather my neighbors' kids be able to play in that magnolia, than you have an extra place for your dog to crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cleveland Park people: Rosedale is an amazing and unique park for our neighborhood.

Also Cleveland Park people: but isn’t this other small, crummy, and out of the way park good enough for everybody else?

This is peak NIMBY right here. You literally don’t want other people to be able to fully enjoy Cleveland Park’s self-described “village green.”

PEOPLE want to use the park. Most of us don't want to turn over this amazing place to dogs. I have seen what dogs do to their own parks, they may not destroy ours. People are welcome to come whenever they want. I'm sorry you have to leave your emotional support poop machine at home.

[Anonymous]

If you want to ban dogs from Rosedale because of your precious magnolias and terror about animal poop, go for it. Nobody's stopping you. There are plenty of parks that don't welcome dogs.

The problem is that you do allow dogs. You've created a scarce resource, you're allocating it to rich white families, and you're acting like it's altruism.