9 ms·

She Had a Genius Idea: Air-Conditioned Doghouses, then the City Showed Up

68 points by a_w 8y ago

ryanworl 8y ago
Things currently occupying space on Manhattan sidewalks: 1. Garbage and recycling bags on trash day 2. Restaurant and bar advertising signs 3. LinkNYC WiFi towers 4. Restaurant and grocery store food deliveries, which are literal pallets of food just left out on the sidewalk for long periods of time in the morning. 5. Bikes 6. Outdoor restaurant seating I’ve seen one of these little doghouse things and they seem useful enough for the few square feet they occupy. At least as useful as any of the above given the number of dogs in the city.
- coherentpony 8y ago
  The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. Furthermore, after receiving two cease-and-desist letters, the owner of the company ignored them and continued to expand the company. The article phrases it as 'being unfazed by the letters'. One could also phrase it as willful neglect.
  - booleandilemma 8y ago
    Sounds like they were taking a page out of Uber’s book.
  - ryanworl 8y ago
    The city can just go remove them if they want to, but this illustrates one of my primary complaints with local government here: The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. She developed this project with help from the government, albeit a different department. Instead of that being enough to continue, she gets threats. I hope she continues to ignore them, and her expansion goes well elsewhere. They’ll come around once she can prove they drive more business (read: taxes) to the area.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      This is not how any of that works. It's one thing to be a startup and get some seed money from the government supportive of small businesses. It's another thing to just claim public space as your own, without any permits. Restaurants need permits to put sidewalk seating and tables; they can't just privatize the space in front of their property, because it's not theirs. Just because the government helped pay to develop drones doesn't mean you can use them anywhere, at any time, on public property without any restriction. The same goes for these doghouses.
      - ryanworl 8y ago
        Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? It is trivial to see they wanted them installed in Manhattan in the sidewalk. The fact that there is no method of permitting at all is the problem.
        bobthepanda 8y ago
        That should've been figured out first. It's not as if the city is opposed to changing the regulations. She just didn't bother getting it sorted out before she actually did anything. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
        manicdee 8y ago
        There is a method of permitting them, it's just that the business did not pursue the hoop-jumping and form-filling paper trail because occupying public space in the pursuit of profit was more important than complying to local regulations.
        makomk 8y ago
        If you read the article, there is no method of permitting them because the city didn't forsee their existence. There's literally no form she could fill in or hoop she could jump through that would make it possible to install them. They're not one of the uses of sidewalk space that New York City is familiar with, so she's screwed. (Naturally, they didn't tell her this until after a whole bunch had been installed.)
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    After getting caught flatfooted by Uber, I think cities have wised up and now come down hard on startups whose game plan is “break the law and ignore cease-and-desist letters, but move so fast that you can’t be pushed out“. Future entrepreneurs with this strategy in mind should not expect to get away with it just because Uber did.
  - Buge 8y ago
    She got cease-and-desists from New York City. She's expanding outside of New York City. So the expansion is not in violation of the cease-and-desists.
  - tacostakohashi 8y ago
    The doghouses aren't illegal - you can have as many as you want on your own private property. Expropriating public space is illegal, unsurprisingly.
  - gumby 8y ago
    > The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. It's not the doghouses per se that are illegal, it's arbitrarily using the public's right of way that's illegal. What if people put sidewalk-blocking tents in front of their houses in summer (it'd be a good idea to give your kids a bigger, and cooler, place to play in the summer heat.) That also wouldn't be allowed, but it would be perfectly fine in your back yard (assuming you have one).
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Reminds me of the one interesting job creating 'loophole' that is a weird sort of working exactly as intended. You might notice sign waver/wearer jobs at public intersections depending on your area. The person is allowed to be there with right of way but just leaving the signs behind would not be allowed. While it is technically a loss of labor to have someone waving the signs (even considering the attention getting) having someone carrying the signs actively ensures that it won't lead to any cluttering and imposes the cost of their salary for the public space they are occupying.
      - mrep 8y ago
        God I wish seattle actually enforced that because I see stupid signs blocking the sidewalks everywhere.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  This feels tricky to me. Sidewalks are public right-of-way, and an important piece of transportation infrastructure, and there is a civic interest in ensuring that they can, first and foremost, be used for that purpose. In a city as dense as NYC, that is naturally going to lead to rules limiting what can use the space, and then those rules are naturally going to be given exceptions for things like sandwichboards and sidewalk cafes and newspaper stands, because everyone wants to have those things, too. But that's going to be done by creating specific exceptions, which may require a permit, in the interest of not throwing it to the wolves all over again. Which means, in turn, that there are always going to be uses that at least some people like, which don't fit cleanly into any of the official categories of exemption. I don't think there's any perfect answer here. Lean too far in one direction, and you get news articles like this complaining about entrepreneurship being obstructed. Lean too far in the other, and you've got people who use wheelchairs being unable to easily navigate their neighborhoods.
