NYC 311 Complaints — Manhattan
Manhattan Dog Waste Analysis
2026-05-14
Manhattan has a dog waste problem.
Here's how to fix it.
We analyzed 28 months of 311 complaints to find out where the problem is at its worst, why it keeps getting worse, and what the city can actually do about it.
Dog waste is a public health issue
Dog waste is a nuisance for pedestrians and a blight on our streets. It is also a public health issue. Research shows that dog waste can carry dangerous pathogens like Escherichia coli, Salmonella, roundworm (Toxocara canis), hookworm, and Giardia. These disease-causing organisms can survive in soil for months or even years. The risk of harm from contact with contaminated ground is greatest for young children and individuals with weakened immune systems. And when it rains, fecal matter can wash into storm drains and flow into the East and Hudson Rivers, which leads to contamination in local waterways.
It gets worse! Dog waste can also serve as a food source for rats. In fact, this report finds a correlation in 311 data between community districts with high rates of dog waste complaints and community districts with high rates of rat sighting complaints.
Manhattanites clearly feel this. Since 2022, the share of 311 activity made up by dog waste complaints has been rising gradually. This past winter was the worst season on record for dog waste complaints.
So we decided to find out what’s actually going on.
You can’t fix what you can’t measure. That’s why we collaborated with BetaNYC to pull every 311 complaint filed in Manhattan between January 2024 and April 2026, for a total of 1,704,389 complaints, and combined them with more limited records going back to January 2020 to build a longer historical view of the issue.
We then mapped out where the complaints cluster geographically, tracked how they rise and fall with the seasons, compared all 12 Manhattan community districts against each other, and layered in city infrastructure data like litter baskets, bag dispensers, dog runs, and Business Improvement Districts. We are now proud to present what is likely the most detailed block-level picture of Manhattan’s dog waste problem ever to be assembled in one place and shared with the public.
Want to see how your block shapes up?
The map below, constructed with help from BetaNYC, plots every dog waste service request filed with 311 in Manhattan since January 1, 2024. Complaints are grouped into clusters that expand as you zoom in. The three blocks with the most complaints in each Community District are highlighted with thick red lines. Additional layers show canine waste bag dispensers (green dots), dog runs (pink), and Community District boundaries. Litter baskets and privately-owned public spaces (POPs) — whose litter baskets are not part of the DSNY system — can be toggled on using the controls in the top right. BetaNYC’s original analysis can be viewed here.
What this data actually measures
When someone calls 311 to report dog waste, they already belong to a unique category with unique motivations. They must (a) notice the problem; (b) feel enough frustration or, in some cases, civic concern to act on it; (c) know about 311 and how to use it; (d) think a report will make some difference. Most people who see dog waste on the street do not report it to 311. Whether you are a dog waste 311 caller or not a dog waste 311 caller is shaped by all sorts of features of yourself and your familiarity with and trust in city services. These features may vary significantly by neighborhood, demographic, and more.
This naturally means that higher or lower volumes of complaints in one area may simply reflect a more or less 311-apt resident population. It may also reflect how much a resident population dislikes dog waste. The 311 dataset is still the best proxy we could find for where dog waste is a problem. But, importantly, it is, at its core, simply an account of reporting trends.
Many academics and researchers have examined whether 311 data is a good indicator of real-world conditions or only reflects reporting behavior. The answer seems to be some combination of the two. Answering that question for Manhattan dog waste specifically would necessitate independent measurement that was not within the scope of this study. However, the analysis conducted for this report identified patterns in the data that are consistent, geographically coherent, and corroborated by infrastructure and demographic factors that independently predict where complaints are likely to be higher. These are strong signals of real-world conditions, but any given neighborhood is likely to have dog waste rates that are more or less acute than what the 311 complaint counts alone could tell.
That said, where people are reporting is itself very informative. High complaint rates let us know that residents in that area are paying attention and are frustrated enough to act. This report uses 311 data to identify patterns and relative differences across neighborhoods and over time. It does not measure absolute prevalence.
Here’s what the data shows
Manhattanites filed 1,704,389 311 complaints between January 2024 and April 2026, of which 1,694 (0.10%) concerned dog waste. The complaints used in this study were filed under two specific descriptors, Dirty Condition / Dog Waste and Animal in a Park / Animal Waste. It is possible that some portion of complaints are categorized differently and, therefore, not counted here.
