Whose Dogs Are In The Dog Run? *
latest buzz is that a portion of our property will be designated as a
dog run. This is surprising considering the severity with which the no-dog
policy is laid out in all Seward Park documents:
No dogs or other animals or pets shall be kept or harbored
in the Apartment, unless the Lessor's prior written consent shall have
been obtained in each instance. Violation by the Lessee of this provision
shall constitute a breach of a substantial obligation of tenancy and
of this lease.
In spite of this, there are hundreds of dogs here, some owned by Board
members themselves, in further violation of our By-Laws:
No Stockholder harboring a dog in such Stockholder's
apartment or in any other apartment in the Corporation's buildings without
prior written consent of the Corporation shall be eligible to run for
or serve on the Board of Directors.
l present the issues relating to dogs in another article, but the none
of those issues are at point here. The issues, as I seem them, are:
- On what basis do rules get enforced?
- How are priorities are being set?
- On what basis are decisions being made?
- Who benefits from these policies?
- Why aren't these issues being dealt with squarely?
- Why aren't shareholders kept informed?
- What's the best use for our property on Hester Street?
Readers may fault me more not presenting arguments for or against the
dog run in this article. But until the issue of dogs is addressed,
I just don't see a dog run as being a valid issue.
Our Neighbors Are Talking!
Should there be a dog-run in light of the no-dogs policy?
Data updated periodically. Last update: July 7, 2004
What's your opinion on this issue? Members
of SPComm, click here
to vote. Not a member? Click here to join
or learn more.
*This issue was the subject of a March
24 article in The Villager.