Sunday, May 16, 2010
WP: Baby Boom Bumps
The Post takes a look at the baby booms occurring in portions of the District (it sure feels like we've got one happening here). The Argonaut gets a mention. If you're anything like my friends you've probably had the babies in bars conversation before. The New York Times, various Brooklyn (they've got a major baby boom going on) blogs, and CNN have covered the topic recently. Just to be clear, I'm not taking any sort of stance for the moment, but I am curious to hear people's thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
91 comments:
The Post article is pretty comical, ``skirmishes,'' really? They make it sound like a Martin Scorsese film is playing out in the parks and bars of DC everyday. And who spends $1,000 on a stroller? Is that for real?
Anyway, just remember people, the stranger sitting next to you doesn't think your child is nearly a cute as you do, and the same can be said about your dog. If you can't keep either under control then leave the beasts at home. And if you own a $1,000 stroller, then just stay the f--k away from me altogether.
Who goes to a designated "baby" happy hour if they don't want to be around kids? Why wouldn't you just choose any of the 10,000 bars in the city during that 2-hour period on that night?
And what parks on Capitol Hill allow for dogs to be off-leash anyway?
10:20,
that was my initial response too. But then I read the blog entry. Apparently the baby happy hour was upstairs. The writer was out smoking on the patio (so not really at the baby happy hour). That's a pretty key distinction, and it's one you won't get from the Post article.
Anon 10:20 -- regarding your last question, the answer is "effectively, all of them." It's true that leash laws require the dogs to be on leash even in such parks. But it's also true that those leash laws have been generally ignored; and generally, no one (with dogs or dogless) has cared. But as the ranks of the insufferable whiners have swelled in recent years, insufferable whining has swelled too.
The vignette at the beginning of the story left out how the parents of the child jumped-on by a puppy complained on neighborhood mailing lists about how the child would now be emotionally scarred for the rest of his life from the incident. Good lord. Grandma would never have put up with whiny shit like that. I'm as far away from a Republican as is possible to be; but Phil Gramm was right. We *are* a nation of whiners.
I think the vast majority of parents/kids and dog owners get along just fine.
It's worth noting that National Park Service owns nearly every square inch of green space on the Hill, and they refuse to build fenced-in dog run areas.
That's why you see dogs off leash in Hill parks. Because there's nowhere else for them to go.
It's also worth noting that this is one of the evolutionary stages of neighborhood development.
Dog owners on the Hill have been here for decades, going to the parks every day, rain or shine, fighting to get the crack bums, syringes, and used condoms out of the parks.
Those efforts made the parks presentable enough so that parents would even consider bringing their kids.
So, yes, some dog owners feel a bit dissed when a newbie parent whines about dogs off leash in Hill parks, particularly if the dog is not causing a problem.
At the same time, I'm sure there are irresponsible dog owners out there as well.
But this is pretty much a manufactured controversy. The vast majority of us get along with each other just fine.
Here's my take on the babies in bars issue:
We have a 6-month-old son, and we still like to try to go out from time to time. Usually, we get a sitter. Sometimes that's not possible due to us wanting to be spontaneous (or as spontaneous as you can be with a baby). It's pretty easy to figure out what places are ok with kids, and which places aren't.
Also, our kid goes to sleep at 8:00pm at the latest, so even if we were to take him to a bar (what's the definition of bar, by the way?), we'd be out of there before most of the crowds show up.
To get H Street-specific, here's my take on a few places and their attitude towards kids:
Argonaut - very kid-friendly (stating the obvious here)
Sticky Rice - we brought the baby to *lunch*, were one of two tables in the entire upstairs area, and were treated like crap the whole time. The baby cried one time for roughly a minute before being fed (under a nursing cover). I don't know if the treatment was because of the baby or just because the lunch staff sucks, but the service left me with a bad taste in my mouth, which is really disappointing because we love Sticky Rice.
Granville Moore's - probably not a place you would think of as kid-friendly, but we had a nice dinner here once with our kid, and the staff was extremely nice and nobody seemed to mind.
I don't see us taking our kid to any of the more bar-centric places, like the Pug, Palace of Wonders, etc.
I think the "babies in bars" or "parents vs. non-parents" issues are somewhat manufactured. There are going to be people who act entitled, angry, or overreact to just about anything, but I think a lot of this is getting blown out of proportion. I see nothing wrong with taking young kids to restaurants (that also happen to have bars) so long as the kid is able to be kept relatively quiet in one way or another. I know there are parents that don't follow this basic rule, and they tend to ruin it for the rest of us.
who can find fault w/ cute kids. it's the parents that are the problem.....don't get me started with parents who let their cute kids run around with the mini-shopping carts at the Teeter during the busiest times. i saw a dad with three kids, two using those mini carts, and his other one in the main cart throwing things out of the cart.
someone clearly lobotomized him before he went to the market.
The guys at The Pug have been great with my friend's baby when they have brought her in a couple times (early in the evening and just for a drink or two). There was a baby in there just yesterday in the afternoon and no one seemed to mind.
I think the issue Kriston had at Wonderland with the baby happy hour was that some of the parents were letting their kids run wild. I've seen that happen at Two Amy's too. I don't have any problems with kids at bars/restaurants as long as the parents make sure the kids aren't out of control, and take them outside if they start screaming.
I've had at least two meals at Sticky Rice ruined because parents let their children run amuck. The adults continued their visit with each other, while the kids used the place as a playground.
Yesterday morning my isle at Ted's Bulletin was blocked by a stroller. I don't understand the entitled rudeness.Just because wait staff, nor a customer says something to you, doesn't mean that it's ok. Kids shouldn't be allowed anywhere except McDonalds and Chucky Cheese.
I'm in my 50s and missed life's opportunity to have children. And maybe the gives me a super-tolerant attitude about children.
I love the fact that there is an increasing number of children in the city. It's humanizing and makes DC seem a little less like DC.
Big deal about any perceived conflict. This city is one big endless conflict, rant and outrage. Next week we'll revisit the bikes versus cars, I'm certain.
The city has plenty of bars but not enough areas for kids.