  - lgregg 8y ago
    There is a reason why the city licenses exist though. In Chicago, if I recall sandwich boards can cost up to $30k per year. I'm not saying this dog house needs that license but perhaps there should be a fee if you want to put something in front of your store that blocks the sidewalk to pay for the additional inspections needed. NYC also fines for things out of code on the sidewalk. https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/sidewalk-usage-guide https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/sidewalk-usage-guid...
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      I don't see a specific line item for sandwich boards on the publicly posted fee schedule[1]. But $30,000/year is a good 2 orders of mangnitude more than anything else on that list. [1]: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/businesslicenseforms/pwu/PWU_Fee_Structure-v.02.24.2014.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/bu... edit: Looks like they're just straight-up illegal. Some aldermen (including one who's pretty good at getting things done) are working on that: https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/06/28/a-frame-sandwich-board-signs-are-illegal-in-chicago-they-shouldnt-be-aldermen-say/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/06/28/a-frame-sandwich-boa...
- dominotw 8y ago
  I would say around 20% of sidewalks in chicago are not handicap accessible. Tons of sidewalks are built without on ramps. Poorer areas are way worse than others. Its shocking to see this is pass. I am planning to take pictures and report to the city, but i have no hope anyone would care.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Just hire disabled people and find their lawsuits in exchange for a cut. That’s already a thing in many places.
- m-p-3 8y ago
  One nice thing I've seen in my city were free curbside self-serve libraries. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/little-library-hintonburg-complaint-1.3753290 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/little-library-hintonb... Of course, they were taken down..
zaroth 8y ago
The state calls them “vending amenities” which sounds perfectly apt to me. The city is defining a new category they call a “dog harbor”. The business model is unproven. I think the US is the wrong place to start this. People are too nervous about leaving their pets, but it seems unfounded.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  there are dog kidnappers, unleashed aggressive dogs, lots of reasons not to leave your pet unattended.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Sorry, that is to say, “people are too nervous about leaving their pets in the dog house.....” I didn’t mean pets should be left unattended. Personally I think it’s a great idea if they are clean, safe, and dogs like them. This opens up options for people with dogs. Regulating as a vending amenity makes perfect sense. The city is being daft if they had that category available and decided it couldn’t apply.
CJefferson 8y ago
I feel the title is willfully insulting to the city. How about "She had a genius idea: Putting private doghouses in the middle of public property as handy tripping hazzards for the blind, which couldn't even be used without paying. Then the city showed up"
- Eridrus 8y ago
  As other commenters, and the article itself, have pointed out, there's already plenty of stuff on sidewalks. The fact that this even needs a new law to be passed points out how ridiculous regulation is. There should be a law that talks about who has de-facto right to approve/object to it (probably business/residence which it is in front of), some law on the minimal amount of side-walk space that should be left, etc, and not have to re-license every single thing people might want to put there. You can always pass laws to exceptions that people don't like, rather than having a policy of default-deny.
  - close04 8y ago
    Your argument doesn't really make sense: regulation is bad because it regulates some stuff... but since some stuff is regulated then we should be able to do some different stuff? Things are on that sidewalk because they were "analysed" and accepted, they are regulated. They are sidewalk-legal things. Just like on the road there are road-legal cars and what you're saying is that illegal cars should also be allowed because they're cars and we already have plenty. So regulation is bad because you're not allowed to do illegal things that are sorta' like legal ones but not really. Regulation can't cover everything perfectly from the get go because it would imply that the people making it can know with perfect accuracy every single issue that might come up in the future. So you make it more restrictive and then adjust case by case. The genius idea can be covered by a permit unless there's a real blocker somewhere. If you're in IT you'll understand this example: try writing a RegEx that matches all those words and only those words (strings?) that I will be using in my comments over the next 2 days.[*]
    - close04 8y ago
      [*] Sesquipedalian
gumby 8y ago
Be fair -- the city isn't complaining that there's a problem with these doghouses, just that you can't colonize public space. It's unclear from my skim if it would be OK if the usage were free -- I hope that's not that case!
- parent5446 8y ago
  The problem, though is that there are allowances for many other uses of the public sidewalk (for example, a restaurant having outdoor seating, or a store having coin-operated kids rides). It's just that there's no specific process for this product, and they speculate that it would be impossible to allow doghouses without changing the law.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    Yup. In NYC these things are handled by license (for cafes, restaurants) and consent (for rides), and both come with strict planning guidance to protect the right of way for pedestrians. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/resources/streets-and-sidewalks-laws/sidewalk-street-obstruction-laws https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/resources/streets-and-... The UK is almost identical except you need permission from the local council (for planning) and highways consent from national government. Either which way, I think it's pretty naïe of somebody to think they're not going to need permission of some sort to [semi-]permanently occupy a public highway.
