Dogs in Green-Wood; St. Tupper

We are ok with dogs in Green-Wood Cemetery so long as they're made of stone or copper. But it seems that some higher-up decided to abuse his position by having Green-Wood host a dog-walk for autism. Forget about dog owners--we know what to expect from them. But the administration of a historic, 100-year-old (plus) cemetery that is a landmark to boot? What could possibly cross their minds to get them to permit the desecration of burial grounds by probably hundreds of barking, urinating, defecating dogs, who--if they are permitted to, and with the 20-foot flexi-leashes they'll be on, they'll surely get the opportunity--will happily urinate and defecate over the gravestones? We wonder what's next--maybe an archery contest, with targets set on tombstones, to support AIDS awareness? How about a rock concert in the chapel, complete with a mosh pit, to help lung cancer research?

* * *

It seems that Tupper Thomas is retiring next year, and this article in the Times sings her praises. But there's something missing. The article mentions "her fans", usually a prelude to something about "her detractors"--but not here. And look at this curious passage:

Walking past the Ravine, she noted that it had been the park’s pronounced color line, dividing white residents from Park Slope from black residents who lived to the south and east of the park. And though she said steps had been taken to ease the divide, a recent survey carried out by the park — and a simple look around — suggests that it persists.

"Steps had been taken to ease the divide." What steps? Did the reporter ask? And what is the problem with the "divide"? Is it that (1) the races are separate or (2) there are few white people on the south and east sides of the park? As we've said time after time, we suspect that the perception that there are, or were, too many black people in the park and not enough white people, and the justified belief that the introduction of unleashed dogs would reduce the number of black people, is a motivating force behind the DOPR's loose dog policy. This passage may be another data point in our proof.