« Julius Liebman Mansion Hits the Market Co-op of the Day: 22 8th Avenue Duplex »
February 26, 2009
Inside Third & Bond: Week 73

The blogging team from Hudson Companies today tackles the, um, hairy problem of crafting a dog policy for the condo. Above, a photo of the work site.
We’ve often found that once a condo project is complete, the units are occupied and the punch lists are performed, the first thing condo owners and board members argue about is….the condo’s dog policy. We’ve seen board members almost come to blows regarding whether dogs should be allowed to access the building’s rear yard. We’ve seen DNA tests performed to determine if a dog was really a Pit Bull. And we’ve seen doggie character references submitted from prior neighbors. Since we’re finalizing the offering plan for Third + Bond which codifies the house rules, we thought we should re-review our dog policy and see if we’ve learned anything from all these previous dogfights.
Should we prohibit certain breeds or are we just a bunch of canine stereotypers?
In prior offering plans, we’ve said the following: “Under no circumstances will ‘Pit Bulls’ be permitted in any portion of the Buildings...
A ‘Pit Bull’ is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying a majority of the physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club.” Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of living next to a Pit Bull. However, we’re always criticized for this provision. Why are we picking on Pit Bulls, what about Dobermans? My Pit Bull is wonderful, would you like to meet him? Pit Bulls are known for fighting other dogs, you should be prohibiting dogs that fight human beings, like German Shepherds. Helen Keller had a Pit Bull and so does Ira Glass! Usually at this point, we say, we just want to make sure your roof doesn’t leak, y’all decide which dogs you want to prohibit.
Should we control the number of dogs in a Unit?
In prior offering plans, we’ve limited the number of pets to 2. But 2 Chihuahuas take up a lot less space in the common areas than 2 sheep dogs. And we don’t want to discourage Mickey Rourke from buying at Third + Bond. And then we start thinking, why are we doing this? We’re in the business of selling condos, why are we limiting our buyer pool with these rules. We’re driving all those 3 and 4 dog affluent families to the competition.
Should we limit the size or weight of the dog?
One colleague suggested we limit dogs to those under 25 lbs, partly to eliminate the larger breeds that tend to be scarier to neighbors like Pit Bulls and Rottweilers without naming them. But aren’t Golden Retrievers heavier than 25 lbs? Another colleague suggested we require muzzles for all dogs over 25 lbs, at which point our colleague Alan said, “I would never put a muzzle on my Vizsla, are you kidding?”
Should we provide the condo board with the right to enforce good dog behavior?
For instance, in prior house rules, we’ve written: “The Board shall have the right to require muzzles on any dog in the Common Element that has exhibited aggressive behavior.” However, that can create a whole new assortment of issues, for instance, then having to monitor when the dog does or does not wear the muzzle.
Finally, we discussed, should the board through its managing agent approve of dogs on a case by case basis, as landlords often do with tenants? However, we decided that would place too much of a burden on the property manager to approve or disapprove dogs without strict criteria, and it’s awfully difficult to look a dog owner in the eye and say, best of luck somewhere else.
So where have we ended up? Limit of 2 dogs. No “Pit Bulls”. The Board has the right to require a muzzle. And when your pet passes away, you have to wear a photo of the dog on your necklace.
Inside Third & Bond: Weeks 1-72 [Brownstoner]
Cartoon from ASTC.org
From our lawyers: “This is not an offering. No offering can be made until an offering plan is filed with the Department of Law of the State of New York."
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8581
Comments
quote:
We’ve seen DNA tests performed to determine if a dog was really a Pit Bull.
no. you haven't.
*r*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 26, 2009 11:38 AM
quote:
Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of living next to a Pit Bull.
and oh yeah that's why that house on 1st street wont sell. ha. seriously, finish your condo project instead of blogging about evil pitbulls. you might actually finish it before the next millenium. grrr i hate this issue
*r*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 26, 2009 11:40 AM
Whenever I see someone with a Pit Bull i automatically think that he's gotta be making up for lacking somewhere else.
Your experience with rescue is a different story, rob.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 26, 2009 11:47 AM
Seriously, a lot of buildings put in a size constraint on dogs which is totally ridiculous. The larger breeds always seem more quiet and friendly than all those yappy little things.
You need to insitute a policy where if there are violations of rules concerning dogs and an occupant gets several notices of such, then they should be forced to get rid of the dog or be severely fined. Those things rarely work however because some people will complain because they have nothing better to do, like most New Yorkers.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 26, 2009 11:50 AM
i didn't rescue him from an abusive home, i rescued him from having to go to a pound because the owner couldnt take care of him. at the time i just wanted dog, as long as it wasnt a poodle or a lab, or worse a labradoodle, i was fine. oh funny story, me and my ex were looking at an apt one time and the owners who lived upstairs were showing it and this little girl walks in (their daughter) and was like can i show you my labradoodle!? we ran out. literally.