    - parent5446 8y ago
      Did you read the article? She was working with the mayor's office, and even contacted the DOT to obtain licenses. They just refused and ordered them removed anyway, since the law literally doesn't allow for issuing of licenses for this type of product.
      - oliwarner 8y ago
        > She [...] even contacted the DOT to obtain licenses Retroactively, after she'd installed at (at least) 28 locations. I get that some people work like that (better to ask for forgiveness, etc) but that just doesn't fly in bureaucracies. File your applications, then do what you've permission to do. I do think they could have been a little more generous with scope to try and find a path through (granted we're only hearing half of one side of this) but I could see how this would need a better thought out process, given that this sits somewhere between a life support pod and a toilet. City planning is tough. You have to have answers to tough questions, ahead of time. Questions like "what happens if the power goes out?" and "how do we clean around it?" and "what are the hazards of fluids leaking out of it?". Charging ahead without getting all parties on side is not a good way to get permission.
adynatos 8y ago
the government stifles new businesses, news at eleven.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  Government manages use and access to public resource (sidewalk right of ways).
ricw 8y ago
I don't get the USA's obsession with banning dogs from anywhere that serves food. In Europe, this is typically standard practise as long as the dog is well behaved. It's not as if food safety is more of an issue anywhere in Europe than in the USA in recent times. Something similar seems to also be the case when it comes to babies. Just let the dogs in if they're well behaved. No big deal...
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Agreed. It would also be nice you could take your dog on a train.
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  Plenty of places allow dogs here in the US, unfortunately. Dogs are not guaranteed to be well-behaved, some are dangerous, they're dirty, and plenty of people are scared of them or are allergic. They're in far too many places as it is.
  - guitarbill 8y ago
    I think it also depends where you are. Seattle is way worse for people bringing dogs than Germany or UK, and way more people have emotional support animals, whatever the fuck that is. I'm allergic, it's a huge pain. Just leave your pet at home.
- adventured 8y ago
  It's a subjective cultural preference. In the same vein, why should foreigners obsess so much about what America likes or doesn't like? The world is very diverse on such things, there is no right or wrong. It's only no big deal to you, due to a subjective preference. I find it disgusting to allow most dogs into restaurants (with an exception for well-behaved service dogs only), that's my subjective preference.
ilozinski 8y ago
What happens if the machine loses power on a hot summer day? Seems like either the dog would be incinerated or the door unlocks in a failure mode. Either scenario sounds like a nightmare.
- steve19 8y ago
  Battery backup, alert owner, failsafe door unlock as last resort.
yellowapple 8y ago
Seems like the logical response short of waiting for the laws to change or expanding elsewhere would be to partner up with businesses themselves to get them onto private property. The doghouse company and property owner could split the income, and the property owner could market it as a reason to do business there.
brandonmenc 8y ago
Yet another dog owner who thinks they can monopolize public space so that the rest of us are forced to accommodate their "furbaby."
DonHopkins 8y ago
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker had a heated and air conditioned dog house in 1980's, paid for by their followers' generous donations to the "PTL Club". (PTL = "Pass The Loot", not "Praise The Lord"!) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/05/22/the-good-life-at-ptl-a-litany-of-excess/b694ac2f-516c-42ad-ba52-9998763670b0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/05/22/t... >At the same time, the Bakkers were reveling in an extravagant, go-go life style more akin to "Dynasty" than Christian ministry. Tammy wore mink. Jim drove luxury cars. They cruised about in one of three black Cadillac limousines, bought a houseboat, a vintage $62,000 Rolls, a Corvette, an $800 Gucci handbag and vacationed in $350-a-night hotel suites in Hawaii. They built a heated and air-conditioned dog house for Tammy's pooches. For a 1981 Christmas bash for PTL executives at a Charlotte restaurant, Cafe Eugene, $9,000 worth of truffles was flown in from Brussels. All of this was paid for by charitable contributions, say officials with access to the files. Yes, the same Jim Bakker who recently said "God Personally Told Me He Sent Donald Trump to Delay the End Times": http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/06/27/jim-bakker-god-personally-told-me-he-sent-donald-trump-to-delay-the-end-times http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/06/27/jim-bakker-god...
GhostVII 8y ago
I mean it seems reasonable that the city wouldn't allow you to put anything you want on public property, especially if that thing is generating you revenue. I'm glad the city steps in and prevents people from doing things like this without permission.
clanreborn 8y ago
I love skateboarding over them on the KiKi song.
blackbrokkoli 8y ago
Completely ignoring the content: God, the saturation of framing! Every sentence spiked with adjectives (either overwhelmingly positive for the owner or negative for the city), big friendly picture of the owner, name of her dog gets mentioned, tirade of irrelevant positive details about the owner...honestly just reads like WWII propaganda. At least be a little more subtle about your message!

