Sunday, October 22, 2006

More on Dogs and One-way Streets

No posts recently because I was away and then catching up.

I'm not sure what's happening with Bundy Park. I spoke with one of the ladies who walk around the park in the morning last weekend. She said people are still taking dogs into the field despite the signs saying that is prohibited and someone seems to be taking down the signs. Also, some owners are still not picking up after their dogs. She also said that the walkers were afraid of the unleashed dogs and that she had been attacked or at least rushed by dogs a couple of times. I saw her a couple of days later and asked how things were going, and she said she thought it was a little better.

I still think it's a shame that both walkers and dog owners couldn't share the space, but there really is no excuse for not picking up the poop. Also, dog owners may know their pets, but to other people the same animals can look pretty scary--particularly big dogs not on leashes. I think it would be great to have a dedicated dog park, but in the meantime I think it behooves everyone to abide by the rules. I don't know if signs have been disappearing, but I only saw one on the fence this morning.

In my view, both groups have valid points to make, so why not try to engage each other in a dialogue instead of splitting into hostile camps. I think these little contacts can do a lot to reduce suspicions and quell unfounded rumors.

About the one-way street, there is a flyer being circulated by ANC incumbents Thorpe, Brooks, and Curtis, and candidate Sutherland, which implies, among other things, that the plan to make O Street between 6th and 9th one-way was part of an opposition conspiracy. The flyer says: "Look at what happened in the 600 block of O Streets, when they tried to turn it into a one-way street. We had no warning, no knowledge what-so-ever, about a one way street until we saw the signs going up; not only was the residents not notified, neither was the ANC representatives, that's how much they respect us. Because of calls made to DDot from our ANC representatives (Leroy Joseph Thorpe, Jr., Doris Brooks, Barbara Curtis) along with Mary Sutherland and residents of the affected communities, you will notice that the one-way street signs have come down. At least now we will have a say as to whether O Street is one-way or not, which is what should have been done at the beginning. SECRETS!"

As I noted in the previous post a couple of weeks ago, I personally don't really care if O Street is one- or two-way, but I thought it was odd that such a change was made without community notification. But I think it's equally odd that this would be attributed to these candidates' opposition. So I decided to ask councilman Evans's office if they could shed some light on how this plan came about. This is what I got back:

DDOT Director, Michelle Pourciau... provided the following information related to the changes in traffic patterns at 6th & O Streets, NW whic was received October 5th:

"I have confirmed that due to a mix up in DDOT, notification was not properly provided for the effort and the installation was not done properly. We have been working with the community and religious institutions in the area to expand parking opportunities along this street. Our original analysis envisioned angled parking and two-way traffic. We later found that two-way operation might be problematic with angle parking and did not give notification of this concern. We are proceeding immediately to restore two-way traffic while maintaining the angle parking as originally indicated in the notice. DDOT staff will be on site tomorrow, October 5, 2006, to initiate this process and work should be complete before the end of the week. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and again please accept my apologies for the delay in response, the DDOT mix-up, and the inconvenience to the community."

So, the original one-way parking from 6th to 7th Streets will remain. However, the idea of one-way from 7th - 9th is scrapped.

So it looks like the one-way plan was conceived by DDOT staff as part of a solution to the issue of Sunday double-parking near neighborhood churches. There seems to be no basis for the notion that any of the opposition candidates were behind the idea.


At 10/23/2006 4:57 AM, Anonymous Charles said...

What next - will they blame the dry weather on some conspiracy?

At 10/23/2006 2:03 PM, Anonymous Jill said...

Or any evidence that the calls from Thorpe et all did ANYTHING to change or clear up the situation!

What other claims are on this flyer?

At 10/23/2006 3:18 PM, Anonymous Charles said...

Read the flyers for yourself if you want to see the other claims:

At 10/23/2006 6:00 PM, Anonymous Charles said...

Sorry, the links that I copy-pasted in here got truncated. Anyway, there are working links to the noxious flyers posted on the Life in Mount Vernon Square blog, in an October 18 post titled "fyi".

