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…
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.”
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.
i think you lower property values.
*r*
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.
I wouldn’t allow dogs in courtyard no matter what size. I’d even ban dog owners from courtyard with or without dog escort.
http://www.vickdogchewtoy.com/
Former Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick?
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*
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.
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.