68 points by a_w 8y ago

Things currently occupying space on Manhattan sidewalks: 1. Garbage and recycling bags on trash day 2. Restaurant and bar advertising signs 3. LinkNYC WiFi towers 4. Restaurant and grocery store food deliveries, which are literal pallets of food just left out on the sidewalk for long periods of time in the morning. 5. Bikes 6. Outdoor restaurant seating I’ve seen one of these little doghouse things and they seem useful enough for the few square feet they occupy. At least as useful as any of the above given the number of dogs in the city.

coherentpony 8y ago
The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. Furthermore, after receiving two cease-and-desist letters, the owner of the company ignored them and continued to expand the company. The article phrases it as 'being unfazed by the letters'. One could also phrase it as willful neglect.
- booleandilemma 8y ago
  Sounds like they were taking a page out of Uber’s book.
- ryanworl 8y ago
  The city can just go remove them if they want to, but this illustrates one of my primary complaints with local government here: The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. She developed this project with help from the government, albeit a different department. Instead of that being enough to continue, she gets threats. I hope she continues to ignore them, and her expansion goes well elsewhere. They’ll come around once she can prove they drive more business (read: taxes) to the area.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    This is not how any of that works. It's one thing to be a startup and get some seed money from the government supportive of small businesses. It's another thing to just claim public space as your own, without any permits. Restaurants need permits to put sidewalk seating and tables; they can't just privatize the space in front of their property, because it's not theirs. Just because the government helped pay to develop drones doesn't mean you can use them anywhere, at any time, on public property without any restriction. The same goes for these doghouses.
    - ryanworl 8y ago
      Where did the city development group she worked with want her to put them? Outer space? It is trivial to see they wanted them installed in Manhattan in the sidewalk. The fact that there is no method of permitting at all is the problem.
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        That should've been figured out first. It's not as if the city is opposed to changing the regulations. She just didn't bother getting it sorted out before she actually did anything. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
      - manicdee 8y ago
        There is a method of permitting them, it's just that the business did not pursue the hoop-jumping and form-filling paper trail because occupying public space in the pursuit of profit was more important than complying to local regulations.
        makomk 8y ago
        If you read the article, there is no method of permitting them because the city didn't forsee their existence. There's literally no form she could fill in or hoop she could jump through that would make it possible to install them. They're not one of the uses of sidewalk space that New York City is familiar with, so she's screwed. (Naturally, they didn't tell her this until after a whole bunch had been installed.)
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  After getting caught flatfooted by Uber, I think cities have wised up and now come down hard on startups whose game plan is “break the law and ignore cease-and-desist letters, but move so fast that you can’t be pushed out“. Future entrepreneurs with this strategy in mind should not expect to get away with it just because Uber did.
- Buge 8y ago
  She got cease-and-desists from New York City. She's expanding outside of New York City. So the expansion is not in violation of the cease-and-desists.
- tacostakohashi 8y ago
  The doghouses aren't illegal - you can have as many as you want on your own private property. Expropriating public space is illegal, unsurprisingly.
- gumby 8y ago
