I liked the city paper article, especially the blurb about Ottawa that mentions the sometimes hostile political neighbor (I'm a native Virginian).

Plus now when someone accuses me of wanting me to turn DC into NYC I can say no, I'd rather be more like Canada.

by drumz on Aug 17, 2012 9:55 am • link • report

The DC/Ottawa comparison has struck me before. Mercifully, we got Metro built when we did, while all the Canuck capital got was the 5-mile, 5-station stub of an O-Train line, built on an existing mainline ROW. After several aborted attempts, they are getting a new light rail line, with the contract award due for this December. Still, though, nothing like what the DC region has.

Clearly, what Ottawa needs is a gargantuan military-industrial complex!

by Dizzy on Aug 17, 2012 10:42 am • link • report

This thing about cracking down on boot camps in parks is absurd, even by DC standards. Is this the kind of crap I will have to see from Candidate-for-Mayor Tommy? And why would Aguiller think that by regulating an industry of any kind you can force that industry to serve other markets where demand doesn't exist? That is truly a stupid argument and is nothing more than pandering. Certainly, parts of DC are vastly underserved economically, but, for example, just because DC regulates the restaurant industry doesn't mean it has the power to force restaurants to open in specific locations. How would this be any different? We should just be happy that the parks are being used for their intended purpose.

by MJ on Aug 17, 2012 11:09 am • link • report

I agree that private commercial use of the public parks should at the minimum require a permit and fee for use.

I don't think Aguillar is suggesting forcing any vendor to do business; I think what he's suggesting is telling a potential vendor: "permit for DuPont Circ not available but is available for Fort Dupont". Then vendor makes a choice.

In any case-I thought these parks were owned and run by US Park Servc. Doesn't that complicate any permitting and commercial use ventures?

by Tina on Aug 17, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

Isn't there a person limit for activities per park (or blanket)? I agree if you are bringing in a large amount of people then you should go through the proper channels but if you keep your business under the threshhold then why worry?

by drumz on Aug 17, 2012 12:01 pm • link • report

Given the picture with the article is some massive lululemon yoga class, designed to promote lululemon, I don't see a problem in charging such groups a permit fee.

(granted, the lululemon one appears to be an NPS site, and Tina's question is a good one, at least for the NPS sites).

by ah on Aug 17, 2012 12:04 pm • link • report

Public parks are just that. Public parks. Businesses and the individuals who patronize those businesses already pay fees for public amenities: they're called taxes.

by Adam L on Aug 17, 2012 12:04 pm • link • report

Really good City Paper article. Here are my thoughts on the issue:

First of all, Washington DC is a very unique city. Secondly, apart from being in the same Mid-Atlantic/Northeast region and sharing most of the traits found in the region's big cities, DC is not that similar to New York.

I like the Ottawa comparison, but just looking at other cities in the United States, DC is most like San Francisco for the following reasons:

1. They have similarly sized Metropolitan Areas (4.5m in SF and 5.5m in DC)
2. They are the two wealthiest cities in the nation in terms of median income
3. They also have the most educated residents in the nation
4. They are also probably two of the most (if not the most) liberal big cities in the nation
5. SF's BART is the most similar rapid transit/heavy rail system to DC's suburbs-to-city Metrorail system and was constructed around the same time

Baltimore is a different story. With it's blue-collar/European immigrant roots its far more like Boston/NYC/Philly (especially Philly, since B'more is like a half-size clone of it) than DC is.

by King Terrapin on Aug 17, 2012 12:22 pm • link • report

Businesses and the individuals who patronize those businesses already pay fees for public amenities: they're called taxes.

It's pretty common for the government to charge user fees, especially for folks making a disproportionate use of public space. For example, shouldn't people who setup shop on the sidewalk or who hold a massive event on tge National Mall pay a fee? Using a public space as your place of business is above and beyond normal use and businesses should be charged a fee for it.

by Falls Church on Aug 17, 2012 12:33 pm • link • report

Brussels is actually not a bad comparison.

Brussels is the city with the most layers of government in the world. There's the subcities that make up Brussels-city proper; there's Brussels, as a whole city; there's the federal region of Brussels, one of the three federal parts of Belgium; Brussels is the capital of itself (the previously mentioned federal region), but also of the other two regions: Flanders and Wallony - both have their parliaments in Brussels; Brussels also the national capital of Belgium with the national parliament and the King's palace; and to close Brussels is the de facto capital of the EU, even though the European Commission officially resides in Luxembourg, and the EU-parliament still tracks to Strasbourg once a month [speaking of wasting money].

In that sense, Brussels suffers a similar problem as DC: it is the face of many, but ruled by none. Brussels politics are very local, just as DC's are. Meanwhile, all the governments that call Brussels their homes refer to the local city government, which of course is unable to provide for all the services it needs to provide. And so Brussels is severely underfunded, and always in massive disrepair. Both even have bitter cultural fights. In Brussels, it's language (French vs Dutch), while DC still struggles with race. And yet, both Brussels and DC are much more charming than one would expect from such a messed up area.