*r*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 26, 2009 11:51 AM
oh yeah i always see the cats and dogs fine but no dogs over 25 pounds. and yeah small dogs are actually the loudest because they generally will bark at anything (tho ill be honest my dog is a barker too) but my upstairs neighbors can't complain because they are extremely loud when they make love. for hours on end! (he really only barks tho if someone rings the bell) but there are squirrels that trot along the alley near our windows that like to tease him, he'll bark at the them. sorry to hijack this thread that wasn't my intention. but it's like this third and bond thread really cant be about the process itself, can it? it's been going on for 79 weeks. so each week is a different little mini topic?
*r*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 26, 2009 11:55 AM
Dog bigotry. It's not very nice! I've been chased by pitbulls more times than I care to remember, but I don't think that banning them is appropriate. Why not just create and **enforce** a rule that any pets, when in any common space, must be on a short leash?
I'd rather live next to a huge horse-like dog that woofs occasionally than one of those little palm sized bitches that yap for hours on end and for no reason at all. And, for what it's worth, my cat makes more noise than any large dog I've ever come across. (she NEVER shuts up)
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at February 26, 2009 12:04 PM
Yeah - the under 25 pound thing never made sense to me. I've got a tiny dog in the apt next door to mine and it's the loudest yappiest dog out there. I would much rather live next door to a 25+ lb lab or golden retriever. At the end of the day, why not just make sure that your demising walls are soundproof enough that neighbors won't hear eachother's noise (including dogs and Rob porn-star neighbros) and then this issue goes away...
Rob - this is what developing a project is like. It's hundreds of inter-related mini topics. Some are interesting, some are passable, some are tedious and boring. The point of this whoel "third & bond " thing is to show exactly that. It's not all sexy sales offices, granite countertops and million dollar prices...
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at February 26, 2009 12:15 PM
What about pigs? Seriously, there are a few in Brooklyn, it could come up. I own two; they are fantastic pets, they don't bark, they don't shed, they don't smell and they are smarter than dogs but they do have a stigma that makes a lot of people disgusted at the idea.
I only bring it up because I think you cannot start writing in these kinds of policies unless you wanted to run the full gamut of possibilities. As the original posting said, "we just want to make sure your roof doesn’t leak, y’all decide which dogs you want to prohibit".
Posted by: twc at February 26, 2009 12:24 PM
do you really have pigs? hahah that's cool. do they live inside with you?
*r*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 26, 2009 12:27 PM
Yes, pigs are very charming pets, I knew someone who had one. Very soft fur, quiet, zero odor, cute to look at and always made you smile. But of course I was only visiting so what do I know.
Posted by: infinitejester at February 26, 2009 12:33 PM
Don't know about pigs.... My sister once babysat for a pot bellied pig in Richmond for a weekend. She had never seen the pig before but thought it would be cute and somewhat small but it had been overfed for a while and was pretty big, really downright gigantic. She said it spent its time covering itself with leaves and lying in the back yard until nightfall. Then the pig decided that it would like a snack of the dog food at the house next door. It saw a little gap in the fence and pushed through towards the food and got stuck. Its 3 am cries woke the whole neighborhood. One, a farm boy, came over and said "Sounds lak a stuck pi-ig." My sister tried to unstuck the pig by hugging it and rubbing vaseline on its head and neck. I can't imagine getting that close to pig in distress because they are loud, loud, loud....
As far as dogs, I think the leashing is great, albeit hard to enforce. If I were you I'd seriously consider makingshared grassy or landscaped areas off limits because it's bound to be pretty destructive.
Posted by: Bessie at February 26, 2009 12:50 PM
Bessie, i love your story (and it's even funnier coming from a screenname called Bessie)
hahahahha
*r*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 26, 2009 12:56 PM
Bessie gets QOTD! That was awesome. I needed a good laugh. Thank you :)
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at February 26, 2009 12:59 PM
They do live inside with my wife and I. One is the size of a bulldog, the other is a bit smaller. That said they are chunky and weigh in at 80 and 60 pounds respectively. They are in perfectly good health, full inoculated and well trained. Both are affectionate, both are an absolute pleasure to have around and they always manage to put a smile on my face.
Posted by: twc at February 26, 2009 1:02 PM
Leashing is hard to enforce??????????????
