June 10, 2010
PITT BULL in HOAs or Condos - How Many Sides Are There?
I get a lot of emails and on some topics, the readers are as far as one can go from one end of the spectrum to another. So imagine a board trying to come up with rules, in this case, on dogs, if this happened to be the board where 2 or more directors vehemently disagreed on what to do. I wrote another blog on a question from a woman who was rather worried for her grandsons as they lived in a condo where the neighbor owned a pit bull. She had just heard a story of a "family pet" pit bull gone bad, where the dog attacked the child. This is from the other side:
"Just to comment on your recent posting about "Pit Bulls" in condos.
Coincidentally, I have a Pit Bull who was a rescue dog. Before adopting 'Prancer' I was ignorant and honestly held the common belief (based on so many news stories):
"That breed should stop being bread altogether...."
I was very scared and ignorant bringing my American Pit Bull Terrier home, as I was expecting to adopt a small little lap dog, but this dog picked me.
Since then, from a lot of research and paying attention to the actual 'Pitt Bull Attack Stories", the breed is NOT per se a dangerous breed. (there are approx 25 different dogs with either "Pit" and/or "Bull" in their breed name .... causing a lot of confusion.)
Pit Bulls (even the mean one that have been trained to be fight dogs) have been bread (genetically inherent to the breed as much as a retriever will always retrieve) to be specifically HUMAN FRIENDLY (the horrible dog fighters realized long ago that they wanted their dogs to fight, but not attack themselves, the owner/handlers and bread the bread that way) ... so they are in fact MORE HUMAN FRIENDLY than most breeds.
Just a note: Recently in Long Beach there was a "PIT BULL ATTACK!" STORY resulting in the dog being shot by the Sheriff in a local park after chasing the dog down. It was a terrible story, but in fact it was the owner who got bit (no dog bites the hand that feeds it - unless there is an owner issue), it was the owner who never kept his dog on leash, there was little human injury (the guy was sent home from the ER) and the poor dog was shot because it was loose and scared by being chased down.
Yet that story was the HEADLINE TEASE story, and not properly reported.
Just recently (a week or two ago) there was a very, very serious dog attack wherein a child was almost killed and the story was about the mother running into her house to get a gun, and she shot and killed the dog that was literally killing her little girl.
That dog was a BOXER ... yet the story and its reporting made virtually no mention of the breed, and without paying much attention, most people would assume it must be 'Another Pit Bull Attack Story'.
They are strong dogs, but they have a statistically lower incident of bites than the popular and lovable Golden Retriever.
I understand the concern people have seeing such a large dog (I spend every day walking my dog, constantly saying "DON'T WORRY ... HE'S FRIENDLY!!"
The only issue comes when someone rushes me and grabs and hugs my dog BEFORE I can even say "he friendly" .... and after 3 years, it is ALWAYS someone who has or had owned an American Pit Bull Terrier and know just how human friendly they are.
I just wanted to give my 2cents. Perhaps you might find some coherent information you can pass along.
[the writer sent a link to photos here]
ALSO - although I did NOT get my dog for security, my neighbors (8 unit townhouses) have benefited by my having such a 'scary' looking dog. He has scared off many a homeless person loitering around our gates/trash area, and despite complaints that I put a 'Beware of Dog' sign outside my door (out of common sense) - it provides security to my unfriendly/hateful neighbors (and we have had 2 break in recently, and I was told by a neighbor that a couple of young guys had jumped our fence and cased our layout) ... The belief that a scary dog might be inside more than one home makes it much safer. So everyone also benefits from the security the misconception the breed carries in a condo complex.
Finally - Personally, I made sure that no matter how hateful my neighbors were/are, they all were fully introduced to the dog, explained about his kind nature, and I had each person give my dog a treat and pet him .... which is a guarantee the dog will like that person (a good suggestion, I think to dog owners in condominiums).
I have lived in my condo 13+ years, and didn't know any of my neighbors. I now know so many of my neighbors, we have a real community and everyone watches out for each others property while walking their own dogs.
So even if you don't like dogs, having a dog friendly condo has a lot of benefits to all the homeowners and property values. In West Hollywood, it is so "Dog Friendly" that despite old CC&R's and a hate for me and my dog, two recent sales listed the property as "ALLOWING DOG" ... despite both those owners trying to invoke NEVER followed old CC&R's.
Seriously, my dog never barks and is always on leash ... which all dog owners MUST always do. When the hateful dispute got nasty, I also found that as a 'service dog' - a Pit Bull so deemed would be exempt from enforcement of any CC&R's by Federal ADA Laws, along with local law, which I think I got from your site, that a Pet is allowed even if CC&R's prohibit all pets. Also, in West Hollywood, seniors may keep a companion dog, even in apartment buildings strictly prohibiting all pets (so there may be other similar local laws).
Anyway, I hope all is going well with your practice and I continue to enjoy reading your updates."
So there ... and let me reiterate something in this story. So many times it is the dog owner that is the problem, not the dog.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 2:12 PM
December 16, 2005
Companion Pets
Pets are the second "P" in the list of association problems (Parking, Pets and People). Recently, "companion pets" have been in the news as people who have legitimate needs and people who just want to skirt rules have challenged association "No Pet" rules. Richard Ekimoto, in his Hawaii Condo Law blog, began the discussion of this issue, and we've picked it up with some additional research. Following is a listing of articles and cases regarding "companion pets":
Hawaii Condo Law Blog:
- What is a comfort animal?