Strangely, i was drinking in brooklyn the weekend before the cnn/blogosphere discussion on bar kids came out. The number of kids in bars is noticeable up there, but i thought the "discussion" then was kind of silly and i agree, it's seems kind of manufactured. Really, at the end of the day, what's worse, a whining kid, a teabagger dissing obama, or a believer telling everyone how obama's gonna save the wotld. At least a toddler doesn't know any better. The pug is kid friendly, but unfortunately, except for the cheeseballs it just not that fun for the younger folks. If more kids were taken to bars, and taught how to behave in them, i wouldn't have to hear dummies tell me how great the coboys are, and i wouldn't have to listen to foreigners tell me how efficient snow removal is in their hometown. I guess the bottom line is there's a time and place for everything, and if you pay attention you can figure things out.
tonyt
the pug
Anon @12:08
I could be mistaken, but a place like Ted's Bulletin encourages kids. If the stroller was blocking your aisle, you could have always asked the parent to move the stroller, or just move it so you can get by. But coming from a person who thinks kids should only be allowed at McDonald's and Chuck E. Cheese, I doubt this idea really resonates with you.
For the record, the parents who let their kids run wild in Sticky Rice are exactly the types I referred to earlier as ruining it for everyone else. When my kid is old enough to walk, if he's not able to understand the need to sit relatively still in a restaurant, we won't be bringing him to a restaurant.
This alleged rift between people who have kids/people who don't and dog owners/parents is just stupid. Rude behavior is rude behavior--a parent blocking the aisle of a restaurant with a stroller is rude, a dog owner allowing their dog to jump on a person (child or otherwise) is rude, and a person commenting that children should only be allowed in McDonald's and Chuck E Cheese is rude. It's not our job to be teaching our dogs and children not to be dogs and children, it's our job to teach them to be respectful of peoples' space and property.
As for the comments about strollers on sidewalks and public transportation: I'm guilty of using my double (though compact) stroller in both places and I do it for my convenience and my children's safety. You stand on a Metro platform with a toddler and a preschooler and see how entitled you feel to use your damn huge stroller.
I think the premise of the article is flawed. I question the idea that there is a baby boom. Per the census: DC Population under 5 years old in 1990: 6.15%, in 2000: 5.7%, and estimated in 2009: 6.1%. So a modest rise this decade (as the article mentions), but hardly a baby boom. I couldn't quickly find census data for previous decades, but as one who grew up here, there wasn't a shortage of kids in the 70's and 80's. In fact i can't even count the number of today's parents I know who grew up in DC as well.
That being said. Dogs must be on a leash. Simple as that. If there isn't a dog park in your neighborhood, then that's your problem and doesn't mean that Lincoln Park (or my sidewalk) is your personal dog run. Clean up your dog's shit, for christ's sake!
I don't have kids, but i don't mind seeing them in bars. A little more courtesy from the parents would be appreciated. I don't love your kids half as much as you think i do.
jindc, they mean a "boom" up upper class white babies. Rhee et al have closed dozens of schools in the past few years, and won't be needing to open them again any time soon. There are fewer than half the number of kids in DCPS as there were a generation ago. The post seems to only notice more white babies in recent years I guess. I wonder how many of these white babies will still live in dc when they start school- you need to be pretty wealthy to live in one of the 'white' school zones.
jindc -- Maybe it's not a statistical baby-boom among the general population as much as it is a baby-boom among white people. Just a thought.
jindc writes: "If there isn't a dog park in your neighborhood, then that's your problem and doesn't mean that Lincoln Park (or my sidewalk) is your personal dog run."
Translation: "I just moved in next to the airport, and I can't stand the noise! So I'm going to bitch to get it to stop."
That said, I agree with you completely about cleaning up after one's dog. I hope there's some symbolic retribution in the afterlife for those who won't clean up after their dogs.
Tom and DCGirl: Yeah, I know, its sad but true...I put it right up there with the "DC has a transient population" bullshit. We all know that's accurate for a small segment of white folks, but the black residents have been here for generations.
Tom, i think that if you include the charter school population, then total attendance hasn't dropped that much since i was in DCPS.
Anon 3:35 you're 'translation' is wrong. I've lived here far longer than any of the inconsiderate dog people.
When i read the actual article i was curious if it was dogs and kids that were the subject, or a fine cross section of some of the rude, oblivious and inconsiderate folks who live here. Luckily we were able to make it racial as well as silly.
Tonyt
the pug.
Oh my lord - I can't believe the woman in the article basically said that HUMANS should keep to a fenced in area so that the dogs can have free reign in the park.
Both can coexist easily if people are even remotely considerate. Don't let your dog jump on people, the end. If you can't control them 100% of the time, they shouldn't be off leash.
Not everything has to be a racial issue, there are young babies on my block, white, black and brown. Is it necessary to race-bait on every issue? On a lighter note, my wife and I took our two children to the Star and Shamrock for lunch on Sat., we were made to feel welcome and the staff was great to the kids. We go to Argonaut at least once a week, sometimes more, as they are great with kids. Thank you to the kid friendly establishments in the area. And I agree with earlier posts, it is the parents responsibility to control their children in public settings, i don't shy away from asking other parents to contol their children, other people should also.
jindc: you've been on the Hill since the 60s? Amazing you've been here as long and haven't come to terms with the dogs in Lincoln Park.
yuppie dog owners and yuppie parents are equally obnoxious. Both think their needs come above everyone else's.
jindc: its not your park or your sidewalk--you live in DC, you share space. And per the other poster, I agree that if you had lived in DC for so long, you'd know Lincoln Park has historically been the place where responsible dog owners take their dogs off leash.
On the issue of dog owners... Yes please pick up after your dog but more importantly in my opinion please have your dog urinate areas of dirt or in the street not on the nice lawns that some DC Residents are trying to keep green and beautiful. That includes the grass between the sidewalk and the street!! Dog pee destroys the grass and leaves a scent inviting all other dogs that pass to sniff and leave their own piss. I just put down brand new sod in front of my place and less than a month later I have 2 -3 large yellow patches of dead grass from the dogs. If you want us to respect you and your dogs than you and your dogs need to respect the neighborhood!
