6 Responses to “Park Improvements at 2nd and Mass (proposed)”


Read below or add a comment...

  1. urbandogs

    Hi, thanks for your description of the meeting! I spoke up about the dogs and the park and was told by Sarah Moulton of Dept. of Parks and Recreation to think about applying for a dog park. Having investigated the application process by going to the city website and talking to those who did it in Capitol Hill, it might be way too much work, especially if the area will just be developed again by real estate projects.

    On the other hand, people care about their dogs and such an activity might get folks involved in the community.

    My concern about the dog park is that the fence would have to be 5 feet high and that would not be very attractive given the plan that the city proposed at the July 30th meeting. How likely is that to happen, the proposed renovations?

    I don’t think I was quoted quite correctly about “scaring” people away, but rather a dog park would give residents a reason to go there and thus discourage vagrancy. If that happens, more people can enjoy the park, especially tax-paying ones!

    I think the city is right to mention that everyone has a right to enjoy the park, but homeless hangouts discourage home-owner presence. So, in the end, tax payers lose once again.

    Thanks for the additional information about what is going on with 395 and Gales School etc. That’s certainly useful to know, since I have just started to get involved.

    I would trade a healthy, vibrant neighborhood for a view of the Capitol any day. I think that would protect the value of my home just as well and give us all quality of life while we live here. So, that’s where our energy should go and includes working to ensure that the development plans include parks, green spaces, retail opportunities, etc.

    If folks have dogs and what to join the Yahoo! group DogsMVT (Dogs of Mount Vernon Triangle), our goal is to establish a dog park where the puppies can be off-leash and play with their friends (instead of getting hopelessly entagled in their leashes).


  2. fourthandeye


    Thanks for chiming in. I agree that a fence would have to be high for a dog park. So you really couldn’t put it at the perimeter of the park because the last thing that space needs is more barriers to entry. Hopefully even if it can’t be a “dog park” in the fullest sense it can still be a useful space to take your dogs.

    Sorry about the misquote. I’m not working from transcripts of meetings just my shorthand notes. It’s hard to get word for word what people said. I actually did contemplate the right word to communicate the benefits of dogs on vagrancy. I felt “scare” was too strong but my vocabulary wasn’t coming up with a solid alternative. But I like the way you put in your comment “discourage vagrancy” and will update the post to reflect this.

  3. Anonymous

    I recall from the meeting that the urban planning department would know fairly quickly if their proposal got funding. Is there anyone following up on that?

  4. urbandogs

    I heard from Sarah Moulton at Parks and Recreation that the Dept. of Planning should hear back in about 2 weeks. That should be about mid-September.
    Concerning dog park options, it’s either that location or a future park for Mount Vernon Triangle when there is more development (possible conversion of 395). Otherwise, the closest DC parkland is not within walking distance of Mount Vernon Triangle (not the idea behind having a dog park here).
    Maybe a group of interested people can go to the ANC 6C meeting at the Newseum on September 12 to voice this issue? Ideas are welcome.

  5. fourthandeye

    @urbandogs – thanks for the update!

  6. Anonymous

    Heavy traffic makes this park the kind of place you don’t visit without a clear purpose. That’s why it’s currently an island campground.

    In light of which… the dog run idea is excellent. The park might not even need a fence. Dogs in the street would have a traffic-calming effect.