  > The fact remains, at least as far as I understand from the article, that without a change in law the doghouses are illegal. It's not the doghouses per se that are illegal, it's arbitrarily using the public's right of way that's illegal. What if people put sidewalk-blocking tents in front of their houses in summer (it'd be a good idea to give your kids a bigger, and cooler, place to play in the summer heat.) That also wouldn't be allowed, but it would be perfectly fine in your back yard (assuming you have one).
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Reminds me of the one interesting job creating 'loophole' that is a weird sort of working exactly as intended. You might notice sign waver/wearer jobs at public intersections depending on your area. The person is allowed to be there with right of way but just leaving the signs behind would not be allowed. While it is technically a loss of labor to have someone waving the signs (even considering the attention getting) having someone carrying the signs actively ensures that it won't lead to any cluttering and imposes the cost of their salary for the public space they are occupying.
    - mrep 8y ago
      God I wish seattle actually enforced that because I see stupid signs blocking the sidewalks everywhere.
bunderbunder 8y ago
This feels tricky to me. Sidewalks are public right-of-way, and an important piece of transportation infrastructure, and there is a civic interest in ensuring that they can, first and foremost, be used for that purpose. In a city as dense as NYC, that is naturally going to lead to rules limiting what can use the space, and then those rules are naturally going to be given exceptions for things like sandwichboards and sidewalk cafes and newspaper stands, because everyone wants to have those things, too. But that's going to be done by creating specific exceptions, which may require a permit, in the interest of not throwing it to the wolves all over again. Which means, in turn, that there are always going to be uses that at least some people like, which don't fit cleanly into any of the official categories of exemption. I don't think there's any perfect answer here. Lean too far in one direction, and you get news articles like this complaining about entrepreneurship being obstructed. Lean too far in the other, and you've got people who use wheelchairs being unable to easily navigate their neighborhoods.
- lgregg 8y ago
  There is a reason why the city licenses exist though. In Chicago, if I recall sandwich boards can cost up to $30k per year. I'm not saying this dog house needs that license but perhaps there should be a fee if you want to put something in front of your store that blocks the sidewalk to pay for the additional inspections needed. NYC also fines for things out of code on the sidewalk. https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/sidewalk-usage-guide https://www1.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/article/sidewalk-usage-guid...
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    I don't see a specific line item for sandwich boards on the publicly posted fee schedule[1]. But $30,000/year is a good 2 orders of mangnitude more than anything else on that list. [1]: https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/businesslicenseforms/pwu/PWU_Fee_Structure-v.02.24.2014.pdf https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bacp/bu... edit: Looks like they're just straight-up illegal. Some aldermen (including one who's pretty good at getting things done) are working on that: https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/06/28/a-frame-sandwich-board-signs-are-illegal-in-chicago-they-shouldnt-be-aldermen-say/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2018/06/28/a-frame-sandwich-boa...
dominotw 8y ago
I would say around 20% of sidewalks in chicago are not handicap accessible. Tons of sidewalks are built without on ramps. Poorer areas are way worse than others. Its shocking to see this is pass. I am planning to take pictures and report to the city, but i have no hope anyone would care.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Just hire disabled people and find their lawsuits in exchange for a cut. That’s already a thing in many places.
m-p-3 8y ago
One nice thing I've seen in my city were free curbside self-serve libraries. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/little-library-hintonburg-complaint-1.3753290 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/little-library-hintonb... Of course, they were taken down..

