Subject: Re: dead grass
From: Jim Thomas (jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Date: Sat Jun 02 2007 - 13:44:53 CDT
> Dogs are always the problem when anything goes wrong. I guess its the
> dogs fault that all the air conditioning isnt working to, one of them
> must have got on the roof and pissed on the units making them not
> work. Get a life already!
Pat, this isn't about dogs. It's about owners. We all know that nearly all
dog owners are 100 pct responsible, even if dogs sometimes have
"accidents." All the owners need to do is clean up after them.
Ed's point was simply a reminder of one of the issues we all face.
The Board has the responsibility to try to balance the needs of all
owners, which isn't easy. Some people don't like dogs. Some love them.
Most are indifferent, as long as there are no problems with barking and
messes. The Board is trying to find compromises and balance. We have
a liberal dog policy (no limit on number or size). This policy hasn't
been appreciated by some owners, especially those who want a no-dog,
or no large dog policy. Our compromise was to make one public area of
the building, the front elevator and lobby, a "dog-free" zone, and the
rear lobby/door the dog area. This way, people who are afraid of dogs,
have allergies, or don't want dogs drooling on them, can avoid them if
they chose. At the moment, it appears that everybody is currently
complying with the no-dogs-in-front policy.
The second issue is dog mess. As recently as last night, I saw an owner
use the rear door loading area (outside) essentially as a litter box.
He brought the dog out, the dog urinated while the fellow waited smoking
a cigarette, and then brought the dog back in. Sometimes accidents happen,
and we have to find ways to clean up. But, this wasn't an accident. It
was just laziness: The back door area is simply not a litter box for dogs.
People who unload their cars in back don't appreciate putting groceries
or other things in dog piss, and the smell becomes a problem. It's the
owners, not the dogs, who must assume responsibility.
A third issue is where dogs go when off-property. Although public
property, the boulevard area adjacent to the buildings is also Association
responsibility. Our understanding from legal analysts is that the
Association bears the responsibility in keeping this area clean, and also
has the legal authority to levy fines for dog owners who abuse city
ordinances. One problem, of course, is that with more people moving into
the neighborhood, especially next door, we might have more outsiders using
our area. From what I've observed so far, though, the people in the
City News condos on the north tend to take their dogs toward the park and
don't seem to come down our way too often. The Board is exploring ways
to deal with this when more people move in next door at 1220.
Bottom line: Raising the dog issue isn't an attack on dogs. Quite the
opposite. It's an attempt to protect our liberal dog policy by making
sure that we all respect the rights by securing cooperation with ourselves
and with our neighbors.
Jim / #501
Board sec'y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:39:24 CDT