[Editor's Note: Paul Kamen, of CDAWGS, shared this open letter to Ruth Coleman and Caryl Hart of the California State Parks Commission, as well as Chris Barton and Bob Doyle of the East Bay Regional Park District.]
I am writing regarding the Albany Beach project.
At recent workshops, public input has been directed to the task of evaluating one of three levels of beach enhancement and park development. However all of these proposals suffer from a serious oversight. At best, the work of the park planners will need to be revised. At worst, both State Parks and the EBRPD are about to commit a monumental error in terms of park usage level, public relations and the political viability of future park revenue measures.
The situation invokes "The Emperor Has No Clothes" fable. That is, there is a perfectly obvious problem that the bureaucracies involved seem to be incapable of acknowledging, let alone realistically addressing: Dog policy on the beach.
None of the three alternatives presented for public comment make any sense at all unless the dog policy issue is resolved first.
Yes, we all know that in theory, dogs are not allowed in a state park and will not be allowed on Albany Beach. As the saying goes, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is."
Facts on the ground: Over the last 25 years, thousands of people have been using Albany Beach for off-leash dog play and exercise. It is by far the most popular use, and arguably the highest and best use, of a cold-water beach located so close to an urban population center. If park planners expect dog restrictions to be enforced, there is a problem.
Short of dedicating full-time enforcement resources, there is no practical way to end this use pattern - regardless of the merits of any restrictive dog policy that might be put in place as part of one of the three plans.
Viable solutions do exist. The "South Albany Beach," between the ruins of the old pier and Fleming Point, is about one-third the size of the main beach and every bit as attractive for human recreation. Probably more so, in fact, because it adjoins Fleming Point itself, the only remaining original bit of natural East Bay shoreline.
Equally important, there is sufficient separation between this beach and the main beach so that isolation from dogs would be easy and sensible. "Sensible" is important. Dog owners occupy no moral high ground, and will disregard seemingly arbitrary and unfair restrictions just as freely as we all roll through stop signs at 1 mph when there is no conflicting traffic. The rules have to make sense if they are to be observed, and a separate, isolated beach for the minority of potential beach users who need separation from dogs makes perfect sense.
There are also areas of agreement among the various stakeholders, despite vastly different goals and visions. All interested parties, from CESP and the native plant advocates to the kiteboarders and dog runners, want running water and a real bathroom. The LSA "Opportunities and Constraints" report estimates total cost at approx. $2M, but in terms of park amenities of value to users, this is far more important than a multi-million dollar "beach augmentation" scheme of questionable necessity.
I note that as a naval architect I have had occasion to participate in a number of coastal engineering projects, and I believe I have at least a rudimentary understanding of beach dynamics.
The Albany Beach began to grow when the landfill operation created the sediment-trapping neck of land extending out into the Bay. According to the LSA/PWA hydrology analysis, the beach has reached a stable condition. As sea level rises over the decades, this equilibrium will most likely be maintained and the height of the beach will naturally rise to match sea level - although the background analysis contained in the "Existing and Future Conditions" report by LSA does not cite sufficient analysis of the sand to determine if the source is from local landfills (Merritt formation) or from offshore sand transported as bed load. This determination may be critical in predicting whether or not the beach can follow sea level changes unassisted.
If in fact sea level rises faster than new sand can accumulate, then nourishing the beach with added sand may become desirable - but it is much too soon to commit major resources to this action.
There also is significant risk that adding other features to seaward of the existing beach will attenuate wave energy, alter refraction patterns, reduce sand percolation and disrupt the equilibrium of the beach in unpredictable ways. Sand should not be added to mitigate against sea level rise until observed beach dynamics demonstrate the actual need.
Be careful with the dunes, too. Dunes are aerodynamic artifacts, and altering the contours of the land and other objects upwind will almost certainly have unanticipated consequences. The dunes developed in the current unregulated environment, and it is probably best to leave them alone.
To summarize: It does not make sense to spend multiple millions on beach and dune "enhancement" projects that are risky, unpopular, and demanding of continuous and draconian enforcement resources.
I speak only for myself here, but I believe a consensus among the most active users of Albany Beach, present and future, is emerging:
1) Continue to allow off-leash dogs on the main part of Albany Beach.
2) Designate the South Albany Beach as dog-free.
3) Acquire an additional parcel to add parking and to improve access to the south.