zaroth 8y ago

The state calls them “vending amenities” which sounds perfectly apt to me. The city is defining a new category they call a “dog harbor”. The business model is unproven. I think the US is the wrong place to start this. People are too nervous about leaving their pets, but it seems unfounded.

jimmaswell 8y ago
there are dog kidnappers, unleashed aggressive dogs, lots of reasons not to leave your pet unattended.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Sorry, that is to say, “people are too nervous about leaving their pets in the dog house.....” I didn’t mean pets should be left unattended. Personally I think it’s a great idea if they are clean, safe, and dogs like them. This opens up options for people with dogs. Regulating as a vending amenity makes perfect sense. The city is being daft if they had that category available and decided it couldn’t apply.

CJefferson 8y ago

I feel the title is willfully insulting to the city. How about "She had a genius idea: Putting private doghouses in the middle of public property as handy tripping hazzards for the blind, which couldn't even be used without paying. Then the city showed up"

Eridrus 8y ago
As other commenters, and the article itself, have pointed out, there's already plenty of stuff on sidewalks. The fact that this even needs a new law to be passed points out how ridiculous regulation is. There should be a law that talks about who has de-facto right to approve/object to it (probably business/residence which it is in front of), some law on the minimal amount of side-walk space that should be left, etc, and not have to re-license every single thing people might want to put there. You can always pass laws to exceptions that people don't like, rather than having a policy of default-deny.
- close04 8y ago
  Your argument doesn't really make sense: regulation is bad because it regulates some stuff... but since some stuff is regulated then we should be able to do some different stuff? Things are on that sidewalk because they were "analysed" and accepted, they are regulated. They are sidewalk-legal things. Just like on the road there are road-legal cars and what you're saying is that illegal cars should also be allowed because they're cars and we already have plenty. So regulation is bad because you're not allowed to do illegal things that are sorta' like legal ones but not really. Regulation can't cover everything perfectly from the get go because it would imply that the people making it can know with perfect accuracy every single issue that might come up in the future. So you make it more restrictive and then adjust case by case. The genius idea can be covered by a permit unless there's a real blocker somewhere. If you're in IT you'll understand this example: try writing a RegEx that matches all those words and only those words (strings?) that I will be using in my comments over the next 2 days.[*]
  - close04 8y ago
    [*] Sesquipedalian

gumby 8y ago

Be fair -- the city isn't complaining that there's a problem with these doghouses, just that you can't colonize public space. It's unclear from my skim if it would be OK if the usage were free -- I hope that's not that case!

parent5446 8y ago
The problem, though is that there are allowances for many other uses of the public sidewalk (for example, a restaurant having outdoor seating, or a store having coin-operated kids rides). It's just that there's no specific process for this product, and they speculate that it would be impossible to allow doghouses without changing the law.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  Yup. In NYC these things are handled by license (for cafes, restaurants) and consent (for rides), and both come with strict planning guidance to protect the right of way for pedestrians. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/resources/streets-and-sidewalks-laws/sidewalk-street-obstruction-laws https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/resources/streets-and-... The UK is almost identical except you need permission from the local council (for planning) and highways consent from national government. Either which way, I think it's pretty naïe of somebody to think they're not going to need permission of some sort to [semi-]permanently occupy a public highway.
  - parent5446 8y ago
    Did you read the article? She was working with the mayor's office, and even contacted the DOT to obtain licenses. They just refused and ordered them removed anyway, since the law literally doesn't allow for issuing of licenses for this type of product.
    - oliwarner 8y ago
      > She [...] even contacted the DOT to obtain licenses Retroactively, after she'd installed at (at least) 28 locations. I get that some people work like that (better to ask for forgiveness, etc) but that just doesn't fly in bureaucracies. File your applications, then do what you've permission to do. I do think they could have been a little more generous with scope to try and find a path through (granted we're only hearing half of one side of this) but I could see how this would need a better thought out process, given that this sits somewhere between a life support pod and a toilet. City planning is tough. You have to have answers to tough questions, ahead of time. Questions like "what happens if the power goes out?" and "how do we clean around it?" and "what are the hazards of fluids leaking out of it?". Charging ahead without getting all parties on side is not a good way to get permission.

