fineprint

Members only: The Chester Avenue Dog Club offers a safe place for pooches to play Ö at a small price. Photo By: Michael T. Regan

More story, less words.

Dog Park Afternoon

The head-high gate and barbed-wire fence protecting the park at 48th and Chester speak to a none-shall-pass air of exclusivity thatís hard for passersby to miss. Still, the three-quarter acre lot abutting a nursing home doesnít seem to be a source of contention.

Au contraire, those who hold the key to enter say. We'll let anybody in, provided they pony up the $50 membership fee and can prove their dog plays well with others.

Welcome to the Chester Avenue Dog Club, where University City neighborhood pooches chase tennis balls and Frisbees, conquer seesaws and frolic about without their masters having to worry about traffic. City-slicker dog owners rarely find such security. Cars. Buses. Cabs. Bikes. Pit bulls trained to destroy. Spot gets away for 20 seconds and disaster could be afoot.

Thanks to those cold realities, about 45 members have joined since the old, fenced-in neighborhood dog park -- a University of Pennsylvania lot at 43rd and Spruce -- became a school ["Penn Bites Dog," Jan. 20, 2000]. After a nasty little controversy pitted some vocal residents against the institution -- they don't care about the neighborhood, the accusations went -- others, including Linda Amsterdam, set out to find new land.

When Park Pleasant Nursing Home offered some property to the cause -- not to mention providing upkeep -- basically for free, Amsterdam et al. snagged some fencing from their old spot, planted some trees and established the University City Dog Owner's Group, Inc. (UCDOG).

Last Saturday, UCDOG opened their gates to the community for a Dog Day celebration at which pooches competed in catching, jumping and trick competitions while the city Animal Care and Control Association (PACCA) brought, in their air-conditioned truck, four puppies who enjoyed their newfound cage-less freedom while waiting for potential adoption. ("I'd fill the paperwork out myself, right here, to help find them homes," said Eric Nask of PACCA, which took over many dog-control responsibilities from the SPCA.)

Applicants, Amsterdam says, must sign a responsibility waiver and prove their dogs are registered with the city and are current with their shots. From there, Amsterdam invites them to the park for an interview.

"It's really informal, a chance to see how they socialize," she says. "If the dog starts attacking or really acts up, they'll fail. But so far, that hasn't been a problem."

The fences, Amsterdam offers, are designed to keep pooches in -- not out.

There've been just two evictions thus far. One woman's dog bit somebody. ("That was really a shame because it was the first time the dog bit and it hasn't bit anybody since.") A second owner decided to use the land as a playground for children and acted defiantly when members complained. ("This is not somebody's backyard.")

"We accept any breed of dog," Amsterdam says, noting that annual dues cover liability insurance so the nursing home isn't on the hook. "We want to have responsible dog owners here. If they're willing to pay the fee, chances are they're responsible."

UCDOG is currently seeking land for another dog park -- this one free, and open to anybody -- but has found that rising property values and the effect of dollar signs on owners, have more bite than bark. —Brian Hickey

Patrick Meehan, Patriot

Last week, Eastern District U.S. Attorney Patrick L. Meehan strolled into the Upper Darby town hall with something to say about the ever-controversial USA Patriot Act. But unlike his boss John Ashcroftís recent photo op at the National Constitution Center, Meehanís appearance was met with little pomp and circumstance.

Where Ashcroft was flanked by some 200 law-enforcement officials, Meehan addressed the Township Council and a mere handful of residents. The message, however, remained the same: The Patriot Act makes America a safer place.

Ashcroft had urged his U.S. attorneys to host town hall-style meetings on the issue in their districts, but Meehan said his presentation came after an invitation from Council Secretary Thomas N. Micozzie. (Ashcroft's request is actually uncommon. Jack Stollsteimer, the Eastern District's Law Enforcement Community Coordinator, says, "U.S. attorneys generally don't deal with explaining the law to Congress" and they aren't supposed to lobby for or against a bill.) Regardless of that precedent, Meehan lobbied away at the under-publicized event.

"The traditional law-enforcement model is reactive," he said, noting that the act has bolstered cooperation among law enforcement and intelligence organizations. "That model is not enough."

As for the Patriot Act's most controversial sections -- roving surveillance authority, delayed-notification warrants (also known as "sneak and peek" warrants, they allow investigators to search properties without telling the owner) and subpoenas for a variety of records ranging from bank statements to library cards -- Meehan said they're already used for organized crime and drug trafficking investigations.

Still, recent events suggest Congress and the public are looking elsewhere for answers.

U.S. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) recently sponsored an amendment to eliminate federal funding for delayed-notification warrants. In July, the Republican-controlled House voted 309-118 in favor of the Otter amendment and if it makes it out of committee, the Senate could vote on it in 2005.

Meehan conceded the House's vote, passed at the end of a late session, sends a strong signal to the administration: Congress has serious questions about the administration's anti-terrorist efforts and wants its concerns addressed.

"All [of the Patriot Act] powers are related to the way we operate criminal cases in the United States," he said. "The Supreme Court decides what the law is You've always got the safety valve of the courts. The cases can change everything." —Alexa James