4) If there is any money left to do anything at all, use it to extend utilities and build the bathroom and washdown area.
Habitat preservation should always be a high priority, but is Albany Beach the right place to direct scarce resources? An acre of threatened Habitat at a more remote site can be restored, preserved and protected for a very small fraction of the cost of doing it at Albany Beach. Meaningful wetlands habitat restoration projects are on the order of tens of thousands of acres. This project, even if wildly successful as habitat, is limited to such a small scale that it can only be described as overpriced environmental tokenism.
We should not waste money fighting time, tide and local culture on an urban beach.
Paul Kamen, Naval Architect, P.E.
Chair, Berkeley Waterfront Commission
Coalition for Diverse Activities on Water, Grass and Sand
http://www.CDAWGS.org
http://www.BerkeleyWaterfront.org
Scary dogs running loose deter some people from using the beach? I proffer that if no dogs went to the beach at least 1.5 times as many PEOPLE would use it. I arrive at this figure because someone stated that dog owners are a minority of 40% of the population. I believe the actual multiple would be 2 or even 3 times higher as dog owners may visit without their pets. If you want to see greater use of Albany Beach, please visit with your dogs on a leash or without your pets.
- Very big and very false assumption there: That people would use the beach, with or without dogs, in proportion to population. - You are also assuming that all of the 60% non-dog-owners are currently deterred from ever going to the beach because of off-leash dogs. This is demonstrably untrue. - Let's be generous to the dog-phobic and say that half of the non-dog-owners currently stay away because of dogs. The beach, then, is now available to 70% of the population. Follow the State Park rules, and then 40% would have to go elsewhere with their dogs, leaving only 60% of the populations served. And that's assuming use in proportion to population. I submit that dog owners are actually far more frequent and regular users of the beach than non-dog-owners would be, even if they had the place to themselves.
In other words, I think it's rather silly (not to mention hypocritical) to expect others to respect public spaces when you are incapable of doing the same. Yes, I am referring to your use of the street as an extended family living room/play area, a violation of Albany city code. Perhaps you can explain the difference to those of us who are not as obviously enlightened as you seem to be? Muchas gracias!
So let's get back to the point. I believe that when dog owners behave better (and not before), their dogs will be better received. I have a dog and I love dogs. But the dog owning population is per capita the most inconsiderate and self-centered group of people I’ve ever been in contact with. Far too many (in my experience, approaching 40% of) dog owners are manifestly oblivious to the destruction their dogs cause in their daily patterns, or to the discomfort that their negligent dearth of discipline causes other people. When the dog-owning crowd spends half as much energy demanding responsible behavior among its own ranks as it does crowing for blanket entitlements, then those who don’t know the joy of dogs will be more tolerant, and maybe even receptive. Andrew Woolman.
On one side are the folks who believe that the precious park assets of our urban environment are primarily for people, meaning there is an expectation that others encountered there will share a code of behavior and stewardship, and will respect each others' needs within those parks. There is an appreciation for human-human empathy that governs respectful and considerate behavior toward each other in the parks, and loose dogs can’t be expected to get that. This side believes that a small, negotiated percentage of park assets can be designated for off-leash dog access, since they recognize that healthy dogs need to be able to run and socialize. On the other side are people who believe that dogs are an integral and necessary part of our human environment and society at large, and that a lions' share of parkland should be available to them for off-leash exercise and socialization. Accordingly, a comparatively small portion of parks should be designated as dog-free, ostensibly for those people who can’t tolerate dogs, or who just want a dog-free experience that day. Andrew Woolman.
I'm not saying which is right, but - let's be clear – these are the conflicting ideologies at play. I do believe that demanding – not encouraging, but demanding - discipline and courtesy by dog-owners is an absolute prerequisite if these sides are ever to come to an understanding. People don’t remember the responsible dog owners; they remember the negligent dog owners. It’s time the dog lobby owned that fact, and did something about it... before expecting concessions from everybody else. Andrew Woolman.
Andrew Woolman.
The elephant in the room is that there are two distinct populations with an interest in the beach. The dog owners come from around the East Bay and see it as a regional asset. The people who want to make the beach a dog-free place for kids tend to be fairly local. The unspoken tension is that many Albany residents see the beach as a municipal asset -- while people from Oakland or Richmond or Berkeley or wherever are generally unaware that there's even an issue.