adynatos 8y ago

the government stifles new businesses, news at eleven.

rtkwe 8y ago
Government manages use and access to public resource (sidewalk right of ways).

ricw 8y ago

I don't get the USA's obsession with banning dogs from anywhere that serves food. In Europe, this is typically standard practise as long as the dog is well behaved. It's not as if food safety is more of an issue anywhere in Europe than in the USA in recent times. Something similar seems to also be the case when it comes to babies. Just let the dogs in if they're well behaved. No big deal...

maxxxxx 8y ago
Agreed. It would also be nice you could take your dog on a train.
brandonmenc 8y ago
Plenty of places allow dogs here in the US, unfortunately. Dogs are not guaranteed to be well-behaved, some are dangerous, they're dirty, and plenty of people are scared of them or are allergic. They're in far too many places as it is.
- guitarbill 8y ago
  I think it also depends where you are. Seattle is way worse for people bringing dogs than Germany or UK, and way more people have emotional support animals, whatever the fuck that is. I'm allergic, it's a huge pain. Just leave your pet at home.
adventured 8y ago
It's a subjective cultural preference. In the same vein, why should foreigners obsess so much about what America likes or doesn't like? The world is very diverse on such things, there is no right or wrong. It's only no big deal to you, due to a subjective preference. I find it disgusting to allow most dogs into restaurants (with an exception for well-behaved service dogs only), that's my subjective preference.

ilozinski 8y ago

What happens if the machine loses power on a hot summer day? Seems like either the dog would be incinerated or the door unlocks in a failure mode. Either scenario sounds like a nightmare.

steve19 8y ago
Battery backup, alert owner, failsafe door unlock as last resort.

yellowapple 8y ago

Seems like the logical response short of waiting for the laws to change or expanding elsewhere would be to partner up with businesses themselves to get them onto private property. The doghouse company and property owner could split the income, and the property owner could market it as a reason to do business there.

brandonmenc 8y ago

Yet another dog owner who thinks they can monopolize public space so that the rest of us are forced to accommodate their "furbaby."

DonHopkins 8y ago

Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker had a heated and air conditioned dog house in 1980's, paid for by their followers' generous donations to the "PTL Club". (PTL = "Pass The Loot", not "Praise The Lord"!) https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/05/22/the-good-life-at-ptl-a-litany-of-excess/b694ac2f-516c-42ad-ba52-9998763670b0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/05/22/t... >At the same time, the Bakkers were reveling in an extravagant, go-go life style more akin to "Dynasty" than Christian ministry. Tammy wore mink. Jim drove luxury cars. They cruised about in one of three black Cadillac limousines, bought a houseboat, a vintage $62,000 Rolls, a Corvette, an $800 Gucci handbag and vacationed in $350-a-night hotel suites in Hawaii. They built a heated and air-conditioned dog house for Tammy's pooches. For a 1981 Christmas bash for PTL executives at a Charlotte restaurant, Cafe Eugene, $9,000 worth of truffles was flown in from Brussels. All of this was paid for by charitable contributions, say officials with access to the files. Yes, the same Jim Bakker who recently said "God Personally Told Me He Sent Donald Trump to Delay the End Times": http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/06/27/jim-bakker-god-personally-told-me-he-sent-donald-trump-to-delay-the-end-times http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/06/27/jim-bakker-god...

GhostVII 8y ago

I mean it seems reasonable that the city wouldn't allow you to put anything you want on public property, especially if that thing is generating you revenue. I'm glad the city steps in and prevents people from doing things like this without permission.

clanreborn 8y ago

I love skateboarding over them on the KiKi song.

blackbrokkoli 8y ago

Completely ignoring the content: God, the saturation of framing! Every sentence spiked with adjectives (either overwhelmingly positive for the owner or negative for the city), big friendly picture of the owner, name of her dog gets mentioned, tirade of irrelevant positive details about the owner...honestly just reads like WWII propaganda. At least be a little more subtle about your message!