The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) can barely maintain its facilities and fields; it can barely finance decent and exciting programs for youth and adults; and it’s so short of staff that it does an absolutely lousy job of overseeing independent contractors and consultants. Yet, it’s poised to construct at $80,000 each dog parks throughout the city for people too lazy to exercise their animals and for dog-walking companies exploiting this laziness. Further, it will be forced to monitor use at each site.

Acting DPR Director Clark Ray says he’s trying to implement a 2005 law passed by the D.C. Council. But his efforts and the legislation contradict the department’s overall mandate of providing leisure activities and maintaining and protecting green space for the use of residents — not four-legged creatures.

(For the record: I don’t hate dogs. Someone is making such a declaration right now. But get that out of your mind.)

Dog parks are a contentious issue. The council created them in response to strong-armed lobbying tactics by people with political connections, like Kathy Silva, a sister of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. When the initial rules were published earlier this year, Silva and her posse yelled they were too restrictive.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Under pressure, the DPR agreed to revise the regulations. Instead of expanding the voices in the discussion, the DPR held closed-door meetings with a handpicked group of dog owners. Other residents, concerned with potential damage to parklands, danger to small children, the government’s liability, maintenance costs and environmental issues were shut out.

The revised rules, which appear on the DPR Web site, exacerbate the problem. Many sections are vague, contradictory and risky.

Consider Section 731.8: It indicates the government isn’t liable for any injury or damage caused in the dog park.

Please.

It’s government land; a government agency created it; and the government selected the group to operate the space. I’m not a lawyer, but these connections make it difficult for the government to absolve itself of responsibility.

Then, there is Section 733.1: It states that dog parks “shall be no less than five thousand square feet. ...” The next sentence negates that: “Triangle parks and other areas of less than five thousand feet may be considered.” So, which is it?

Ray says he wants to get a couple of parks up and running “and then will take a closer look at the rules” to determine whether changes are necessary. It’s easy to understand his response.

It’s all politics.

Council members, like Ward 1’s Jim Graham, have been aggressively lobbying the DPR for these parks. The chairman of the committee that oversees the DPR is a dog owner.

Ray is “acting director.” He’s between a tree and a confirmation vote. Making the wrong move could mean he’ll get bitten, damaging his budding career.

Jonetta Rose Barras is the political analyst for WAMU radio’s D.C. “Politics Hour with Kojo and Jonetta.”.