Is Rosedale Conservancy run by NIMBYs?

[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.

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.

Since you care so much, we have a small and well-behaved dog. She ignores plants. We only take her to places that welcome dogs, and we always clean up after her. Also I'm a guy. Obvious who the crazy people are here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think having a dog puts you in a protected class? That’s hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Rosedale membership is $100 per year. So $2 per week. Neighbors bought the property and put a ton of effort into maintaining it. They allow dogs to a limited extent based on membership of local residence (including - I know, shocking - nearby apartments). That people who live in the apartments in Cleveland Park on Connecticut Ave seem to be claiming discrimination based on finances, do you even hear yourself? You can afford to live in DC, in Cleveland Park. And you’re complaining that others (who also live in - again gasp - apartments) on Wisconsin. Hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rosedale membership is $100 per year. So $2 per week. Neighbors bought the property and put a ton of effort into maintaining it. They allow dogs to a limited extent based on membership of local residence (including - I know, shocking - nearby apartments). That people who live in the apartments in Cleveland Park on Connecticut Ave seem to be claiming discrimination based on finances, do you even hear yourself? You can afford to live in DC, in Cleveland Park. And you’re complaining that others (who also live in - again gasp - apartments) on Wisconsin. Hilarious.

It’s $175, not $100. And poor people aren’t allowed in the neighborhood… got it. Thanks for saying the quiet part out loud.

[Anonymous]

This is such a weird thread. All people are welcome at Rosedale at any time free of charge. The land is being preserved for people to enjoy. That's its mission. If there are enough folks who want to change the mission, i.e. turn it into a dog park, then I suppose they should join the board and change it.

I don't live in Cleveland Park and don't have the money to buy there, but my family still loves going there. We aren't questioned at the gates or turned away because we only rent an apartment in another neighborhood. It's a welcoming, open space for people. We were just there for the pumpkin carving and had a great time.

[Anonymous]

“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, residents or not, members of not, are welcome at Rosedale, including for an array of free events throughout the year, such as the Easter Egg Hunt, pumpkin carving, concerts, etc. However, dogs are not welcome without limitation. That’s just common sense. The park is not sustainable without limiting the number of dogs. And sustaining the park also depends on annual fundraising and membership fees.

[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.

“My concern is that Rosedale holds itself out as a public resource, but it isn’t for dog owners.”

Yes, that’s true. Rosedale is not a public resource for dog owners because it is not a dog park. Rosedale is a privately financed conservancy park that is open free to the public to enjoy — that is, to people but not to dogs. Rosedale’s purpose is to preserve the grounds in perpetuity. Rosedale allows registered vaccinated dogs to be on the grounds and to be off leash during limited hours, but that is ancillary to Rosedale’s mission. Preservation requires balancing uses and specific limits on the number of dogs allowed on the property.

[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.

I recommend the Cathedral Grounds. We walk our dog there all the time (there is no off-leash area). I’ve observed a lot of diversity there, including racial/ ethnic diversity, families and groups of young people, and people speaking other languages. It feels very welcoming and is busy during the week, too.

Good recommendation. They could also just go to the Newark Street Dog Park that is literally just 2 blocks away. Or Macomb Park one block away or Hearst two blocks in the other direction. There is no shortage of public spaces they can take their dog. The OPs complaint makes claims and insinuations that are false.

PLEASE do not take your dogs to children's playgrounds like Macomb or schools like Hearst. The dog park at Newark and the Cathedral Grounds are great ideas. There are also some open areas in Glover-Archibald park that I see dogs running around in, but I don't know the rules there for dogs off-leash.

If they keep their dog on leash, there is no problem taking them to the fields at Macomb or Heast so long as they clean up after their pet and especially at Hearst don’t let them dig up or damage the grass.

Macomb Street Playground is posted for no dogs. No exceptions. It’s a playground for little kids.

Are you sure? I thought the signs were to not allow dogs in the playground area and especially the splash park due to sanitation, but they are allowed on the baseball field.

After reading this thread, I checked the sign. It clearly says no dogs on grounds.

[Anonymous]

In reading this thread, I don’t see any disagreement about how valuable Rosedale is, how generous the community was to make it possible, that Rosedale can set whatever rules it wants, or the decision to prioritize people over pets.