It seems like I have offended you in some way. For that I sincerely apologize. If I have behaved poorly, I welcome any suggestions you have on how I might alter might behavior. Please feel free to contact me directly at ulan@yvod.com or come by anytime to chat. That being said, I am not aware of any laws that I am breaking. My neighbors, family and I have become intimately involved in the public City Planning process involving our neighborhood. The City Of Albany has posted a Draft Active Transportation Plan the includes creating a Dartmouth "Shared Street Concept". http://albanypedbikeplan.fehrandpeers.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/C_ProjectSheets_031711.pdf http://albanypedbikeplan.fehrandpeers.net/draft-documents/ I believe the activities that you are referring to are exactly what Albany is trying to create. There are even pictures taken of our bock to highlight these changes on pages C-36 and C-37. Again, I am sorry if I have upset you. I would like to create an environment where everyone can live happily together. If my lifestyle is harming your enjoyment, I am open to any ideas on how to become a better neighbor.
I see what you mean about perception of "ownership", but I'm not sure how that applies here. Whether or not its an Albany asset or an East Bay asset, it's a beach. Beaches so close to urban areas generally have rules. I suppose what you're saying is that the wider dog-owning population sees it as a forgotten piece of coast up for grabs? I could certainly understand that perception based on its location relative to housing and next to the race track...but it would be an incorrect perception. Are there not any rules posted that would give clues as to how the beach may and may not be used (I've never noticed any - but that's no surprise)?
If dogs are going to be allowed on the beach, it will more likely be by time-sharing, and not by physical partitioning. Your statistical gymnastics, that lead to 75% "control" by dog-owners, are all smoke. Citizens should not be required to physically defend their public space by occupying it at all times. To suggest so is to support thuggery and mob rule ("dog owners do what they do"). Your logic would have the Grand Canyon (or 75% of it) dammed for recreational boating, since most Americans actually don't visit it, and even fewer do more than once. Certainly the house-boaters would use it more!! There are also many portions of our sidewalks and plazas that are more attractive to skateboarders than to walkers - let's hand them over!! And all those concrete bridge supports weren't being used before the graffitists found them a field for their art. And so it should be? Sheesh! Most times of day, people should be able to arrive for a stroll on the beach, or to sit on it and eat a sandwich, in relatively peaceful communion with the bay. Time-partitioning of the entire beach might fairly accommodate the expectations of doggy and non-doggy people in a way that physical partitioning cannot.
I am not trying to take anything away from dog owners. I am simply asking that they respect the will of their neighbors and abide by the rules we have all agreed on. The area West of the Neck is fertile ground for care-free dogs. While their owners might begrudge the extra few steps they have to travel, I doubt any dogs are going to care that they don't have sand under their paws...
- I remain extremely skeptical of time-sharing. Do you really think that beach users, with or without dogs, will re-align their schedules to conform to arbitrary time limits for their preferred beach activity? - A physical partition makes much more sense, and gives everyone maximum access to the kind of beach they want. We can debate where the boundary belongs and/or which beaches are allocated for which uses. Fortunately there is enough beach on the Albany shoreline for multiple use designations to work. - Do you really want access for everyone? Or do you want punitive, draconian and very expensive attempts to change the behavior of all those bad-bad-bad dog-owners?
Of course you are. Dogs and their owners have been using the beach for off-leash play and exercise for 25 years, and you believe that should stop. They love the beach the way it is. And State Parks, East Bay Regional, and City of Albany have the good sense not to waste resources trying to enforce the rules from an obsolete plan.
If so, then please follow the rules. If not, please bring your complaints to the appropriate forum. I honestly do not follow your argument here. I believe you stated that you know that dog owners who let their dogs run off-leash on Albany Beach are breaking the law. A bunch have folks have asked them to stop breaking the law. Are you simply choosing to ignore the reality that dog owners have the vast majority of waterfront accessible for their off-leash dogs? Anyone can take their pets past the Neck and let them run free. Why is this a hardship? As I wrote before, I am not trying to take anything away from off-leash dog owners. I would like them to stop taking things away from me though. The weather is great right now. My family, neighbors and I would welcome the ability to stroll unmolested on our designated leash-only Albany Beach.