I think the article blows the issue out of proportion a bit. I drive a stroller, but when I'm going to a place where it doesn't fit, I use a baby carrier. When I misjudge, I apologize and try to stay out of the way. We're all living here together, and it's important to respect everyone's space and needs. I don't think I'm in the minority, based on whatI've seen from other parents I spend time with.
on the rare occasions that i take my dogs out of my yard, i do clean up after them. however, if it's a house that did not clear the snow from their sidewalks during the winter i try to wait so the dogs will take care of their duties in those yards and i leave it behind as payback. i also do the same for houses where i can see strollers or any evidence of children cuz i'ld rather have them cleaning up poop than ruining my happy hour with their offspring. i have a black lab mutt and a black mastiff mutt, so i can't answer for the way white or full bred dogs behave
I always find that the most strident anti-kid rants like the one on DCist are from (surprise) ... childless females.
sorry, that was from tonyt at the pug. i don't like to post anonymously but my dog was about to poop on my 1000 dollar stoller. i was hoping to have her poop later in front of that houwe with the don't tread on me flag.
lonnie,
it's important to know if they are black or white. i think the main culprit in this important issue was a young hipster dude. he made sure to say he didn't want to ruin his chances have dates and kids later.
tonyt
Trying to plant grass/sod on a heavy pedestrian area like a tree box is just about as bad as having your dog hump a stranger's baby. Seriously. Get real. If you want great green grass, dogs in fenced yards, and babies in SUVs, there's always Leesburg. Plus, they have those outlets and a TGI Fridays.
Just two quick thoughts:
First, I take my kid to restaurants and taverns all the time. Usually we're gone before 7:30. If folks with no kids don't want to eat with kids, they should schedule their meals like adults--not three- or ninety-year-olds. Kid doesn't scream and yell, and if she does, we leave. If my kid starts climbing on you, tell her to leave you the fuck alone. She'll do it.
Folks that assert that kids have no business being in Hill taverns strike me as exactly like folks who assert that bikes have no business being on the roads: you're certainly entitled to your opinion, while I'm entitled to not give even a sliver of a fuck about your opinion.
Second, I have no real problem with well-behaved dogs running around and having fun, but if your dog starts jumping on my kid, the dog's going to get a face full of pepper-spray. That's what it's for.
Oh, I lied...one more thought regarding the $1000 strollers. To quote ro: "Who spends $1000 on a stroller? Is that for real?"
You'd be staggered by what some folks spend on a bicycle. To someone who knows nothing about bicycles, that seems like a ridiculous amount; something only justified by vanity, or the like. But if you ride to work everyday, and you buy the bike instead of a $20,000 car, $1000 doesn't seem like much, now does it?
Similarly, I know folks who have these $800+ strollers. They own one car, rarely drive anywhere, and walk everywhere. You get about 4 years out of the stroller before recycling it with kid number 2, or selling/giving it to some new parent.
Now I'm sure ro would probably say "if you own a $1000 bike, then just stay the f--k away from me altogether", too, but I wonder what ro would say about someone with a $50,000 car? Probably, "Nice car!"
It's strange what turns some folks into judgemental pricks.
Oboe's post cracks me up, because it's a bunch of angry frothing, threats of violence against dogs, and judgment...but, oh, wait, he's AGAINST judgmental pricks. Hrm. Not sure how that works.
Ultimately it all comes down to consideration: if you and your kid show up at the pub, I'll assume the best, and I'll even move my chair over a bit so you have room to park your SUV stroller (even though I don't get it - kids have stayed pretty small, but strollers just keep getting more obnoxiously humungous every year). I'll refrain from judging you or shooting dirty looks at your baby.
But consideration is a two-way street. Oboe, it is not my job to tell your kid to leave me alone if she is climbing on me, it is YOUR responsibility to be a parent and keep a watchful eye on your child.
(Also, speaking from experience - if you ask a kid to stop bothering you, the parents usually lose their shit entirely and scream about how only they should be disciplining their kids...because, obviously, they're doing such an awesome job of it that little Madison has already turned over three chairs and punched a man in the crotch.)
Ultimately, I can deal with it, but I don't have to like babies in bars. I wonder why the babies-in-bars crew really think it's such a great idea. Sometimes I wonder if they're unwilling to give up the freedom of their pre-kids days.
@Shannon,
Well, first, I wasn't making threats of violence against anyone's dog. I was saying that, if an out-of-control dog is illegally off-leash, and I think it's a physical threat any kid--who's probably smaller than the dog--I'm going to step up and defend the human in that interaction.
Secondly, leaving the house and entering the public sphere entails at least some risk that you'll have an interaction with another human being--old or young.
What happens if some guy walks up to you and asks for your number? Do you freeze up, staring at your plate, waiting for whomever is with the schmoozer to retrieve him, and remove his unwanted presence?
Or do you say, "Hey! Would you mind pissing off, I'm trying to eat!" If you happen to tell someone's kid to bug off, and the parent has a problem with it, tell them it's your responsibility as a member of society to teach their kid some boundaries. Just as it appears it's the toddler's responsibility to teach you how to establish those boundaries.
Win-win!
I am a bit surprised (though maybe I shouldn't be) that this is a debate.
I generally don't like babies in bars, but that's usually because the bar in question contains drunks, people smoking outside (which ends up inside) and cramped spaces. It's simply not safe or a good environment for a baby or toddler, and I think you're crazy to have one there.
At the same time, Wonderland has invited them to a baby happy hour. That's baby time! Go somewhere else if you don't like it. That said, you need to get your baby the hell out of there when it's 10 PM and happy hour is long since over.
As for the "dog jumping on baby" situation, that dog owner should know better and should be soundly criticized. Unless it's a legal dog park there's no excuse for having your dog off leash in the first place. This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and as a dog owner I find that unforgivable.
Common sense is the rule here. People seem to have less and less of it these days.
@oboe - false analogy. A man asking for my number is an adult (at least, I hope he is, otherwise I'm a pervo). I can say, from one adult to the other, "No thank you." Easy peasy, a conversation between equals, and not worth getting steamed up over.
