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.

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.

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:

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.

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: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 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.

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.