(0.10% of all 311)
(February 2026)
(Feb–Mar peak vs. Oct–Nov trough)
(0.24% of its 311 calls)
(est. 200 installed 2018)
Key findings
- There is a consistent seasonal pattern: Dog waste complaints reliably peak in February–March and trough in October–November. This seasonal cycle is present across all six years of data. In February 2026, there was an extraordinary spike of dog waste complaints, the highest-proportion dog waste complaint month in six years, roughly double that of February 2025. A single day that month set an all-time record for complaints filed.
- Not all parts of Manhattan are equal. In CD 12 (Washington Heights and Inwood), dog waste makes up about 0.24% of all its 311 activity, 17.3× higher than the best-performing district. This gap is statistically too large to be explained by the district’s overall complaint volume or just by chance. In fact, the top 10 blocks in CD 12 together represent roughly 22% of the borough’s total dog waste complaints. Generally, upper Manhattan districts performed worse than lower Manhattan ones.
- Litter baskets make a difference. Blocks with few or no public litter baskets have higher dog waste complaint rates. This makes some intuitive sense. When there is nowhere nearby to throw dog waste away, residents leave it on the street.
- Bag dispensers make a difference. In 2018, approximately 200 waste bag dispensers were installed in Manhattan. Of those, only 25 now appear in the NYC Parks dispenser dataset, which lists only currently active units. CD 3 is the only district with dispensers still standing. To assess their impact on dog waste complaint rates, we studied dispensers in the Bronx, where they are much more concentrated. That study showed a significant correlation between higher presence of dog waste bag dispensers and fewer dog waste complaints.
- Dog waste and rats go together. Our analysis showed that areas with higher rates of dog waste complaints also tend to have higher rates of rat complaints.
Context
How dog waste gets addressed — and the limits of each approach
There are several ways a city can try to reduce the amount of dog waste left on its streets. They vary considerably in how reliably they work.
New York City’s pooper scooper law has been on the books since 1978; dog owners who fail to remove their dog’s waste face a $250 fine. In practice, issuing a summons requires catching someone in the act. That is a high bar.
It would make sense that dog owners are more likely to comply when they know they are being watched. So enforcement can theoretically work in the moment. But it is extraordinarily difficult to scale. It is therefore not a reliable lever for reducing the overall problem.
Litter baskets and waste bag dispensers serve to provide a practical resource and also signal a social norm to passersby.
However, DSNY reports that it does not have sufficient funding or capacity to ensure dispensers are reliably stocked. The program is thus effectively inoperable outside just a few locations in Manhattan.
Visible infrastructure can also signal the social norm that “this is a place where people clean up”.
Education and messaging can help fix bad behaviors and should be timed for moments of elevated risk. For dog waste, that means getting messaging out before the winter spike and not after it. Government needs to anticipate problems, not just respond to them. Outreach also works best in combination with better infrastructure and more resources. The message to pick up dog waste would be better received when paired with somewhere to throw it out.
Supplemental street cleaning by DSNY crews, BID sanitation workers, community volunteers, building owners, and more helps remove waste that is already on the ground. This is, of course, treatment, and not prevention. It is also resource-intensive and must be repeated indefinitely. Of course, it is still an important piece of the puzzle. But the data in this report points toward infrastructure and outreach as having potentially greater returns on investment.
Top recommendations
- Target basket installation on the highest complaint, lowest coverage blocks.
- Expand the waste bag dispenser program into uptown Manhattan.
- Front-load outreach and community education in November or December, before the late-winter peak.
- Report what you see. If you encounter dog waste on your block, call 311. Every report gets us a little closer to a true picture of where dog waste is worst, and where the City should be allocating resources.
The Analysis
Trends over time
There are clear seasonal patterns in monthly dog waste complaint volumes between January 2024 and April 2026. The first chart below shows the raw monthly counts. The second shows the monthly counts as a share of all Manhattan 311 activity, with a smoothed trend line which uses a method called LOESS (locally weighted regression). It essentially fits a flexible curve through the data to show the direction of the trend and filters out any unhelpful noise.
