Tweet
Fight over space goes to the dogs
Efforts are snarled to fetch new site for Arlington play area
ARLINGTON - The Fort Ethan Allen Community Canine Area in Arlington County is not the kind of place that inspires confidence that the increasingly popular off-leash dog-play areas are a good idea.
Located in the midst of a Civil War fort, the dog park is afflicted with poor drainage. An overly thick layer of mulch spread over the years has killed numerous trees, transforming the former green space into a soggy moonscape surrounded by a chain-link fence. There's no running water. Rat traps are strategically placed to capture vermin attracted to the park.
"It's embarrassing," said Barbara A. Favola, chairwoman of the Arlington County Board of Supervisors.
"It's an open sewer," said Burton Bostwick, whose back yard is nearby.
So neighbors of the park were pleased earlier this year when county officials, led by Favola, revived five-year-old plans to permanently shut down the dog park, find another location for it and restore the historic earthen fort.
But their satisfaction turned to dismay when a site-selection process led to a new location for the park that some believe is worse - shoehorned into a grassy space adjacent to a busy community center, near a tot lot, at the end of a dead-end street. The new location, called the yellow site, is only about 30 yards from the old one.
"I am all for dog parks. I'm a dog owner," said Laura Ryan, president of the Madison Cooperative Playgroup, which operates a state-licensed day-care center inside the community center. "But not at this location, where the land around it is already well-used."
The dispute over the dog park has roiled the comfortable North Arlington neighborhood located near Chain Bridge amid claims that county officials, in choosing the new site, have ignored their own rules and bowed to the growing political muscle of dog owners.
"If the county was a private developer, they'd be getting killed," said Janet Heininger, who has lived in the neighborhood since 1991 and wants the dog park somewhere else.
Foes of the park, such as Bostwick, head of a local civic association, have seized on a document establishing guidelines and procedures for establishing and managing dog parks. Arlington now sanctions seven such parks, essentially canine exercise areas where dogs are allowed to run and cavort off-leash.
Among other things, the guidelines say dog parks "should not be located adjacent to a bicycle trail, recreation or nature center, athletic fields, picnic facility, or any programmed areas where the activities of that area may interfere with the usage of the dog exercise area or vice versa."
Ryan said the new location is too close to the community center, which in addition to the day-care center she heads also houses a county-sponsored preschool and senior center.
"These are serious issues," she said. "But it seems like they chose a new location that was the closest to the old one. The rules and regulations seem to be a moving target. They are a living document."
But according to county officials, the guidelines are only that, to be applied, modified or rejected as the county board sees fit.
"Establishing these facilities is a board decision," said Steve Temmerand, head of the county's parks and recreation division. "This is an internal document. These are not laws. Locating these facilities is purely the province of the board."
Favola said the location of the park is the product of a difficult balancing act between the needs of dog owners and the concerns of neighborhood residents in a county where open space is scarce. While some who live in the area of the new park oppose its location, others support it, she said.
Favola appointed a task force to sift through 38 potential locations. The group ultimately voted 15-1 to recommend the new dog park next to the community center. The board itself voted 4-1 in favor of the venue. The overwhelming majority of e-mails the board received supported the new location, she said.
Favola disputes assertions from opponents that the task force was stacked with dog owners, its final recommendation preordained.
"We went out of our way to make sure it was balanced," she said. "We did not want to open ourselves to criticism that it wasn't. I'm satisfied that every voice was heard. This is one of the more contentious issues we have had to deal with. I know that not everyone is happy."
When she became chairwoman of the board last winter, Favola said she identified the issue as ripe for settlement. It had been festering unresolved for several years, ever since officials realized the park, which had evolved from an informal off-leash park into a county-sanctioned facility, was in a historic district and had to be moved.
In 1999, a county working group began wrestling with the issue. After numerous meetings and three public forums, it settled on the yellow site. Then, as now, the recommendation elicited howls of protests from neighbors. In the face of stiff community opposition, the plan to move the park was shelved.
What changed? This time around, Favola said, county officials can point to the work of the task force in saying the location reflects a community consensus.
County officials, meanwhile, are promising the new park will look nothing like the current one. A design firm is being hired to design the new park, while the old one developed more or less on its own. The county has agreed to spend up to $400,000 to build the park.
"We are going to listen to the concerns of the neighbors and make it work for everybody," Temmerand said.
His words are cold comfort to those who want the park moved away from their neighborhood and the community center.
"The dog owners have a strong sense of entitlement where they have to have a place to run their dogs off-leash," said Heininger. "We feel like we are entitled to peace and quiet in our own neighborhood and the use of this community center."