However, a toddler is a whole other case - it is not the kid's job to 'teach boundaries' (HUH?), nor is it my job to discipline and control a stranger's child. It is the job of the parents to be observant and keep their kids from crawling all over or hassling strangers.
But I'm not a jerk about it - generally, I look for the parent and ask if they would kindly move their toddler, as I am about to practice my old circus trick of juggling steakknives while balancing a beer on my head. Works every time!
Shannon,
I don't have kids, I'm married and we're both almost 30. Of course it is your job to tell an annoying kid to piss off, its part of being in a community and liking your personal space. At the same time the parent of the kid needs to accept that their child was out of line. @Oboe isn't asking you to parent her child, she is saying to have sense enough to tell the kid to piss off (obviously not in those terms).
Wow--this article/discussion is really hitting people's buttons! The paternal/maternal instinct that's part of caring for anything dependent--a kid, dog, ect, combined with the challenges of living w/ diverse groups of people in a small space.
These kinds of issues present challenges but also opportunities for personal growth as we try to learn how to live with each other. It's not easy.
I enjoyed oboe's post and am glad so many commenters think this is a manufactured fight - hope so. I'm 5 months pregnant and find the anti-kid attitude in cities here really harsh, compared to European countries where kids are encouraged to behave well in restaurants and coexist alongside everyone else. I was recently terrorized by a barking dog in a front yard that jumped so high above the fence I thought it was going to get me right in the neck - I can understand fear of unleashed dogs even without having a child. I also appreciate those bars and restaurants that are helping young families retain some of the benefits of city living that made them stay in town in the first place. Just cos you have a kid doesn't mean you want to stay home in the suburbs and stare at your offspring.
@Anon - I think that "anti-kid" is an inaccurate assessment. It's anti-bad-parent.
If all kids in the U.S. "behaved well in restaurants and coexist alongside everyone else" there would be no problem.
Oboe said in his post that he thought there was no problem with letting his kid run around the restaurant, and if you were bothered, it would be your responsibility to tell the kid to leave you alone.
Perhaps we disagree on "well behaved" but I don't consider letting your kid wander around the restaurant unsupervised to be well behaved.
I am not blaming the kid, but the parents (apparently, such as Oboe) who don't understand that most people did not come to the restaurant to babysit someone's child.
It is amazing to me that someone could really say they see no problem with this -- at the same time as saying that he would pepper spray someone's equally unsupervised dog.
While I would never dream of pepper spraying someone else's dog, no matter how bad they were, would you guys who think that your children don't need to be controlled be ok with me using a squirt gun on them?
When it comes to illegally unleashed dogs, there are far too many stories of dogs mauling people to death for dog owners to get so bent out of shape about enforcement of respectful and cautious behavior. It is perfectly natural for anyone, with child or not, to react defensively against unleashed dogs.
An unleashed child on the other hand is a nuisance and might not be an ideal part of your dining/drinking experience, but not a threat to your existence. I know for sure that I was once an annoying child at a restaurant (Frankemuth, Michigan to be exact, and my parents have an awesome story about it). I doubt any of us were perfect little angels all the time. A little bit of patience goes a long way. Thankfully I see way more patience and a sense of humor among most people in DC. The dog fundamentalists and the child-centric double-wide $1,000 stroller types (with or without bike locks) are fortunately not the norm.
Oboe said in his post that he thought there was no problem with letting his kid run around the restaurant, and if you were bothered, it would be your responsibility to tell the kid to leave you alone...Perhaps we disagree on "well behaved" but I don't consider letting your kid wander around the restaurant unsupervised to be well behaved.
Just to clarify, no I don't think children should be allowed to run freely through a restaurant or tavern bothering people. But yes, it would be your responsibility to tell the kid to bugger off if his parents aren't doing it. Is that such a terrifying prospect? I mean seriously, I go out to eat with friends without my kid and I can count on one hand the number of times I've been accosted by a wandering child. Is the idea really so daunting? It seems like it's mostly some kind of debating point rather than a commonly occurring problem. Echoes of the infamous DCist thread in that respect: "I was at Wonderland this one time, and a kid touched me with his filthy mitts! How can we put an end to Parent Happy Hours?!?" Can life really be so uneventful?
Meanwhile, with the increasing popularity of H Street establishments with suburban twenty-somethings, the real issue is, what do you do about the screeching drunken adults who never learned how to behave in a bar?
oboe it's not a terrifying prospect for me, but obviously it could be for some people. Not everyone likes kids, you know, and not everyone is comfortable with what they can or should say to a complete stranger's child.
I agree this specific situation isn't all that common (outside of Two Amy's) but what I am seeing more often though is parents with toddlers or small children at bars (not restaurants) who let them just wander around. Dark, narrow, crowded bars. Bars whose primary business is serving alcohol, and whose bread and butter are people who drink a lot. Well into evening hours.
The bar staff I guess don't care that much or don't have the nerve to tell them to leave, but it's just disturbing that people would want to subject their kids to that atmosphere. And it makes the patrons uncomfortable because they don't want to accidentally step on someone's kid.
These are places that you have to be 21 or over to enter, why would we accept as normal people under 8 being there?
"what do you do about the screeching drunken adults who never learned how to behave in a bar?"
If that is the prevailing behavior at a bar, then who are you to say it's not acceptable?
Bar owners are free to make rules governing the conduct of their patrons, for example, "The Saloon" has many and that behavior would not be permitted.
Wonderland invites babys on Wednesdays for happy hour. Therefore I would not complain about them if I went there. They also permit (even encourage) drunken jackassery every night, and therefore I would not go there
if I had a problem with that either.
Regarding Shannon: "I wonder why the babies-in-bars crew really think it's such a great idea. Sometimes I wonder if they're unwilling to give up the freedom of their pre-kids days."
I don't think you have to wonder about it at all. I would have thought it is obvious. There was a time when cities were very cool places where people raised their kids because of all of the convenience of public transportation, local shops, schools, etc. Then everyone started moving to the suburbs to drive SUV's to the shops, soccer practice and Applebee's, living secluded lives and in fear of the scary city. Luckily, places like H street are a revitalization of localized family/city life and a lifestyle that once was considered pretty ideal. People who raise kids in the city are unwilling to give up their "pre-kid" freedom, they're also unwilling to give in to the horrible push to become suburbanites. It is actually economically more sound for our local cool neighborhoods to promote healthy families living among us in these great new establishments than it is to subtly promote some argument that a parent gives up freedoms like going to bars by choosing to be a parent.