Historical seasonal trend (Jan 2020 – present)
The charts above run from January 2024 through April 2026. To understand that period in its longer context, we extended the data back to January 2020. This helps us see the longer historical trends by season and overall. In this case, it is clear reports rise and fall with the seasons, but have been gradually rising over time.
February 2026 has, by far, the highest-proportion of dog waste complaints in six years. The COVID-19 period (shaded) shows reduced overall 311 activity, though dog waste complaints are proportionally less reduced. We can also see a gradual increase in dog waste complaint proportions since mid-2022.
February 2026 is clearly a significant outlier in the data. That month saw approximately double the amount of complaints seen in February 2025. One day in particular in that month had the highest volume of complaints in the entire dataset.
Notably, in February 2026, New York City experienced several extreme weather events. It is worth studying whether complaint surges in colder months are partly explained by increased snowfall. The snow covers waste initially, and reveals it after thawing. Residents may also feel less motivation to clean up after their dogs when streets are covered in snow and other sorts of trash and debris that tend to accumulate with prolonged extreme weather. A future study could examine whether the spikes tend to cluster in areas with less consistent snow removal or, perhaps, at street corners where the snow piles.
February 2026 was the worst month on record, roughly double the same month in 2025. One day in February 2026 set the all-time single-day record for dog waste complaints in Manhattan. The 2025–26 winter tracked above every prior year in nearly every month from December onward.
Key finding: Complaints are clearly seasonal and peak in late winter and early spring (February–March). February 2026 was a significant outlier, perhaps driven by snow accumulation.
Schedule community outreach and basket servicing to ramp up in November or December, before the late-winter spike. Monitor whether and why dog waste complaints are growing relative to other 311 activity, and distribute resources accordingly.
Community district analysis
The chart below compares dog waste complaint activity across Manhattan’s 12 community districts. The datapoints it tracks represent dog waste complaints as a proportion of a given district’s total 311 complaints rather than the raw dog waste complaint count. This helps control for general disparities in 311 activity overall between districts. Without this control, a district with more total complaints would appear to have more dog waste complaints even though residents may not be proportionally more concerned about dog waste.
The connected dot chart below orients the 12 community boards from south to north, to help visualize the trend of rising proportional dog waste complaints as you move northward.
The table below shows the dog waste complaint totals for each community district, the total 311 complaints for each district, and the proportion of dog waste complaints to overall complaints used to assign a grade letter.
| Community Board | Total Complaints | Dog Waste Complaints | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 80,045 | 36 | A |
| 2 | 114,695 | 35 | A+ |
| 3 | 147,357 | 81 | A |
| 4 | 130,660 | 86 | B |
| 5 | 134,765 | 19 | A+ |
| 6 | 90,199 | 54 | B |
| 7 | 155,691 | 129 | C |
| 8 | 113,665 | 113 | C |
| 9 | 131,903 | 97 | B |
| 10 | 193,220 | 209 | C |
| 11 | 116,335 | 144 | C |
| 12 | 256,141 | 626 | D |
Regression-based anomaly detection
In addition to testing community districts against each other, we wanted to see whether individual community districts generate statistically significant amounts of dog waste complaints relative to their overall complaints. To do this, we used a linear regression, drawing a line through the data to represent what we’d expect a district’s dog waste complaint total to be, given its full 311 complaint volume, if it behaved typically. If a district’s dog waste complaint volume is above the line, it generates more dog waste complaints than its overall 311 activity would typically predict.
| Community Board | Total Complaints | Dog Waste (actual) | Dog Waste (expected) | Residual | vs. Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 256,141 | 626 | 490 | 136 | Above |
| 1 | 80,045 | 36 | -41 | 77 | Above |
| 11 | 116,335 | 144 | 68 | 76 | Above |
| 6 | 90,199 | 54 | -11 | 65 | Above |
| 8 | 113,665 | 113 | 60 | 53 | Above |
| 9 | 131,903 | 97 | 115 | -18 | Below |
| 4 | 130,660 | 86 | 111 | -25 | Below |
| 2 | 114,695 | 35 | 63 | -28 | Below |
| 7 | 155,691 | 129 | 187 | -58 | Below |
| 3 | 147,357 | 81 | 162 | -81 | Below |
| 10 | 193,220 | 209 | 300 | -91 | Below |
| 5 | 134,765 | 19 | 124 | -105 | Below |
We also added a 95% confidence interval band to account for the range of outcomes we may expect given normal variation. Districts that fall outside the bands are statistically significant outliers and cannot be explained simply by normal variation, or, in simple terms, by chance. CDs 11 and 12 are just above the upper band. CDs 3 and 5 are below the lower band. The remaining districts are within an expected range with normal variation.
