Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call troll. OP is trying to stir up animosity towards an ANC candidate that serves on the Rosedale board. No one who is on the waiting list for a dog spot there is this ignorant. There are one or two people in all of these Cleveland Park-adjacent threads that are trying to divide the neighborhood and now are throwing around the NIMBY acronym. It’s sad.

If this is true, this a really sad person to try to anonymously impugn people online over something as meaningless as an ANC election. It is honestly really sad.

Yes, the poster has been busy in at least three or four threads talking about the candidate running against “Keith.” Who is Keith? Keith, call off you goon.

Keith Mantel a real estate agent running for ANC backed by Cleveland Park Smart Growth.

He was neither recruited nor is funded by Cleveland Park Smart Growth, so be careful with assertions. They endorsed him after he answered their candidate questionnaire to their liking. Keith's opponent - Rick of CP Historic Society and his many failed lawsuits - did not earn CPSG's support.

Anonymous wrote:When the ANC redistricting Task Force cut up historic Cleveland Park to reduce single family homeowners’ input on matters on Connecticut Avenue, people advocating for the gerrymandering said repeatedly on this board and elsewhere that single family homeowners blocks from Connecticut Avenue should butt out and focus on their own part of the “neighborhood,” as if Cleveland Park wasn’t one neighborhood. Guess that argument doesn’t apply here to the same divisive GGW/CP Smartgrowthers, trying to ram through their man Keith by whining about imagined exclusions for apartment dwellers on Connecticut Ave, the other side of the neighborhood. These same apartment dwellers currently hold 8 out of 9 ANC seats in Cleveland Park. Can’t exactly say they’re underrepresented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call troll. OP is trying to stir up animosity towards an ANC candidate that serves on the Rosedale board. No one who is on the waiting list for a dog spot there is this ignorant. There are one or two people in all of these Cleveland Park-adjacent threads that are trying to divide the neighborhood and now are throwing around the NIMBY acronym. It’s sad.

If this is true, this a really sad person to try to anonymously impugn people online over something as meaningless as an ANC election. It is honestly really sad.

Yes, the poster has been busy in at least three or four threads talking about the candidate running against “Keith.” Who is Keith? Keith, call off you goon.

Keith Mantel a real estate agent running for ANC backed by Cleveland Park Smart Growth.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I call troll. OP is trying to stir up animosity towards an ANC candidate that serves on the Rosedale board. No one who is on the waiting list for a dog spot there is this ignorant. There are one or two people in all of these Cleveland Park-adjacent threads that are trying to divide the neighborhood and now are throwing around the NIMBY acronym. It’s sad.

If this is true, this a really sad person to try to anonymously impugn people online over something as meaningless as an ANC election. It is honestly really sad.

Yes, the poster has been busy in at least three or four threads talking about the candidate running against “Keith.” Who is Keith? Keith, call off you goon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious when this started? I used to take my dog there all the time and had no idea that there was a waiting list.

I'm not sure but there are signs everywhere that only dogs with membership tags can go in, even if they're on leash. It's weird because when we walk by during the week there's no one there. That's why I started to suspect something was going on, and then the ANC thing provided more details.

There are no people with dogs there during the day because the dog hours are restricted to a few hours in the morning and again in the evening so people who aren’t dog people can enjoy the space without dogs. The grounds are open to everyone at no charge, but if you want to bring a dog, you have to abide by the dog hours and register them. It’s not some conspiracy or NIMBY thing…it’s a neighborhood amenity that is open to all.

This is not true. Registered dogs can enter whenever the park is open. Only off-leash hours are restricted.

To clarify - registered dogs can enter at any time, and they have some specific off-leash hours. Non-registered dogs can never enter, even though the park is typically empty. That's why the rules are suspect - dogs are always allowed in. They could just register more dogs. Off leash hours could stay they same.

Has anyone here every gotten off the waitlist? We're wondering whether they ever allow locals who live in the apartment buildings. Or if it is as screened as it seems to be.

The Cleveland Park Smart Growth bullies are now trying to get rid of Rosedale? Got your eyes on it for more high rises? Too much green space for you?

No matter how tall your tin-foil hat is, it wouldn't be possible given the landmark on the property, as well as the underlying zoning.

Just stop with the nonsense.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious when this started? I used to take my dog there all the time and had no idea that there was a waiting list.

I'm not sure but there are signs everywhere that only dogs with membership tags can go in, even if they're on leash. It's weird because when we walk by during the week there's no one there. That's why I started to suspect something was going on, and then the ANC thing provided more details.

There are no people with dogs there during the day because the dog hours are restricted to a few hours in the morning and again in the evening so people who aren’t dog people can enjoy the space without dogs. The grounds are open to everyone at no charge, but if you want to bring a dog, you have to abide by the dog hours and register them. It’s not some conspiracy or NIMBY thing…it’s a neighborhood amenity that is open to all.

This is not true. Registered dogs can enter whenever the park is open. Only off-leash hours are restricted.

To clarify - registered dogs can enter at any time, and they have some specific off-leash hours. Non-registered dogs can never enter, even though the park is typically empty. That's why the rules are suspect - dogs are always allowed in. They could just register more dogs. Off leash hours could stay they same.

Has anyone here every gotten off the waitlist? We're wondering whether they ever allow locals who live in the apartment buildings. Or if it is as screened as it seems to be.

The Cleveland Park Smart Growth bullies are now trying to get rid of Rosedale? Got your eyes on it for more high rises? Too much green space for you?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious when this started? I used to take my dog there all the time and had no idea that there was a waiting list.

I'm not sure but there are signs everywhere that only dogs with membership tags can go in, even if they're on leash. It's weird because when we walk by during the week there's no one there. That's why I started to suspect something was going on, and then the ANC thing provided more details.

There are no people with dogs there during the day because the dog hours are restricted to a few hours in the morning and again in the evening so people who aren’t dog people can enjoy the space without dogs. The grounds are open to everyone at no charge, but if you want to bring a dog, you have to abide by the dog hours and register them. It’s not some conspiracy or NIMBY thing…it’s a neighborhood amenity that is open to all.

This is not true. Registered dogs can enter whenever the park is open. Only off-leash hours are restricted.

To clarify - registered dogs can enter at any time, and they have some specific off-leash hours. Non-registered dogs can never enter, even though the park is typically empty. That's why the rules are suspect - dogs are always allowed in. They could just register more dogs. Off leash hours could stay they same.

Has anyone here every gotten off the waitlist? We're wondering whether they ever allow locals who live in the apartment buildings. Or if it is as screened as it seems to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is the old guard of Cleveland Park who created the HOA there to keep out a school.

Was the HOA related to the Rosedale purchase, or was that a separate issue? Because if Rosedale was originally purchased to keep out a public school, then it's not looking attractive anymore.