I am willing to bet that approximately zero percent of the people who bring their kids to Wonderland or H Street bars, are also going to remain in DC once their kids are old enough to go to school.
@anon 2:26...
I am all for raising kids in the city - lots of my friends are doing it. There are also plenty of kids in my building, and I get along with all of them. With that in mind, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying:
"OK, you're a parent now. Congratulations! That doesn't mean you have to dork out and move to Leesburg, but you do have to act like a parent, which means being mature and responsible. And that means keeping your kids out of environments where they don't belong (such as rooms full of loud, stumbly drunk people). And when you take your kid to appropriate venues like restaurants and coffee shops, please supervise them and don't expect strangers to order them off when they're being annoying. They're a stranger. You're the kid's parent. See the difference?"
@oboe - I don't know if I've been going to the wrong places, or I just seem friendly, but at least once a week kids toddle over to me or strike up conversations. It's cute...except for the part where I can't understand a damn thing pre-K kids say to me! I wind up nodding, feeling awkward, and trying to figure out where the hell the parents wandered off to.
I wish somebody would write about all of these babies in church services! I can't get a good prayer in without some baby letting loose with a scream, a fart, a burp or something dripping out of there diapers. This white baby boom has ruined all the good church services on the hill!
@can't - i agree, church has really, er, gone to hell since they stopped serving red bull and tonic there.
"When it comes to illegally unleashed dogs, there are far too many stories of dogs mauling people to death for dog owners to get so bent out of shape about enforcement of respectful and cautious behavior. It is perfectly natural for anyone, with child or not, to react defensively against unleashed dogs. "
How many dogs have mauled people to death in Capitol Hill parks in, say, the last decade?
I'm guessing zero.
@Hillman Unleashed dogs have attacked people / other dogs and in one case killed the other dogs on the hill. Happened on my street to neighbors, some asshat was walking his two pitbulls unleashed and they attacked and killed their poodle and severely wounded another dog. And then he casually walked away...
Anon 1:19 said "While I would never dream of pepper spraying someone else's dog, no matter how bad they were, would you guys who think that your children don't need to be controlled be ok with me using a squirt gun on them?"
Seriously? You're comparing stopping an animal capable of harming a person to an annoying kid? I am a dog lover (I have two) and I wouldn't hesitate to kick a dog that was coming at me aggressively. Furthermore, a dog doesn't have to be aggressive at all to hurt a small child - just bigger and excited.
THere is a reason dogs are supposed to be leashed or fenced in - humans are more important than dogs! I am so perplexed as to how keeping an illegally off leash dog away from a person who is afraid is remotely comparable to being annoyed at a kid.
-Liz1 (there are two Lizes today, I'm the first and now third, but not the second)
I left the suburbs cuz i hated that there was always some douchebag yelling at kids to stay off his lawn, and i hated the way there was so much judgement about the things neighbors did....hey wait a minute!
Tonyt
the pug
"You're comparing stopping an animal capable of harming a person to an annoying kid?"
Are you comparing pepper spray to a squirt gun? I guess you missed the point there.
@Hillman:
How many dogs have mauled people to death in Capitol Hill parks in, say, the last decade?
Well, as long as no 3-year-olds are mauled to death no harm no foul, right?
This could be one of the least compelling comments I've seen from you in some time. Get a cup of coffee, and come back with something a bit more punchy...
;)
Maybe I'm going to the wrong restaurants/taverns at the wrong time, but I don't think I've ever encountered a toddler/young child running wild throughout the premises. Maybe this has to do with me having never been to 2 Amys.
@anon 2:38 wrote:
I am willing to bet that approximately zero percent of the people who bring their kids to Wonderland or H Street bars, are also going to remain in DC once their kids are old enough to go to school.
Sucker's bet.
I know at least 6 couples within a block of us whose kids are either *in* DCPS elementary or are enrolled for the Fall semester.
LIZ 10:02 "Trying to plant grass/sod on a heavy pedestrian area like a tree box is just about as bad as having your dog hump a stranger's baby."
Hey Liz where did you grow up? Maybe in a neighborhood where nobody has respect for themselves much less anyone else's property? Well I grew up within view of the New York skyline and EVERYONE had beautiful lawns both in front of their houses and between street and sidewalk. So you can make as many excuses as you'd like as to why your block and/or yard looks like crap but in reality all it takes is for neighbors to respect their own neighborhoods whether it's on their own block or someone else's.
"I know at least 6 couples within a block of us whose kids are either *in* DCPS elementary or are enrolled for the Fall semester."
Wow, that's amazing. What school do they go to? Are these white couples? I'm just asking because
I've never seen a non-white kid at Wonderland before, and there aren't any in this pic, but I don't know about H street.
Anyway, Harriet Tubman elementary, across from Wonderland, has zero white kids. At least it says "0% white" so maybe if you live in Columbia Heights, you happen to live within a block of all six white kids who go to a DCPS elementary school.
Overall, DC public schools are 7% white, though I suspect the biggest part of that is from enrollment in the handful of non-awful schools like Oyster (29% white) and Wilson High (23% white).
Anyway, I think it's great that you know people who have both the means and leisure time to hang out in bars, but aren't scared of all the awful things people say about DC schools.
That does not describe very many people.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
Wow, that's amazing. What school do they go to? Are these white couples? I'm just asking because
I've never seen a non-white kid at Wonderland before, and there aren't any in this pic, but I don't know about H street.
On Capitol Hill, a couple of blocks south of H Street. The parents I'm talking about are multiracial couples, and all middle-class. There are about 4-5 elementary schools on the Hill that have surging enrollment (Brent, Tyler, Maury, Peabody, and one or two others).
I'm not going to speak for parents in Columbia Heights, though I've heard pickins are a bit slimmer. My guess is that over the next 2-3 years, you're going to see an aggressive push by Columbia Heights parents to join PTAs, and fight for enhanced pre-school/pre-K programs for the schools there mirroring what happened on the Hill over the last 5-6 years.