Dog waste index: CD-level proportion vs. city-wide baseline
More data always means better analysis. So, to add some statistical strength to our dog waste proportion baseline, we gathered the dog waste complaint proportion citywide. If a district has an index above 1.0, it has a higher share of dog waste complaints than the city-wide average.
Index = (CD dog waste proportion) ÷ (city-wide dog waste proportion)
| Community Board | CB Proportion | City-wide Proportion | Index |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.04% | 0.09% | 0.48 |
| 2 | 0.03% | 0.09% | 0.32 |
| 3 | 0.05% | 0.09% | 0.58 |
| 4 | 0.07% | 0.09% | 0.70 |
| 5 | 0.01% | 0.09% | 0.15 |
| 6 | 0.06% | 0.09% | 0.64 |
| 7 | 0.08% | 0.09% | 0.88 |
| 8 | 0.10% | 0.09% | 1.06 |
| 9 | 0.07% | 0.09% | 0.78 |
| 10 | 0.11% | 0.09% | 1.15 |
| 11 | 0.12% | 0.09% | 1.31 |
| 12 | 0.24% | 0.09% | 2.60 |
Block-level hotspot analysis
The analysis so far uses each community district as one unit. But there is also variation within the community districts.
A few specific locations across the borough account for a disproportionate share of Manhattan’s dog waste complaints. 884 Riverside Drive in CD 12 takes the cake, generating 160 complaints between January 2024 and April 2026. Several other CD 12 addresses are similarly high generating. In fact, the top 10 blocks in CD 12 account for roughly 22% of Manhattan’s total dog waste complaints. There are also notable hotspot blocks in CDs 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11. These smaller units are more likely to represent anomalous reporting behaviors rather than true dog waste prevalence. But we believe they can still be a useful, while incomplete, guide to help target interventions.
Key finding: CD 12 earns a D on the letter grade scale for a significant dog waste complaint proportion. CDs 1, 2, 3, and 5 get an A.
Target interventions at C- and D-grade districts first.
Infrastructure analysis: litter baskets
There are two obvious kinds of infrastructure that a resident may rely on in picking up after their dogs: public litter baskets and waste bag dispensers. Our analysis found that both are lacking in the neighborhoods that rank the highest in our dog waste complaint report card.
Basket density vs. dog waste proportion
The two maps below are overlaid with a grid. Each grid cell is an individual data point used to test the relationship between litter basket density and dog waste complaint proportions. The maps show the number of DSNY litter baskets in a given area (left) and the dog waste complaint proportion in a given area (right). Cells in the low-basket-density quartile (that is to say, they have fewer than typical litter baskets) are outlined in blue so you can visually compare the two layers.
| Basket density tier | Grid cells | Total complaints | Dog waste complaints | Dog waste % | Index vs. Manhattan avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No baskets | 107 | 34,264 | 65 | 0.19% | 1.94 |
| Low density (bottom quartile) | 153 | 273,335 | 555 | 0.20% | 2.08 |
| Medium / high density | 428 | 1,375,033 | 1,025 | 0.07% | 0.76 |
An index of 1.0 represents the Manhattan-wide average of dog waste complaint proportions. A grid cell scoring above 1.0 has a higher than average proportion. A grid cell scoring below 1.0 has lower than average proportion. In this analysis, the low-density threshold represents the bottom quartile of basket density across all grid cells that contain any baskets at all. In practice, this quartile includes cells with 8 or fewer baskets.
To test whether the difference between low-coverage and well-served areas is statistically significant, we conducted a one-sided permutation test. We collapsed the “No baskets” and “Low density” cells into a single low-coverage group and compared them against the “Medium / high density” cells. We then compared the observed difference in dog waste proportions against 10,000 permutations of the group labels. The share of permutations that produced a difference at least as large as observed becomes the one-sided p-value.
The observed dog waste proportion in low-coverage cells is 0.20% vs. 0.07% in medium/high-density cells. This is a difference of 0.13% percentage points. The one-sided permutation p-value is < 0.01 (10^{4} permutations).