The difference of opinion appears to be about *who* gets to bring their pooch, since there will be limits. Should that be close neighbors? People who can afford it? A lottery system? An income-based payment? How should Rosedale communicate how it makes these choices? If less of the budget comes from dog owners, how should Rosedale make up that shortfall?

I don’t have any idea what the right answers are. I do tend to agree with PPs that there’s an incongruity between how Rosedale positions itself and the waitlist, which is opaque and risks excluding people based on socioeconomics. Reflection and community listening would be meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In reading this thread, I don’t see any disagreement about how valuable Rosedale is, how generous the community was to make it possible, that Rosedale can set whatever rules it wants, or the decision to prioritize people over pets.

The difference of opinion appears to be about *who* gets to bring their pooch, since there will be limits. Should that be close neighbors? People who can afford it? A lottery system? An income-based payment? How should Rosedale communicate how it makes these choices? If less of the budget comes from dog owners, how should Rosedale make up that shortfall?

I don’t have any idea what the right answers are. I do tend to agree with PPs that there’s an incongruity between how Rosedale positions itself and the waitlist, which is opaque and risks excluding people based on socioeconomics. Reflection and community listening would be meaningful.

They are clear that their primary purpose is as a conservancy and not a dog park. If you want to change their core mission, you should volunteer and join the Board. Otherwise it’s not for you to say how they manage the resource nor do they owe anything to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reading this thread, I don’t see any disagreement about how valuable Rosedale is, how generous the community was to make it possible, that Rosedale can set whatever rules it wants, or the decision to prioritize people over pets.

The difference of opinion appears to be about *who* gets to bring their pooch, since there will be limits. Should that be close neighbors? People who can afford it? A lottery system? An income-based payment? How should Rosedale communicate how it makes these choices? If less of the budget comes from dog owners, how should Rosedale make up that shortfall?

I don’t have any idea what the right answers are. I do tend to agree with PPs that there’s an incongruity between how Rosedale positions itself and the waitlist, which is opaque and risks excluding people based on socioeconomics. Reflection and community listening would be meaningful.

They are clear that their primary purpose is as a conservancy and not a dog park. If you want to change their core mission, you should volunteer and join the Board. Otherwise it’s not for you to say how they manage the resource nor do they owe anything to anyone.

Expressing an opinion on the park in the middle of the neighborhood isn’t allowed. Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reading this thread, I don’t see any disagreement about how valuable Rosedale is, how generous the community was to make it possible, that Rosedale can set whatever rules it wants, or the decision to prioritize people over pets.

The difference of opinion appears to be about *who* gets to bring their pooch, since there will be limits. Should that be close neighbors? People who can afford it? A lottery system? An income-based payment? How should Rosedale communicate how it makes these choices? If less of the budget comes from dog owners, how should Rosedale make up that shortfall?

I don’t have any idea what the right answers are. I do tend to agree with PPs that there’s an incongruity between how Rosedale positions itself and the waitlist, which is opaque and risks excluding people based on socioeconomics. Reflection and community listening would be meaningful.

They are clear that their primary purpose is as a conservancy and not a dog park. If you want to change their core mission, you should volunteer and join the Board. Otherwise it’s not for you to say how they manage the resource nor do they owe anything to anyone.

Expressing an opinion on the park in the middle of the neighborhood isn’t allowed. Ok.

You fail to understand that it’s not a public park. It’s a private conservancy that’s open to the public with restrictions on dogs.

[Anonymous]

We don't "belong" to Rosedale because we have a leashed dog who isn't into the Rosedale social scene of cavorting with other dogs, but we like walking by and sometimes stroll through. Why do people always feel a need to attack others for what they've created, rather than create something themselves? Rosedale seems to have plentiful access as well as being an attractive green space and a dog park that I see plenty enjoying.

[Anonymous]

What's with all the drama in this discussion? I feel like Cleveland Park topics instantly turn toxic these days whenever someone suggests a possible change in the neighborhood. Maybe it's the divisive Connecticut Avenue proposal infecting everything.

PPs suggest that Rosedale could maybe accommodate the limited number of dogs in a more equitable way. Other PPs then screech about private property and attacking creators. Isn't this a pretty basic point about how we could have a more welcoming neighborhood? I won't defend OP's unnecessary use of the term NIMBY, but other PPs make reasonable suggestions. Why can't we have a low temperature discussion about a nonprofit community resource?

[Anonymous]

“Welcoming” to more dogs?