- Comfort animals, Part II
Housing Discrimination and Companion Animals
Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass'n v. Fair Employment and Housing Com'n
Housing Authority of the City of New London v. Tarrant
In re Kenna Homes Cooperative Corporation
Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp
Majors v. Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb Georgia
Nason v. Stone Hill Realty Association
Whittier Terrace Associates v. Hampshire
Right To Emotional Support Animals In "No Pet" Housing
Joyce Grad v. Royalwood Cooperative Apartments and Schostak Brothers & Co.
One cooperative-two cases:
From the Michigan Bar Animal Law Newsletter -
"In the Winter 2005 issue, we reported on the case of Michigan Dep’t of Civil Rights ex rel Emmick v Royalwood Cooperative Apartments, Inc, Mich Dep’t Civil Rights No. 268485 (2004). In Emmick, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights obtained an award in favor of a co-op owner in a dispute over her companion animal. Th e defendant appealed to Oakland Circuit Court, where Judge Fred Mester confi rmed the award of $45,000 in damages but reduced the attorney’s fees to $38,730. The defendant filed a claim of appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, but it was dismissed for procedural reasons. Royalwood then filed a delayed application for leave to appeal. At the same time however, it moved for reconsideration of Judge Mester’s ruling. At press time, the motion for reconsideration had not been decided. In a very similar case against the same defendant, United States v Royalwood Cooperative Apartments,(ED Mich, docket no. 2:03-cf-73034-ADT), another former Royalwood owner prevailed in a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Joyce Grad asked for a waiver of the co-op’s “no pets” policy so she could get a dog, to help alleviate the severe depression she suffered as a result of bipolar disorder. She provided letters from a psychologist and a psychiatrist, but the co-op board denied her request. Grad moved to a more expensive apartment. At the suggestion of the Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, she filed a complaint under the Fair Housing Act, alleging that the co-op failed to make a “reasonable accommodation” of her disability. The complaint also named the property management company, Schostak Brothers and Company, and the property manager, Richard Cail. The defendants moved the case to federal district court. In order for the plaintiff in a disability discrimination case to prevail, she must establish a “handicap” or “disability,” defined as a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” a “major life activity.” 42 USC § 3602 (h)(1). Grad argued that she was disabled because her depression interfered with her ability to sleep and work, both of which had been defined as “major life activities.”(1) After a six-day trial before Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $14,209 in actual damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Judith E. Levy, of the United States Attorney’s office in Detroit, represented the plaintiff . After the verdict, she moved for a permanent injunction that would require Royalwood to modify its rules to accommodate requests for service or “emotional support” animals; to send the co-op board and the property manager to a training program on housing and disability laws; and to permit Grad to visit other residents at Royalwood with her dog. Grad also requested attorney fees in a separate motion. The post-trial motions are scheduled for hearing in June. After judgment is entered, Royalwood is expected to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
(1)See, e.g., Pack v Kmart Corp, 166 F3d 1300(CA 10, 1999) (sleep); Miller v Wells Dairy, Inc 252 FSupp2d 799 (ND Iowa, 2003)(work) (construing Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12102(1)(A)).
We'll post more as it arrives.
Posted by joewest at 1:37 PM
August 15, 2005
Not On Our Doorpost: Chicago Condo Bans Mezuzahs
From the web site of Levenfeld, Pearlstein (Chicago):
.....examples suggest the important ritual and symbolic role played by the mezuzah, an object containing a scroll with words from the Torah which Jews are man-dated to place on the out-side doorpost of their homes and on interior locations. It’s a popularly observed ritual among Jews.
But if the president and board members of the Shore-line Towers Condominium Association at 6301 North Sheridan Road in Chicago have their way, no Jewish residents there will be permitted to affix a mezuzah to their apartment doorposts. Jewish condo residents, upset at being prohibited from observing a fundamental Jewish practice, have been protesting that ban for over a year. They have involved local Jewish religious and legal groups and complained to city and state bodies. Last month there was an emotional confrontation over the issue at a shiva in the building; both sides have retained legal counsel. Howard S. Dakoff, a lawyer involved in the case, has called the condo board’s actions “tantamount to anti-Semitism.”
Yet the condo board and its president — while declining to explain its actions— remains determined to forbid the mezuzah from the hallways of the building.
Posted by joewest at 2:24 PM
July 12, 2005
ACLU v. Galaxy condo in free speech suit (New Jersey)
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against the Galaxy Towers condominium association and its president, Martha Norget, saying the organization was stifling the free speech of building residents.
The case, which is being handled by Frank Askin, an attorney and professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark, is currently proceeding with discovery and is scheduled to go to trial in November.
"It has to do with whether or not the state Constitution applies to private communities such as the Galaxy," Askin said.
"Owners want the right to put fliers under apartment doors," Askin said. "The association does it whenever they want, but owners aren't allowed."
They also want an equal voice on the condo's in-house cable station, Time Warner Access Channel 26, and publication, the Galaxy Newsletter.
Stanley Maron, 71, a unit owner at the Galaxy for 11 years, is so upset he's decided to relocate to Massachusetts next month. "My biggest reason for leaving is the stress of such a restrictive environment," he said.
Michael DeLuca, president of the Concerned Unit Owners Group, said the board of directors would not allow their opponents to campaign inside the building before the March election.
"They wouldn't let us put up posters in the complex, so we rented trucks to put posters on across the street," he said.
"We were told (by the election committee) we couldn't wear buttons or hats with the candidates' names," said Lynn Miles, an owner at the Galaxy for about a year and a half. "They came out with these rules about a week before the election and we didn't want our candidates disqualified, so we followed."
"It was never written down; it was all verbal," she said.
Joel Price, vice president of the condominium association, refused to comment. "The case is in the discovery stage and our legal team has advised us not to discuss it." (From The Jersey Journal, July 11, 2005)
Posted by joewest at 9:39 AM