See the parallel?

I would suspect Ottawa might see exactly the same problems. Supposedly an important city, but ignored by most stakeholders and crushed by the prestige of Toronto and Montreal. But I'll leave that judgement to the Ottawa experts.

by Jasper on Aug 17, 2012 12:40 pm • link • report

@Falls Church

There's no way that setting up stages, tents, 1000 portajohns, etc. is any way comparable to a dozen people with yoga mats. Our elected officials seem to believe that anything that happens in this city should be regulated and taxed. If there is a need for government regulation, then there's a public debate worth having; but regulation for regulation's sake makes little sense.

by Adam L on Aug 17, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report

Clearly a Lululemon yoga-fest with hundreds of people versus a guy trying to start a personal training business running a class of four people and a couple of kettle balls is apples and oranges. My opinion is limited to the latter.

@Tina Whether Aguiller wants to "force" companies to do business in other areas (as I suggest) or simply regulate--and therby inhibit--their business (as you suggest) belies my greater question. When has this method ever worked for DC?

I can't think of a reason a personal trainer with a handful of clients needs a permit or should pay a fee to use a park. As for using the park for personal profit, do people who run dog-walking services pay a fee to bring four or five dogs to the park? (That's a serious question...I don't know the answer. Good god I hope the answer is NO!) Anyway, this is an interesting discussion over a piddly topic.

by MJ on Aug 17, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report

I don't think Aguillar is suggesting forcing any vendor to do business; I think what he's suggesting is telling a potential vendor: "permit for DuPont Circ not available but is available for Fort Dupont". Then vendor makes a choice.

That's well thought out. I can see it now - a personal trainer has identified 5 people in the Dupont Circle area who would like an early-morning toga or boot camp class. After contacting the city, this e-mail is sent ot the potential customers:

"Good news, we're all set for 6:00 Monday morning. The only change - just a slight wrinkle, really - is that I couldn't get a permit for the local park. But no worries, I got one for Fort DuPont! So, I'll see you all there bright and early, right? Right?"

Response:

by dcd on Aug 17, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report

Yeah, I think the question is one of degree. I know in fairfax there was an issue with that you couldn't have more than 20 people (spectators included) using a soccer field without a permit. We can argue whether 20 people is too few or too many but at some point a limit has to be set. I'd imagine that in a perfect world this info would be clearly explained online and then someone would know what to cap their class at if they want to avoid that hassle.

by drumz on Aug 17, 2012 1:42 pm • link • report

@Drumz

At least that regulation has reasoning. I have umpired baseball at Elden park in Herndon, and the soccer games there attract hundreds of people. When there are going to be hundreds of people at a place not normally used to that many people, it is reasonable for the city to be notified, at the very least so they can adjust trash collection, and have the police swing by a couple of times.

12 people practicing yoga... Come on. If this does come to fruition, here is hoping there are reasonable guidelines set, perhaps anything over 30 people or something along those lines.

by Kyle-w on Aug 17, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

Enough about people in parks! It's Friday afternoon... let's talk serious issues here - sliding down Metro escalators! I've always wanted to slide down the Dupont one but know that Wheaton would be better. How would one suggest working around (over?) the bumps, er, moguls?

Somewhere a while back I saw Youtube video of someone who went down a subway escalator on skis - worked quite well but I bet those skis needed a new waxing.

by Double Diamond on Aug 17, 2012 2:27 pm • link • report

Kyle-w,

Oh I agree, the limit should be reasonable and consider the size of the park (30 people at dupont circle is a lot different than 30 down at the anacostia riverfront) I was just suggesting that eventually you have to set some sort of limit and that limit should be clear.

Of course, the city could just hire some of these trainers to lead classes over at some of the EOTR parks but why do that when we can try for a workaround in the law that transfers the cost to the business owner?

by drumz on Aug 17, 2012 2:56 pm • link • report

The yoga-classes in parks permit idea seems like a solution searching for a problem. Is there a problem with people holding oversize classes in parks? If not, then there's no reason to set a limit at this time.

I think the dog walker comparison is apt. Do we charge someone who owns a dog-walking business to walk them in the park? No we do not. If they are a nuisance then the police can be notified and they can probably be ticketed for some nuisance thing. The same applies to exercise classes - if they are constantly being a nuisance/jerks about it then the police can be notified and there is likely some already existing ordinance they can be fined under.

Creating some kind of permit process seems to me would cost more than the piddly amount of revenue DC would get a cut of - don't you already have to have a business license to do this kind of thing, and don't you have to report income from it?

by MLD on Aug 17, 2012 3:04 pm • link • report

@MLD: DC and federal law already prohibits professional dog walkers from using DC and NPS parks to walk dogs; both prohibit the use of public space for private business.

The story, the headline, and even the blurb here on GGW are a bit poorly written as a bit of Gotcha!/sensationalist bend.

The boot camps, yoga, and exercise programs are all conducting commercial activity in DC's public parks, which DC law currently prohibits.

If Little League baseball, Stoddert Soccer, and every other organized program across DC have to pay permit and usage fees to use the parks, why not these programs as well?