Sensitivity check: excluding park-adjacent cells
We suspected that the basket inventory might under-record baskets inside parks (there were only 357 “Parks Basket” entries for all of Manhattan). Cells that are inside or border a park may thus appear as “low basket density” simply because park baskets are missing from the data and not because the street network is truly underserved. To account for the potential impact of that missing data on our analysis, we conducted the same study excluding those cells.
Park boundaries come from the NYC Parks Properties dataset. The following typecategory values are counted as parks: Flagship Park, Community Park, Neighborhood Park, Nature Area, Historic House Park, Recreational Field/Courts, and Parkway. These categories together cover Central Park, Riverside Park, Fort Tryon Park, Morningside Park, Marcus Garvey Park, and other parks of significant size; small triangles, plazas, community gardens, and playgrounds are not included in these categories so are not excluded in this second analysis. Each grid cell whose center sits inside a park polygon was excluded.
| Basket density tier | Grid cells | Total complaints | Dog waste complaints | Dog waste % | Index vs. Manhattan avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No baskets | 72 | 27,070 | 61 | 0.23% | 2.31 |
| Low density (bottom quartile) | 119 | 244,478 | 518 | 0.21% | 2.17 |
| Medium / high density | 413 | 1,338,543 | 1,001 | 0.07% | 0.77 |
The observed dog waste proportion in low-coverage cells (parks excluded) is 0.21% vs. 0.07% in medium/high-density cells. This is a difference of 0.14% percentage points. The one-sided permutation p-value is < 0.01 (10^{4} permutations).
Key finding: Low litter-basket coverage is statistically associated with meaningfully higher dog waste complaint rates.
Prioritize installing more litter baskets and servicing those baskets in the low-coverage grid cells that also rank high on dog waste complaint proportion. A small number of targeted additions could have a disproportionate effect on complaint volume.
Infrastructure analysis: bag dispensers
In 2018, the NYC Parks Department announced the installation of around 1,000 canine waste bag dispensers across the city to mark the 40th anniversary of the city’s Pooper Scooper law. These dispensers provide free waste bags to passersby and give residents an easy way to pick up after their dogs. The NYC Parks dispenser dataset, which lists only currently active units, clearly shows that the 1,000 initial dispensers have declined significantly in the years since.
New Yorkers shouldn’t have to wait for another anniversary to get more bag dispensers! So we decided to find evidence that the program works.
| Borough | ~Installed 2018 | Active today | Retained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bronx | 200 | 192 | 96% |
| Manhattan | 200 | 25 | 12% |
| Brooklyn | 250 | 2 | 1% |
| Queens | 150 | 7 | 5% |
| Staten Island | 150 | 17 | 11% |
The Bronx has maintained almost its entire network since 2018, while every other borough has lost the vast majority of its units. The cause of this divergence is not documented in any public dataset; it likely reflects differences in park maintenance budgets, restocking contracts, or, possibly, vandalism rates across boroughs.
Within Manhattan, the little dispenser coverage that still exists is concentrated in Community District 3 (Lower East Side / Chinatown).
Bronx: dispenser density and complaint rates
Because the dispenser attrition rate makes inter-Manhattan or cross-borough comparison unreliable, we confined our analysis to the Bronx, the only borough where there is enough variation in dispenser coverage across community districts to reasonably test whether dispensers are associated with lower complaint rates.
To test the relationship between dog waste bag dispensers and complaint rates, we used a Spearman correlation, which is a measure of how strongly two things move together, on a scale from −1 (perfectly opposite) to +1 (perfectly aligned). The Spearman correlation between active dispenser count and dog waste complaint proportion across Bronx community districts is ρ = -0.59 (p < 0.05, n = 12 CDs).
NB: It is likely that the dispensers were originally placed in areas with already higher existing dog waste. So the correlation here likely understates the true protective effect. Higher-complaint CDs may have received more dispensers precisely because of their complaint history. To demonstrate a causal effect on dog waste complaints, we would need to design some sort of before/after test, which would require installation date records. Unfortunately, these are not included in the public dataset.
Key finding: Manhattan’s dispenser network is extremely sparse and nowhere near the originally intended program. Data analysis on the program in the Bronx suggests that more dispensers are correlated with fewer dog waste complaints.