Some of the programs in the Hill Cluster have several hundred person long waiting lists, and by the way, are very much mixed racially (including black, white, asian and other).
You might be pleasantly surprised if you move beyond perceptions of the quality of DCPS. Or, stop by any of the elementary schools, Stuart Hobson Middle School, etc. at drop-off/pick-up if you need visual evidence. (P.S. The quality is pretty good too.)
"have several hundred person long waiting lists"
This is exactly the problem, though, the few DCPS schools/programs that have good reputations are very highly sought after, and consequently, very difficult to get your kid into.
"You might be pleasantly surprised if you move beyond perceptions of the quality of DCPS"
I know someone who teaches at a DCPS high school and actually I am horrified at how much worse it is than I could ever have imagined from the firsthand accounts I receive.
How can you cast this in a positive light? But actually, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
On unleashed dogs in Lincoln Park - even though I'm a dog owner, the unleashed dogs there really bother me. I've brought my dog there (on a leash) and watched stupid owner-owner arguments as dogs fought; i've see dogs bowl people over; I've seen people afraid of dogs deal with dogs barking at them while the owners are oblivious. If you want a dog park on the hill, change the laws, join congressional cemetery (I did) or pay to build a private one. That dogs take over significant portions of Lincoln park in the evenings is ridiculous. On the other hand, people putting 'no dog waste here' signs on the patches of grass between sidewalk and street - again, you want to control that public spot, change the law. Until then, I'll do what I can to keep fido from peeing there, but on the other hand I'm not going to drag him up the block mid-pee to satisfy your needs. And don't get all hot and bothered like this is the wild west and you're going to take a swing at me over some dog pee. You yelling threateningly doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
This is exactly the problem, though, the few DCPS schools/programs that have good reputations are very highly sought after, and consequently, very difficult to get your kid into.
Actually, this is both a symptom of the problem, and an example of the problem going away. Because five years ago, there was no waiting list at all at some of these Hill elementary schools (e.g. Maury). Now the waiting list is in the hundreds. Which means that the upper-middle class parents get involved in their in-boundary PTA, and work to make their local school better.
And yep, there sure are a lot of dysfunctional high schools in DC. And while there are well-regarded magnet schools that kids who do excel can attend (School Without Walls, Banneker, Ellington), obviously things are going to have to get better.
But my kid's not in high school. And perhaps with the rapid pace of change in the city, the question is, what will the junior high school fed by a cluster of non-dysfunctional elementary schools be like in 7-8 years?
Could be a Hobbsian nightmare, in which case, we'll probably move. I'm thinking not, though.
I'll do what I can to keep fido from peeing there, but on the other hand I'm not going to drag him up the block mid-pee to satisfy your needs.
I'm with you up to here, but what's wrong with walking your dog up the block a bit? It's not like you're going to give Fido a UTI, or something. If I see a particularly nice flower box, I just tell my dog, "Not here; lets go over to the lamp post."
Not saying it's illegal, but what have you got against a nicely tended flower box? :)
(anon 5:04 here)
oboe - i think we are agreeing - if it's a nice flower box, or even if it isn't but someone has posted a no dogs sign, i'll make some effort to move fido along if he looks to be in a peeing mood. but most of the time he just starts peeing with no warning, and once peeing he's fairly resistant to being interrupted. so, i'm not dragging him down the sidewalk while he leaves a little stream and awkwardly tries to walk along. also, i we as dog owners should take on the responsibility of confronting anyone who doesn't pick up solid waste from their dog.
a little more on the lincoln park dog phenomenon - one well-behaved dog off leash is fine, but at a certain point many well-behaved dogs off-leash is, to my mind, not. Even if none of them are a risk to jump on a person. Many dogs can take over a space. And so we have Lincoln Park, every evening, controlled by a bunch of dog owners with the people tending to avoid the central parts of the park just because of the sheer mass of dogs, even if none of the dogs are misbehaving. What if a local croquet team set up shop in the middle of the park every evening and had so much activity going on no one else could walk through without risking an accidental run-in? Would everyone talk about how it's fine since each croquet player is nice and polite?
Anon 5:04 "On the other hand, people putting 'no dog waste here' signs on the patches of grass between sidewalk and street - again, you want to control that public spot, change the law. Until then, I'll do what I can to keep fido from peeing there, but on the other hand I'm not going to drag him up the block mid-pee to satisfy your needs."
It has nothing to do with me trying to control a patch of DC's property, all it has to do with is me and my neighbors trying to live in a clean and attractive environment devoid of animal waste and the damage that it inflicts on the areas directly adjacent to our homes. In addition, not only did I pay a professional to redo that parcel in front of my home and the vacant property next door but I also spend 3 - 4 hours weekly watering and cutting the grass, trees, bushes and sweeping up the cut grass afterwards. As far as DC is concerned they own every piece of property passed my front door including my porch and yard. Does that mean you should allow your dog to walk up onto my porch and take a piss? All I'm asking is that when you and Fido are approaching a proprty in front of someone's home that is manicured and well cared for that you walk the dog around the grass etc and respect the hard work that the homeowner put into beautifying "OUR" neighborhood.
Just out of curiosity, I'm unclear why a toddler is allowed in a bar at all, but my 20-year-old sister can't hang out with me in one and drink a soda when she's visiting? She's much better behaved, and will spend more money. Any folks with legal knowledge around here know the answer?
"What if a local croquet team set up shop in the middle of the park every evening and had so much activity going on no one else could walk through without risking an accidental run-in?"
What if the local croquet team had spent the past twenty years going to the park twice a day, 365 days a year, reporting crack whores and drug dealers, cleaning up used condoms and syringes, and doing all they could to demand that National Park Service actually police and monitor these parks?
And what if that local croquet team played in areas that didn't involve the sidewalks that were put there for pedestrian traffic?
Then I'd have no problem with them playing ever single day, even if they 'took over' a part of the park, as long as pedestrians could get through ok and as long as there were other parts of the parks not 'taken over'.