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 26, 2009 1:03 PM
Yeah, the weight limit thing is silly. Everyone knows big dogs are easier to live near than small ones. Limiting the total number of pets to 2 or 3 is acceptable, but you have to count noses, not pounds. Limiting breeds is just inviting people to split hairs.
I don't know why this has to be a big deal. People should be allowed to have pets as long as they aren't a nuisance. If they are they should be dealt with in the same way as any other nuisance. Tenant needs to remedy it one way or another.
Banning animals from landscaped spaces is appropriate. Animals can't appreciate landscaping in the same way humans can. Their way of appreciating it interferes with ours.
Posted by: zgori at February 26, 2009 1:09 PM
I'm against dog racism... what if your dog is an AmStaff/pit mix? Would that be allowed? Granted, in the pool of "idiot dog-owners", it seems that many prefer pits, unfortunately. I agree that small yappy dogs are worse than big dogs, but I think owners should be fined much more for not cleaning their crap. Big dogs take (err, leave) big dumps.
Posted by: broadwayron at February 26, 2009 2:45 PM
"Helen Keller had a Pit Bull and so does Ira Glass!"
"Petey" - the dog from the "Our Gang"/"Little Rascals" comedy series, was a pit bull. I'm probably one of the few people posting here who's old enough to remember that series (Buckwheat, Alfalfa, Darla, Spanky, Butch and "Woim").
Posted by: East New York at February 26, 2009 2:52 PM
Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of living next to a Pit Bull.
Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of living next to the Gowanus Canal too!!!
Not to mention the several other things people are uncomfortable living next to also.
If someone is willing to buy in this location, in these economic circumstances, they'll deal with the Pits.
Posted by: Troy McClure at February 26, 2009 3:11 PM
Mr. Brownstoner,
You should ditch this post. These losers have nothing to talk about. They have been 73 weeks in this project with no progress. If it continues at this pace we will be reading 3 years from now "Week 229 ... this week lets talk about ... the birds from China ... and the tire landfills in Albany"
It's suprising how such a big company can move this project at all.
If something went wrong let the readers know so we can learn something of value.
Posted by: Ethan at February 26, 2009 3:31 PM
another thing. it's not like someone who raises pitbulls to fight is going to be moving into these expensive condos. ugh just remembered that famous rich guy who had a pitbull ring. im totally blanking on the name tho
*r*
Posted by: PitbullNYC at February 26, 2009 3:33 PM
Former Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick?
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at February 26, 2009 3:53 PM
http://www.vickdogchewtoy.com/
Posted by: East New York at February 26, 2009 4:31 PM
I wouldn't allow dogs in courtyard no matter what size. I'd even ban dog owners from courtyard with or without dog escort.
Posted by: Petebklyn at February 26, 2009 4:33 PM
Count me as one of those people uncomfortable living next to a Pit Bull. I don't even want to see one being walked down my street. I think they lower property values.
Posted by: pattunia at February 26, 2009 4:44 PM
Just a couple of thoughts about banning pit bulls, coming from a town where they were illegal and killed if found:
1. Even using the AKC breed standards makes pit bulls difficult to identify. Denver uses the AKC standards but continues to euthanize boxers, American bull dogs, mastiffs and other breeds that share similar physical characteristics to the pit bull. So, will 3rd and Bond have someone designated to determine whether a dog is a pit bull. Who will be the one to decide if the head is large enough? Or if the spread of the chest is wide enough? What will the appeals process be?
2. If you're going to use the AKC breed standards, you should also look at the temperament portion of them. It's unfair to take the portion that suits your needs and ignore the rest. For example:
"From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog."
I think most people would prefer to have that dog around, regardless of its breed.
3. There is another option that takes into concern issues over “dangerous” dogs: Rather than focus on breed, require dogs to pass a temperament test. That gets around issues f weight and breed by focusing just on the dog at hand.
The American Temperament Testing Society performs these tests and could be a useful resource for creating something innovative and proactive rather than maintaining the very problematic status quo. (And no, I don’t work for them.)
http://www.atts.org/statistics.html
If you look at the stats, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and American Pit Bull Terrier all far surpass the popular Wheaten Terriers, Bichon Frises and beagles. In fact, they are in the same range as the Golden Retriever.
I understand concerns about living near dogs. But there are much smarter ways to handle this than by banning certain breeds. All that does is create a false sense of security that "bad" dogs won't be allowed. Look toward other cities, such as Seattle and Boston, for guidelines on how to deal with the idea of dangerous dogs without making it a breed issue.
Posted by: adhbrooklyn at February 27, 2009 10:36 AM

Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.