Dogs, Parks and Accountability

Dave Hill in the Guardian reports that the City of London is considering changing its policy on dogs in parks to create "a system of restrictions and licences to prevent dogs being exercised in groups of more than six and to ensure – savour this irony – that professional dog-walkers have been properly trained. If introduced, the system would apply across all the corporation's lands, from Epping Forest to Queens Park."

No doubt dog lovers and haters will have strong opinions on this, but the point that strikes me is about accountability.

The City of London, which has a literally medieval form of government, will be deciding the management of parks well away from where any of its own residents live. Whichever side of the debate you are on, the decision will be made by people who aren't known to you, and may never have set foot in the areas they are deciding about.

Now, I must admit that this system had an advantage for Queens Park in the past. Back when the (still) Tory Leader Bob Blackman was laying waste Brent Council services in order to minimise the Council Tax, Queens Park's status as a City of London enclave ensured it kept things like park wardens that he abolished eslewhere in Brent. I am sure that helped to maintain Queens Park as one of the nicest parks in Brent. It also helped local residents get the best of both worlds: a high quality local park with the bills being paid by someone else.

However, is it really good for people to have the true costs of services hidden in this way? Wouldn't it be more democratic for them to see both the cost and the benefit and make a measured judgement about which they want? And shouldn't the rules that govern the park be made by people accountable locally, not City of London politicians who are creating these rules largely with conditions on Hampstead Heath in mind?

In the past I have been told that Hampstead Heath requires particular skills and knowledge that Boroughs don't have. Maybe that is so, and maybe such a large park has a strategic importance that other parks don't have. If so, that sounds like an argument for the London Mayor to run it (as I think Ken Livingstone advocated).

But surely that kind of argument doesn't apply to Queens Park? Is it time for the City to decolonise?