Sortof like playgrounds 'take over' a part of the park.
And if they'd allow me to play croquet and bring my flask with some liquid refreshments, I'd be even more in favor of their 'takeover'.
Oboe:
I was responding to someone else's post suggesting that dog mauling was a problem.
But let's take it a step further.
I've lived on the Hill for fifteen years. I've taken my dogs to various parks nearly every day during that time.
I've never seen a dog harm a child. Ever.
And I've never heard of it happening.
Perhaps it has happened.
I've never heard of it.
Is it possible? Sure. But not bloody likely on a regular or even occasional basis, particularly if parents just keep their children out of the unofficial dog area.
I'd suggest that requiring all dogs to be on leash would actually be more potentially harmful to children.
Why? Because as it is now unleashed dogs tend to be kept in the unofficial 'dog area' of Hill parks. If you take that option away, and require dogs to be on leash only, that means dog owners will walk the dog all around the park, not just stand there in one predesignated spot.
That means that the interactions with children will be a lot more likely.
And the dog will not be as socialized and will have a lot more energy, since it's constantly leashed.
You know who else used to let his dog run off its leash? That's right. Hitler.
And President Obama.
I guess the teabaggers were right. Obama is Hitler.
Pretty tough to use the word "never" As in my child "never" misbehaves (wrong) and a dog has "never" attacked a child on the hill - also wrong. A year or so ago a 4ish year old child was mauled by a dog (pit bull I think) 1 block south of Lincoln on 11th on the sidewalk. Off leash and saved by police who actually shot the dog as that was the only way to stop it.
Not saying that dogs should not be in the park, just making the point that "never" (on both sides) is a pretty ridiculous statement.
I said I've never seen it. I didn't say it never happens.
And it's worth noting that the pit bull in question was on a city sidewalk, not in an unofficial dog play area in a park.
If anything that sort of buttresses my idea that the best place for dogs is in the park in an unofficial but recognized play area.
@Hillman,
My point was that most dog attacks are minor, and hence often go unreported. Our "perfectly gentle" dog bit some poor kid back when we used to let him off-leash--apparently he didn't like soccer balls.
Our neighbor's dog bit our kid in the face one day--not for any particular reason, it just happened. Didn't leave a puncture wound, but left scrapes on his nose and face.
I'm sure there are some dog owners who'd be mortified if that happened w/ their dog: we were; our neighbors were.
But there are other dog owners who just seem to take the attitude that shit happens, and so long as the kid doesn't need stitches, it all comes out in the wash.
But I'd prefer not to have my kid grow up a dog-phobic, or worse, terrified of going to the local park.
Can't wait til the Kingman Park opens up--when it does, I'm going to taking my dog there...and calling the Capitol Police on owners of off-leash dogs at Lincoln Park.
@Hillman:
But not bloody likely on a regular or even occasional basis, particularly if parents just keep their children out of the unofficial dog area.
Sorry, just noticed this. Could you let us know exactly where the "unofficial dog area" is? Because it seems to be the area between the western end of Lincoln Park and the Mary Bethune statue.
I've never seen even a minor dog attack in a park on the Hill.
Again, not saying it couldn't happen, but the current system seems to be working pretty well.
As for you calling the police on people with offleash dogs in the park even though those dogs haven't been aggressive pretty much makes you a dick.
As for you calling the police on people with offleash dogs in the park even though those dogs haven't been aggressive pretty much makes you a dick.
You say potato, I say potato. They destroy the grass, and they crowd out any other park users. I think it's a bit ironic that for all the spleen you've vented at cyclists over the years for an "entitlement mentality" you seem to have a rather large moral blind-spot here.
For those of you who may not be familiar with the dynamic, Hillman's "unofficial dog area" is comprised of the entirety of the central grassy area at Lincoln Park.
It's not a question of whether the dogs are well-behaved. It's that the central jewel of Capitol Hill's public spaces is not a shit-strewn burnt-out dog-run. And no matter how you try to justify it, that drives out every other use.
When Kingman Park comes online, there'll be that option, and Congressional Cemetery. I think you'll begin to see a lot of push-back from folks who--in my opinion--have been extremely tolerant over the last decade or so because they understood the limited options available to dog-owners, but who just want to play soccer with their kids, or fly a kite, or play frisbee.
for anyone who wants to play in a park without dogs, the Sherwood Recreation Center is generally totally dog-free and has plenty of space for soccer, kite-flying, birthday parties, and first times riding the bike without the training wheels on. Sherwood is an underutilized resource between the tennis court, the free workout area, and the park space.
Thanks for the tip.
But seriously, shouldn't it be incumbent on the park users whose presence drives out every single other use to put in a little extra effort? It's like if I and 40 of my friends decided that the prime 90% of Lincoln Park's real estate was an "unofficial paintball arena".
"I don't see what the problem is. Non-participants almost *never* get hit by errant paintballs, and so long as everybody stays out of the paintball arena, everything's fine! So what's all the fuss about?"
[And, yes, today is a slow work day...]
@Hillman: As for you calling the police on people with offleash dogs in the park even though those dogs haven't been aggressive pretty much makes you a dick.
It is fine that dog owners trust their dogs and know that they will never be aggressive. It is fine that you have never seen an actual attack.
Unfortunately, attacks happen all the time (maybe not on the Hill all the time) and statistically they cause legitimate concern/fear to anyone who is not used to being around dogs, not in love with dogs and not particularly trusting of dogs. Leash laws exist for many reasons and they should be respected. People who enforce them by calling the police are only helping to keep some balance in what is clearly getting out of hand.
Dog owners, especially BIG dog owners, should be questioned as to why they live in the city in the first place. It's inhumane, especially when it is (apparently) such a struggle to find wide open spaces. They should also keep their dogs on leashes when they're not in an enclosed dog run, because it is against the law and a threat to the peace of mind that people seek when going to a park for humans to have a nice time with other humans, young and old, some of whom have wonderful, well-behaved animals on leashes.
@hillman:
"I've never seen even a minor dog attack in a park on the Hill."
I've never personally witnessed even a non-fatal shooting in DC
"Again, not saying it couldn't happen, but the current system seems to be working pretty well."