Who wouldn't want to run a business on someone else's property and not pay for it?

by bryandc on Aug 17, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report

Can DC collect user fees for the NPS? Interestig that DC Gov is looking for a revenue stream and not the NPS which actually needs money.

Sports teams usually use specialized fields during peak demand so they should pay. A few people doing yoga or bootcamp at 5-6am on a small section of grass do not need to pay a fee. If they are a business they pay a tax to DC already. What about all the running groups (Fenty's Dad's shop) - should they pay to use sidewalks?

First lets get prevent the likes of Douglas Development and other landlords from avoiding the blight tax rate - lots more money to be had from negligent property owners than a few dozen trainers.

by andy2 on Aug 17, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report

@Andy2

I like the last idea. Find just one more building that Douglas is sitting on, and charge him the 5%, and that will likely take in 10x more money than this thing would.

by Kyle-w on Aug 17, 2012 4:18 pm • link • report

@andy2: oddly enough, Yes. DPR collects permit fees for Rock Creek Park picnic and volleyball areas >> http://dpr.dc.gov/DC/DPR/Facilities+and+Permits/Permits+and+Reservations/National+Parks+Picnic+Areas+and+Volleyball+Courts

DPR is significantly underfunded for the amount of parks, centers, and pools they have to maintain. From 2007 to 2012, DPR's operating budget has been cut about 45%. DPR's largest budget was in 2007 at $63.5 million, and today its down to about $35 million.

Pretty much any organized activity in DPR parks requires a permit, however due to lack of staff and regular enforcement, permits and regulations are regularly ignored.

http://dpr.dc.gov/DC/DPR/Facilities+and+Permits/Permits+and+Reservations

Just because a yoga class happens at 6 in the morning doesn't make it exempt from DC laws and regulation. Let's say its an "exclusive" yoga class and the instructor charges $50 a month for classes of 6 people at 5, 6, and 7 am. That's over $10,000 a year in revenue that instructor could be generating. (I have no idea what yoga costs, this is just an example).

End of the day, this isn't about yoga. This is about illegal commercial, private business being conducted on our public space. We wouldn't let a hot dog stand open up in the lobby of the Wilson Building or 441 4th Street without paying rent? What makes a park different?

by bryandc on Aug 17, 2012 4:24 pm • link • report

The line between what you have to pay for and what you don't is going to be arbitrary no matter where it's drawn. Do tour guides have to pay a fee for every group they take to every park? Would a personal trainer have to pay a fee if he and one other person worked out in a park? How about if they just ran across part of the park as part of a longer run? What about bodies of water? Can you teach swimming lessons in a lake without paying the agency overseeing that lake? What about boating lessons? Or boating period? We can keep coming up with hypotheticals all day.

"Impact" seems like as good and fair of a criterion for determining what charges may apply (if any) as any. But how to define and where to draw the cutoff?

by Dizzy on Aug 17, 2012 4:55 pm • link • report

For the yoga classes, at least, teacher/studio/store revenue is zero. I've heard of dozens of free yoga classes offered in parks, and no paid ones.

by David R. on Aug 17, 2012 6:57 pm • link • report

The perfect location for the new Marine Barracks would be the square currently occupied by the National Capitol Spay Neuter Clinic which is mostly abandoned anyway. The clinic could be relocated across Potomac Avenue between the dog park and community garden. Seems like a good solution.

by Sivad on Aug 17, 2012 6:57 pm • link • report

Paris, Berlin, Washington.

I don't think SF or Ottawa had a l'Enfant or a Haussman.

by Tom Coumaris on Aug 17, 2012 10:01 pm • link • report

While we're concentrating on regulating early morning yoga sessions in our park, may I suggest we're overlooking the obvious need to regulate lemonade stands set up by children.

First, this would provide an opportunity to hire DCRA inspectors to ensure the stands would be properly licensed and permitted. And, of course, DOH inspectors could be hired to ensure that the water and lemons and sugar (or Crystal Lite) were safe from dangerous disease. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

And it would also provide an important life lesson to children that any action that involves entrepreneurship in the District of Columbia will be met by an equal and opposite reaction by DC government bureaucracy.

As for the regulation of yoga, it should be noted that obesity and diabetes are two of the most serious health problems in the District. Any program that promotes exercise and healthy living provides benefits to participants and all taxpayers.

The government should be actively promoting yoga in the parks, not regulating it.

by Mike S. on Aug 18, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

Livable, walkable, but most importantly, taxable parks? I like him, but Wells may lose my support on this issue. May seem trivial, but it's a red flag if it's indicative of his thought-process.

by dcnovi on Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm • link • report

the group yoga I saw in Dupont Circ park a couple of Fridays ago was not a dozen people. it was ~200 people and it took up half the park. One reason for permitting is to negotiate conflicts, for instance picnic area #1 in RCP is highly sought after. If two groups show up at the same time planning to use it the group with the permit for that date is the one with the legit claim to use it -conflict resolved.

by Tina on Aug 20, 2012 11:00 am • link • report