Chevy Chase dog park excessive barking

[Anonymous]

If I lived near that dog park I would complain more about the traffic during rush hour - bumper to bumper on brookville road every morning and afternoon. I live near an elementary school and would much rather hear dogs barking then kids screaming!! Be glad it is not a playground! And yes, if you choose to live in this beautiful neighborhood, which it is, you take the good with the bad - street parking, narrow streets, small lots, but gorgeous houses and near everything. I take my dog there once in a while - I have never been there with more than two other dogs.....and I drive by frequently and have never seen more than a few dogs and owners at a time.

[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.

It has been a dog park for many years, it just wasn't a particularly nice park until last year. And, it's the quietest dog park I have ever been to, because owners are incredibly diligent about stopping their dogs from barking.

Also, what's lost in all the controversy is that it's a place of real, genuine community. In the 20+ years I've lived in this city, I've never experienced a place that brings people together like this dog park. It may be in one of the wealthiest sections of the state, but the people are genuinely nice and welcoming, and I'm one of those District dog owners that lives very close to the border and frequent this park regularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great, so your dog is antisocial so the rest of us should suffer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Great, so your dog is antisocial so the rest of us should suffer?

I'm the pp and I don't understand your point. I was just explaining why I wouldn't go to any dog park. My dog is social but, as a rescue I'm not sure how he will react to other dogs so I choose to keep everyone safe by avoiding. Why is this considered "suffering" for you? I was just saying for those who complained about outsiders that probably they wished they kept it the same. Got it? But, really I don't care what they do as I won't ever go there!

[Anonymous]

The dog park is history:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-controversial-dog-park-that-divided-chevy-chase-will-be-dismantled/2019/09/09/9e3385e6-d321-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dog park is history:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-controversial-dog-park-that-divided-chevy-chase-will-be-dismantled/2019/09/09/9e3385e6-d321-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

Can you guess the next step?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dog park is history:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-controversial-dog-park-that-divided-chevy-chase-will-be-dismantled/2019/09/09/9e3385e6-d321-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

Can you guess the next step?

Not sure what you think but that space has to remain as some sort of public green space. That’s the deal the Village made with the County when they asked them to buy the land after the High’s that was there burned down in the 70s. Got the scoop from my stepmother who lived there at the time.

I’m convinced that they shut down the dog park not because of the barking, but because all of the hoi polloi have now heard about it thanks to the Post article.

[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.

+1. I have no dog in this fight at all but there is no equivalence here.

[Anonymous]

I was curious what would happen if you took a sound meter into the homes and into the decks of the “afflicted” during peak dog park hours. I’ll bet it wouldn’t register more than 45dB.

I’m super excited for the follow-up stories about havoc that unleashed dogs are causing. I understand also that Chevy Chase residents have had no problem using a nearby rec field as an unofficial dog park.

Anyway, this was a great reminder that the ultra wealthy make terrible, selfish neighbors. Also, they would never use their money to invest in rockwool insulation, better windows, and built-in stereo speakers when they can just badmouth “a standard poodle who shan’t be named.”

[Anonymous]

I don't have a dog in the fight, nor would my dogs go to a park like that, but I can see where the neighbors would have a problem, like if poor people went there too.

[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.

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.

It has been a dog park for many years, it just wasn't a particularly nice park until last year. And, it's the quietest dog park I have ever been to, because owners are incredibly diligent about stopping their dogs from barking.

Also, what's lost in all the controversy is that it's a place of real, genuine community. In the 20+ years I've lived in this city, I've never experienced a place that brings people together like this dog park. It may be in one of the wealthiest sections of the state, but the people are genuinely nice and welcoming, and I'm one of those District dog owners that lives very close to the border and frequent this park regularly.

1. That is totally sad.
2. Yes dog parks bring community together, I agree.
3. I think this is the problem with parts of DC/MD, no community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dog park is history:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-controversial-dog-park-that-divided-chevy-chase-will-be-dismantled/2019/09/09/9e3385e6-d321-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

Can you guess the next step?

Not sure what you think but that space has to remain as some sort of public green space. That’s the deal the Village made with the County when they asked them to buy the land after the High’s that was there burned down in the 70s. Got the scoop from my stepmother who lived there at the time.

I’m convinced that they shut down the dog park not because of the barking, but because all of the hoi polloi have now heard about it thanks to the Post article.

In a few months, I expect to see "No dogs allowed." It will remain a public green space. They aren't going to put up any playground equipment either. That would encourage the wrong kind of activity. Watching the grass grow is acceptable.

[Anonymous]

I’m tempted to bring my obnoxious barker there now on a leash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dog park is history:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-controversial-dog-park-that-divided-chevy-chase-will-be-dismantled/2019/09/09/9e3385e6-d321-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

Hallelujah! Reasonable people prevail.

[Anonymous]

I'm glad that dog park is gone.