Subject: Re: dead grass
From: Robin Raffel (raffs23@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Sun Jun 03 2007 - 11:32:51 CDT
i second this!!!
thelen8830@aol.com wrote: Jim, I think you have some valid points. However everyone jumps on the dogs no matter what. People who dont like animals no matter of size or type will not change their minds. Dogs were blamed for years for destroying the grass. But no one said a word when it was torn apart by workers for the building. Never mind the fact that when the sod was laid it looked like hills were underneath it. But again it was the dogs fault. I think we can find things in out lives that more important than were a dog takes a leak.Â
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Thomas
To: vanguard-talk@venus.soci.niu.edu
Sent: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 1:44 pm
Subject: Re: dead grass
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!
at, this isn't about dogs. It's about owners. We all know that nearly all
og 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.
he Board has the responsibility to try to balance the needs of all
wners, which isn't easy. Some people don't like dogs. Some love them.
ost are indifferent, as long as there are no problems with barking and
esses. The Board is trying to find compromises and balance. We have
liberal dog policy (no limit on number or size). This policy hasn't
een appreciated by some owners, especially those who want a no-dog,
r no large dog policy. Our compromise was to make one public area of
he building, the front elevator and lobby, a "dog-free" zone, and the
ear lobby/door the dog area. This way, people who are afraid of dogs,
ave allergies, or don't want dogs drooling on them, can avoid them if
hey chose. At the moment, it appears that everybody is currently
omplying with the no-dogs-in-front policy.
The second issue is dog mess. As recently as last night, I saw an owner
se the rear door loading area (outside) essentially as a litter box.
e brought the dog out, the dog urinated while the fellow waited smoking
cigarette, and then brought the dog back in. Sometimes accidents happen,
nd we have to find ways to clean up. But, this wasn't an accident. It
as just laziness: The back door area is simply not a litter box for dogs.
eople who unload their cars in back don't appreciate putting groceries
r other things in dog piss, and the smell becomes a problem. It's the
wners, not the dogs, who must assume responsibility.
A third issue is where dogs go when off-property. Although public
roperty, the boulevard area adjacent to the buildings is also Association
esponsibility. Our understanding from legal analysts is that the
ssociation bears the responsibility in keeping this area clean, and also
as the legal authority to levy fines for dog owners who abuse city
rdinances. One problem, of course, is that with more people moving into
he neighborhood, especially next door, we might have more outsiders using
ur area. From what I've observed so far, though, the people in the
ity News condos on the north tend to take their dogs toward the park and
on't seem to come down our way too often. The Board is exploring ways
o 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
pposite. It's an attempt to protect our liberal dog policy by making
ure that we all respect the rights by securing cooperation with ourselves
nd with our neighbors.
Jim / #501
oard sec'y
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:39:24 CDT