Efforts are snarled to fetch new site for Arlington play area
| BY PAUL BRADLEY TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER 8/9/04 | |
ARLINGTON - The Fort Ethan Allen Community Canine Area in Arlington County is not the kind of place that inspires confidence that the increasingly popular off-leash dog-play areas are a good idea.
Located in the midst of a Civil War fort, the dog park is afflicted with poor drainage. An overly thick layer of mulch spread over the years has killed numerous trees, transforming the former green space into a soggy moonscape surrounded by a chain-link fence. There's no running water. Rat traps are strategically placed to capture vermin attracted to the park.
"It's embarrassing," said Barbara A. Favola, chairwoman of the Arlington County Board of Supervisors.
"It's an open sewer," said Burton Bostwick, whose back yard is nearby.
So neighbors of the park were pleased earlier this year when county officials, led by Favola, revived five-year-old plans to permanently shut down the dog park, find another location for it and restore the historic earthen fort.
But their satisfaction turned to dismay when a site-selection process led to a new location for the park that some believe is worse - shoehorned into a grassy space adjacent to a busy community center, near a tot lot, at the end of a dead-end street. The new location, called the yellow site, is only about 30 yards from the old one.
"I am all for dog parks. I'm a dog owner," said Laura Ryan, president of the Madison Cooperative Playgroup, which operates a state-licensed day-care center inside the community center. "But not at this location, where the land around it is already well-used."
The dispute over the dog park has roiled the comfortable North Arlington neighborhood located near Chain Bridge amid claims that county officials, in choosing the new site, have ignored their own rules and bowed to the growing political muscle of dog owners.
"If the county was a private developer, they'd be getting killed," said Janet Heininger, who has lived in the neighborhood since 1991 and wants the dog park somewhere else.
Foes of the park, such as Bostwick, head of a local civic association, have seized on a document establishing guidelines and procedures for establishing and managing dog parks. Arlington now sanctions seven such parks, essentially canine exercise areas where dogs are allowed to run and cavort off-leash.
Among other things, the guidelines say dog parks "should not be located adjacent to a bicycle trail, recreation or nature center, athletic fields, picnic facility, or any programmed areas where the activities of that area may interfere with the usage of the dog exercise area or vice versa."
Ryan said the new location is too close to the community center, which in addition to the day-care center she heads also houses a county-sponsored preschool and senior center.
"These are serious issues," she said. "But it seems like they chose a new location that was the closest to the old one. The rules and regulations seem to be a moving target. They are a living document."
But according to county officials, the guidelines are only that, to be applied, modified or rejected as the county board sees fit.
"Establishing these facilities is a board decision," said Steve Temmerand, head of the county's parks and recreation division. "This is an internal document. These are not laws. Locating these facilities is purely the province of the board."
Favola said the location of the park is the product of a difficult balancing act between the needs of dog owners and the concerns of neighborhood residents in a county where open space is scarce. While some who live in the area of the new park oppose its location, others support it, she said.
Favola appointed a task force to sift through 38 potential locations. The group ultimately voted 15-1 to recommend the new dog park next to the community center. The board itself voted 4-1 in favor of the venue. The overwhelming majority of e-mails the board received supported the new location, she said.
Favola disputes assertions from opponents that the task force was stacked with dog owners, its final recommendation preordained.
"We went out of our way to make sure it was balanced," she said. "We did not want to open ourselves to criticism that it wasn't. I'm satisfied that every voice was heard. This is one of the more contentious issues we have had to deal with. I know that not everyone is happy."
When she became chairwoman of the board last winter, Favola said she identified the issue as ripe for settlement. It had been festering unresolved for several years, ever since officials realized the park, which had evolved from an informal off-leash park into a county-sanctioned facility, was in a historic district and had to be moved.
In 1999, a county working group began wrestling with the issue. After numerous meetings and three public forums, it settled on the yellow site. Then, as now, the recommendation elicited howls of protests from neighbors. In the face of stiff community opposition, the plan to move the park was shelved.
What changed? This time around, Favola said, county officials can point to the work of the task force in saying the location reflects a community consensus.
County officials, meanwhile, are promising the new park will look nothing like the current one. A design firm is being hired to design the new park, while the old one developed more or less on its own. The county has agreed to spend up to $400,000 to build the park.
"We are going to listen to the concerns of the neighbors and make it work for everybody," Temmerand said.
His words are cold comfort to those who want the park moved away from their neighborhood and the community center.
"The dog owners have a strong sense of entitlement where they have to have a place to run their dogs off-leash," said Heininger. "We feel like we are entitled to peace and quiet in our own neighborhood and the use of this community center."