At 10/29/2006 5:26 PM, Anonymous marty said...

I doubt that anyone who reads this blog believed the intentionally divisive lies that Mr Thorpe sat down, thought about, proofed and published to select members of his base as part of his mission statement. But a few will still keep his signs in their yards, align themselves with and vote for the LIAR.

At 10/29/2006 5:30 PM, Anonymous marty said...

DC Dog Park Regulations
1. A group interested in a park must select a site;
2. The group must establish itself as a 501(c)(3) (a non-profit corporation);
3. It must be willing to sign an agreement with DPR;
4. It must collaborate with DPR on details related to maintenance, design, enforcement and waste management; and
5. Once regs are in place, DPR will coordinate with the Water and Sewer authority and Dept. of heath and Public Works to help designate dog parks throughout the city.

From 10.23.06
[enter Zip, select Shaw, then "Dog Park in Shaw"

Mayor Williams signed an act last October (2005) that allows the city to establish off-leash, dog-exercise areas on DC-owned parkland. The Department of Parks and Recreation ("DPR") has been working (slowly) to establish regulations. The Office of the Attorney General is reviewing DPR's proposed regulations now. Once the AG's office approves the regs, DPR will publish proposed rules for a 30-day public comment period.

At 10/30/2006 2:30 PM, Blogger retracsemaj said...

Dogs parks and unleashed dogs aside...

what prohibits a leashed from walking through and enjoying a DC Parks and Recreation park?

Considering that:

Title 8. Environmental and Animal Control and Protection, Subtitle E. Animal Control and Protection, Chapter 18. Animal Control. (Refs & Annos), ยง 8-1808. Prohibited conduct which states:

"(e) No dog shall be permitted on any school ground when school is in session or on any public recreation area, other than a dog park, unless the dog is leashed."

You can look up the code on-line: Click on the search button and type in dog.

I do not understand the prohibition of leashed dogs in Bundy Park at 5th and P Street NW.

At 10/30/2006 3:17 PM, Anonymous marty said...

"I spoke to Leroy Thorpe earlier this week via email and he assured me he knew nothing of the flyer..."
-- new OffSeventh blog

Wow. Leroy didn't write this? ... Sure sounds like him and no one else. His name begins every mention of him and his freinds. I guess he is as out of touch with his friends and supporters as he is with the greater ANC that he is supposed to represent.

At 11/01/2006 8:24 PM, Blogger retracsemaj said...

To answer my own question, from DPR customer service:

"Dog owners can walk their dogs in any public space in the District, providing the animal is on-leash. D.C. Municipal Regulations (DCMR) Title 24, Section 900 requires dog owners to leash their dogs while in a public space and to pick-up after their pet(s) and dispose of the waste in a proper manner. However, Bundy Field, located between 5th and 6th and O and P Streets NW, is an athletic field and departmental policy prohibits dogs on playgrounds, tot lots, and athletic play areas at all times. (D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Policy No. 2.103, Dogs in Parks and on Recreation Properties (June 7, 2001). Therefore, no dogs are allowed (leashed or unleashed) on any playground or athletic play area that is under the purview of the Department of Parks and Recreation."

At 11/06/2006 8:12 PM, Anonymous Ben said...

How long have unleashed dogs in Bundy Field been a concern of the community? My wife and I have been bringing our dog there for over three 1/2 years and it seems only in the past few months has it become a concern.

It's good to see that it is a concern though, if the field can be put to more use i.e. athletics, then that's a good thing.

Though it makes me sad when when we walk by an empty park. . .just another empty, unused space.

At 1/11/2007 7:12 AM, Anonymous Payam said...

It was meeting in past Tuesday and we found what is it all about. A church tries to purchase the land and build another low income housing instead. I live not too far from the feild and I am a dog owner. I say NO to another low income project. Park recreation were there and they wanted to hear the concern of residents. Well dog owner were about five pople and the people who wanted anything but a dog park were like 20. Lets stick to geather and turn this place into a green and clean dog park that can be use for multi-uses.


Post a Comment

<< Home