Work with Parks and DSNY to install more dispensers in uptown Manhattan, where coverage is effectively absent, despite it generating the most dog waste complaints.
DSNY has reported that it lacks the capacity to keep dispensers reliably stocked. The City can address this directly by giving DSNY the full budget it needs to maintain the program. It can also be creative by deputizing local BIDs, community boards, or pet supply retailers to ‘adopt’ individual dispensers and restock them, akin to the ‘Adopt a Highway’ program. There could even be a simple QR code attached to each dispenser for passersby to report empties.
Dog waste × rat co-occurrence
Community district level
In the graph below, each dot represents one of Manhattan’s 12 community districts. The horizontal axis is each district’s dog waste complaint proportion; the vertical axis is its rat sighting proportion.
To test the relationship between dog waste complaint proportion and rat sighting proportion, we used a Pearson correlation, which measures the strength of a linear relationship between two variables, on a scale from −1 to +1. If a district has a value of +1, there is a perfect match between the two variables. A value of 0 means no relationship at all. And a negative value indicates a negative relationship between the variables — that is to say, the more rats, the fewer dog waste complaints! The Pearson correlation between the two proportions across Manhattan is r = 0.29 (p = 0.364, n = 12 districts). An r of 0.29 shows a weak positive relationship. This means that community districts with a higher share of dog waste complaints tend to also have a higher share of rat complaints. However, this result was too weak to be considered statistically significant. (The conventional threshold for significance is a p value below .05 points.) So we looked at the data again and noted that CD 12 may be such an outlier in dog waste complaints that it skews the data.
Sensitivity check — excluding CD 12. Community District 12 (Washington Heights / Inwood) is an extreme outlier on the dog waste axis, and could pull the borough-wide correlation in its direction. We removed it and re-ran the same test. This produces r = 0.73 (p = 0.011, n = 11). The correlation between dog waste complaint proportion and rat sighting proportion is much stronger after excluding CD 12. Still, with only 11 or 12 data points, it is difficult to come to any firm conclusion.
Neighborhood level
Manhattan has 32 residential Neighborhood Tabulation Areas (NTAs). These are geographic units sized between community districts and individual blocks. Using them to conduct the analysis instead of community districts offers more statistical power to detect a real pattern.
The Pearson correlation at the neighborhood level is r = 0.23 (p = 0.209, n = 32 NTAs).
An r of 0.23 indicates a weak positive association between neighborhoods with higher dog waste complaint proportions and those with higher rat sighting proportions relative to their total 311 complaint activity. However, because the p-value of p = 0.209 is above .05, the result does not pass the conventional significance threshold.
Sensitivity check — excluding Washington Heights (South). This NTA (the representative equivalent of CD 12) is an extreme outlier on the dog waste axis. Removing it, as we did in the CD analysis with CD 12, produces a result of r = 0.59 (p < 0.001, n = 31). In this case, excluding the outlier strengthened the correlation to 0.59, well above the conventional standard for statistical significance. However, the impact of one data point on the set at large is a useful reminder that with such a small number of geographic units, any unusual neighborhood can meaningfully shift the correlation.
Of course, as every academic would be quick to point out, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Dog waste might provide a food source for rats and attract them to certain areas over others, which could explain part of this pattern. But both types of complaints also are typically more concentrated in denser residential areas. So some or all of the correlation could simply reflect that shared underlying factor.
Geographic distribution
The two maps below show the Neighborhood Tabulation Areas on a map of the borough. Each NTA polygon is shaded on a spectrum of light to dark, corresponding with low to high proportions of complaints, respectively.
Key finding: Dog waste and rat complaints co-occur across neighborhoods at a statistically significant rate: community districts and NTAs with higher dog waste proportions tend to also have higher rat sighting proportions.
Consider higher-dog-waste areas as higher-rat-risk areas and coordinate their interventions accordingly. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which leads rat mitigation in New York City, could designate rat mitigation zones in areas with higher dog waste proportions as identified in this analysis. The City could also consider conducting dual-issue community messaging in parts of the borough that rank high on both complaint types. Trash containerization, which DSNY has been expanding citywide, is already showing good results on rat complaints. Reducing dog waste could help build on that success!
Thanks for reading.
Everything you wanted to know about dog waste but were afraid to ask.