Subject: Re: dead grass
From: Dom Shurba (shurbadom@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2007 - 22:46:58 CDT
Jim,
Maybe we can replace the section in front of the ped gate with stone. I
have seen stone areas at other buildings specifically for dogs. I know we
have a small stone area now, but maybe we could extend it slightly to the
south and use smaller stones. That way we have an area for dogs and there
is no grass killing. Just an idea.
Dom Shurba 612 - (Large dog owner who goes out the back door and doesn't go
in the alley or on the grass.)
>From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu>
>Reply-To: vanguard-talk@venus.soci.niu.edu
>To: vanguard-talk@venus.soci.niu.edu
>Subject: Re: dead grass
>Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:44:53 -0500 (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
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Picture this – share your photos and you could win big!
http://www.GETREALPhotoContest.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:39:24 CDT