I don't personally dig houseboats (I'm more of a canoe guy), but I wouldn't drain Lake Meade. I wouldn't create another one either. These examples aren't silly - they offer a way to break your limited frame, so don't be condescending. Your Lake Meade already exists, and it's not on Albany Beach, by law. It's called Pt.Isabel, which has a cafe, and dog-wash, and water, and mud, and other dogs, and a supportive public. (my favorite running trails don't have a cafe and shower at the end!) What amazes me is how you so freely couch law-breaking as some kind of inevitable human behavior -and that laws should be made to match the facts on the ground. In fact, you seem to embrace law-breaking as a negotiating tool, which I find offensive from the outset (your "cause" simply does not have the moral authority for the political tactic of civil disobedience). You are an established and dedicated advocate for expanding urban open space access for dogs to some unspecified amount. What is that amount? At what point does the pervasive presence of off-leash dogs take away from the quality of the experience of others? Do you advocate breaking the law everywhere until the world matches your hobby set? These are rhetorical questions, not requiring your responsive excerpts from your manifesto, which we've all read. People must come before dogs. To place them on equal standing is distorted.
Lots to be discussed about future use of bulb, neck, beach, etc. Let's work together to find the right balance for dogs and people and wildlife.
- Albany Beach is the only dog-friendly beach for many miles, so other (already crowded) dog parks don't serve the same need. And I advocate REDUCING the size of the current de facto dog beach so that there is a reliably dog-free area for those who prefer it. - Do you pay sales tax on the books you buy from Amazon? It's the law.
How generous of you to propose "REDUCING the size of the current de facto dog beach so that there is a reliably dog-free area for those who prefer it." Let's also set up some prostitution-free zones in the east bay: say, 25% of all street corners, "for those who prefer it"? Just make sure they're mostly near my house, please. No need to howl that I'm conflating off-leash to hooking - I'm not. But you may have the last word. I'm through with your disingenuous rhetoric.
If thousands of people are expressing a need for park use, in rain or shine, 365 days a year (and not just when it's sunny and warm) then the law should accommodate. Dragging old dogs up the neck to the bulb so they can be off leash, or worse, taking them to areas much more environmentally fragile than the beach by the racetrack, doesn't make sense. Partitioning the beach does. Yes, tales of enforcement would get around. This is East Bay parkland with a long history that reflects its current use. A modification can work. And yes, all dog owners should be responsible and have well behaved pets (just like all parents should have well behaved children.)
I've lived in Albany for almost four years. Since we moved here, I've brought my kids to the Albany Beach only one time. Because of the dogs. It was extremely scary for the kids. They had a hard time enjoying themselves. I've never taken them back. Yes, I believe there are plenty of people in Albany who stay completely away from this fantastic nearby nature spot because of the dogs. Your stance that dog owners use the space more and therefore should have a larger part in a beach-sharing arrangement is entirely self-serving. The reason dog owners currently use the beach more is because they scare away all the non-dog users.
I am happy to share space within reason. But a few owners exude a constitutional right to abuse other's space and sense of security, and an absence of a sense of responsibility for their animals. Another group of owners are well intentioned but either unable to manage their animal, or unaware of the full capability of their animal.
Messrs. Woolman and McKnight have already made the good points about why personal wants really may not trump rules for public property. I feel the rest of the discussion points, how to share Beach space; comfort with Pt Isabel; health benefits of dogs; how some feel entitled to flout rules they consider arbitrary, etc, are all beside the point. The point is, we all have our beliefs, but the Park District’s reasonable rules govern behavior in the Park. I'd love to see all honor those rules.
- Please don't misquote. It is "demonstrably untrue" that 60% of the population - meaning ALL non-dog owners - is deterred from ever going to the beach by the presence of dogs. That was the assumption made by Ulan McKnight in his assertion that use by humans would increase by a factor of 1.5 if dogs were banned. It is untrue because a significant portion of non-dog owners actually like interacting with dogs and enjoy going to the dog beach. - We also have examples of nearby cold-water beaches with very little dog presence and much better parking, for example Shorebird Beach in the Berkeley Marina. Even with the Shorebird Nature Center and Adventure Playground as major draws, use by humans is usually a lot less intense than at Albany Beach. - There may well be a "significant" portion of non-dog owners who are deterred from going to the beach, and I fully support their calls for an appropriately scaled dog-free beach area in Albany.