....
"As for you calling the police on people with offleash dogs in the park even though those dogs haven't been aggressive pretty much makes you a dick."
As for you calling the police on people with guns visible in their waistbands even though those people haven't shot anybody that pretty much makes you a dick
< / ridiculous escalation of severity of consequences just to make a point >
Anon 1:07pm wrote: "< / ridiculous escalation of severity of consequences just to make a point >"
You're right about that. But I don't think it was the point you intended to make.
I'd really be interested to hear people's stance on whether children and/or dogs should be allowed in the upcoming Aldi in Hechinger Mall.
Really? Crowds out all other uses?
Dog use is heavy for about an hour in the morning and an hour at night.
Otherwise, not so much.
And your suggestion that it's 90% of the park is simply not supported by facts.
Even the entire 'central grassy area' is, what, less than half of the park?
What exactly is it that you need to do that requires that much more space?
And the smaller parks - Marion Park, Stanton Park, Folger Park - it's been my experience that dog people usually stick to one area, usually maybe 20% of the entire park area.
And, yes, we are entitled. We are the ones that spent 20 years, seven days a week, 365 days a year making these parks even remotely safe. Safe enough so that even parents feel ok to use them now.
So, yes. Entitled. Definitely.
It's a legitimate use of a public resource, and it's not harming anyone else, if done correctly.
And Kingman Park and Congressional Cemetery aren't exactly convenient to all of the Hill, particularly the West end. So even after Kingman opens it's still not really an option for a ton of Hill dog owners.
And, yes, we are entitled. We are the ones that spent 20 years, seven days a week, 365 days a year making these parks even remotely safe.
So, yes. Entitled. Definitely.
Thank you for your service. Make sure you let the Park Police know as they ask you to move along to the dedicated dog park three blocks north.
Oboe:
I thought we covered this already. Kingsman Field (the actual name of the dog park) is not really an option for many on the Hill. It's on the far NE side of the Hill, which is great for those that live close, but it still leaves the majority of the Hill without a dog run.
I believe aldi will be possum and raccoon friendly. No dogs or kids inside. Grand opening weekend will feature hourly cage matches between leashed dogs and toddlers. The main event will be a 12 round bout between hillman and oboe. That match will be alternatively refereed by single hipster dudes and moms who send their white kids to dc public schools.
The winner of the hillman oboe melee gets to drive the first trolley to the pug for whisky shots.
Re: the upcoming Kingman Field dog park taking care of the need for dogs to have a space to run on the Hill . . . .
The Hill Hounds folks, ANC-6A commissioner Bill Schultheiss, neighbors near Kingman Field, and other interested folks worked very hard for very long to make the Kingman Field dog park happen -- the city wasn't particularly motivated to do it, and put up roadblocks along the way. But there was *never* any thought that the creation of the Kingman Field dog park would solve the issue even for just the Capitol Hill area. I encourage you to go take a look at the alcove off to the side of the main field, where it's going to be placed -- it's a pretty small plot of land, especially as compared to the original proposal. The park is a lot smaller than what would reasonably accomodate just the dogs in the immediate area, let along all of Capitol Hill and Near Northeast; but it's what we have, so that's the way it is.
BTW, you may not be aware that the District is _not_ paying for everything that needs to happen to make it a reality. A lot of it still has to be paid for by _us dog owners_. If you're planning on using the dog park, donations are being gratefully accepted through Hill Hounds.
Funnily enough, the Monday after seeing this article, I saw the best dichotomy of urban parenting I've ever seen.
Incident 1 was my least-favorite couple who works near Federal Triangle. I regularly run into this couple leaving work, and they annoy the living daylights out of me. Every time I see them, the dad is pushing the stroller with his and his child's mother's (never checked to see if they were married, don't care) briefcase in them, while the mom CARRIES THE BABY!!! They then take the open and rather large stroller down the tourist-clogged, under-construction, otherwise very crowded escalator, blocking up everyone's way, even though the elevator is right there and there's no good reason why they can't fold the damn stroller up and hold it, as the baby is CLEARLY not in it!
Upon transferring at Metro Center (remember what the weather was like Monday?) I was walking up the stairs and saw a woman with a nice, compact briefcase over her shoulder and her baby in a front harness carrier coming down the stairs. Nice! Not taking up any more space than a decent, respectful person should, leaving both hands free, and keeping her baby close where it's less likely to cry.
Listen, I don't go to baby happy hours and family nights at restaurants and complain about the kids. Businesses are making a mint off of these events, and providing a nice way for parents to get out and enjoy the city with their children. Good deal! By the same token, when I'm in a very clearly adult space (like a bar, no baby happy hour going on) and someone's kid is coming up and saying hi to me (I've had a number of incidents, including one memorable kid who freaked out when I wouldn't let him try on my glasses WHICH I CAN'T SEE WITHOUT AND WERE RATHER EXPENSIVE, and his mother who yelled at me about making her barely-supervised kid cry) I get rather annoyed. One of my very dear friends owns a fabulous, well-behaved dog that she never lets off leash, and I get really annoyed when unleashed children come running up to "pet" him, pulling on his ears and fur and slapping him on the head, while he just sits there passively, without even asking.
The fault is on both sides of the coin. Control your dog, control your children, and think carefully about how your actions impose upon others around you. Dogs and kids should only be off-leash if they can be controlled that way. Adults who are annoyed by kids should avoid designated kid-friendly events, and parents should not take their kids to adult-oriented places. Are you sharing public space equitably?
Wait, are you saying that if people can maintain a bit of consideration, and awareness as to what's going on around them things would be ok. If folks weren't self centered and oblivious to their surroundings, we wouldn't have needed this article in the first place. That wouldn't have been any fun.
As for the metro couple, well as i said earlier, you could probably write a feature on metro riding behavior. You know, blocking the escalators, briefcasing empty seats, making the pregnant stand, taking the elevator while strollers/wheelchairs wait, incorrect exiting, you know all the fun stuff one sees everyday on metro. That article would also really just be about the rude and oblivious people we live with here in dc. The only difference, is metro would probably raise fares in response.
tonyt
Post a Comment