Dog Park Downers: How Can City Solve Water Problem While Parks Commission Cannot?

In my last post, I wrote about the and the plans for much needed improvements to this facility. Most of those improvements were recognized by planners as necessary even before the park opened in the fall of 2009. 

On May 6, I wrote to , planner-coordinator in MNCPPC's Park Planning and Development Division. I asked where things stood in regard to implementation of those plans for improvements (Phase II). On May 31, she sent me the following reply:

"The drainage problem is the biggest concern and we are proceeding with procuring  a contractor to install drain tile this summer. I have to talk to Lynn Gulley (listed as the co-planner with Ms. Nivera on the Phase II plan - Ed.) if additional re-grading will be done too (sic). If the additional grading is completed, it will deplete the budget to do other improvements such as the shelter."

It is a surprise to many of the regular users of the park, myself included, that it has taken this long merely to begin to procure a contractor and to decide whether re-grading is necessary.  The drainage problems have been apparent almost since the park opened in November of 2009.

On June 2, held a Beside Campos, a large number of county and local officials were present, including and numerous others. The event was well attended and a number of people who had attended previous meetings commented on how large the turnout was. Representatives of many county departments as well as multi-county commisions (M-NCPPC and WSSC) were also there.

Campos' main purpose in these meetings has been to report to his constituents about the legislative session just ended. It should come as no surprise, given the current economic climate, that the first part of his presentation focused on the revenue difficulties faced by the county; nonetheless, he laid out an extensive list of approved budget highlights for fiscal year 2012. It is certainly no surprise that education, public safety, economic development and tansportation were the top items, but the highlights also included maintenace/construction of multiple District 2 parks. The format of the meeting did not allow for specific questions about the budget highlights.

After the main presentations, attendees had an opportunity to speak with representatives of the various agencies present. An unofficial delegation of three Heurich Dog Park users had a lot to say to representatives of M-NCPPC. One had prepared a detailed list of problems including:

•     The rock dust area of the park, which is dirty, muddy when wet and is very dusty in dry, windy conditions, raising the concern of respiratory problems in dogs and humans

•     The lack of water

•     The lack of shade

•     The fact that waste bag dispensers are sometimes left unfilled and/or sometimes filled with defective bags (By the way, I have been to quite a few dog parks and never have I seen so few waste bag dispensers. Currently, the big dog area has only one dispenser accessable; another is in the section that has been fenced off for more than a year.  Shaw dog park in Washington, D.C., less than half the size of Heurich, has at least three and the park near Ft. McHenry in Baltimore, about 1/4 the size of Heurich, has 4.)

When asked about the water issue, Joe O'Neill, division chief in M-NCPPC's Northern Area office, said that the only available water was from a large WSSC main which runs along a creek west of the dog park and that expense and technical reasons had thus far prevented such a solution. The delegation pointed out that a water fountain had been installed near the children's play area 250 yards from the entrance to the dog park. O'Neill said that the children's play area is a Hyattsville city park, not an M-NCPPC one. When asked how the city managed to solve the "technical issues" in order to get water to its park, when M-NCPPC could not, he did not respond.

Another dog park user cited problems with underage and unsupervised children entering the park (no one under age 8 and no one between 8 and 16 unsupervised by an adult is allowed).  On one recent occasion when the situation really got out of hand, she called the Park Police, only to be told by the dispatcher that they would send someone by if they could. An officer arrived more than an hour later, but only looked; he apparently never got out of his cruiser.

The last user (yours truly) talked about a lack of enforcement of the park rules in general. In hundreds of visits to the park since it opened, I have only seen officers even approach the park twice. In both instances, they were mounted on horseback. I'm pretty sure that the only reason they approached was that their horses and my dog were interested in sniffing one another. I compared this to my 20 or so visits to M-NCPPC-administered dog parks in Montgomery County where I saw Park Police at or in the parks four or five times. 

Besides the issue of underage and unsupervised children, rules about licensing, food, smoking, gate management and running (to name a few) are being violated on a daily basis. While I have heard of a few instances of enforcement when the Park Police are called, I have yet to see or hear of any sort of pro-active enforcement.

I also took up the licensing issue with a representative of the county Department of Environmental Services.

On another topic, according to USA Today the Census Bureau says that there are more US households with dogs than with children. Hmmmm.