..............................................
Your Blogmeister responds:
The final solution to the dog poop problem. Now, will the Delegates vote for it?
Dave Israel
Need proof that the rich really aren’t that different from you and me? How’s this — they don’t pick up their dog’s poop when they think no one is looking, either. No, not even when they’re only walking their dog on the turf at their luxury condo. That’s why a condo community in Florida is making residents enter their dog’s DNA into a new genetic database that will be used to match a poop to a pooch and identify which owners aren’t cleaning up after their pets.Which is really nice to hear, because you know once resources start being devoted to things like this, we’ve clearly solved the big problems like world hunger, and can now put science to work on the really important issues of our age.
Orlando’s Vue condos are pretty swanky places to live, with just one problem — some thoughtless resident apparently believes that living in the lap of luxury makes them too good to clean up their dog’s leavings, deposited on a patch of turf provided by the condo for just this purpose. Fellow residents tried installing cameras to catch the pooping perp, but to no avail. So instead of hiring a team of ninjas to keep watch over what is essentially the world’s smallest, grossest indoor park, the condo association leapt directly to the next most crazy option available to them — mandatory genetic tagging of all canine residents.
As of next month, all dog owners in the condo complex will be required to submit a sample of their pup’s DNA from an oral swab to the condo association. The samples will be used by Tennessee-based company PooPrints to create a DNA database of all dogs in the condo so that future unscooped poops can be identified and those responsible shamed in the traditional fashion — having their nosed rubbed in the resulting mess to a chorus of loud, low pitched recriminations from their neighbors.
It’s appropriate at this point to thank Florida, which we give some flack around here, for demonstrating what is clearly the best way to use science, and definitely the exact manner in which Watson and Crick imagined their work on the chemical coding of life itself being used by future generations. (Rosalind Franklin probably wanted to see it used for the betterment of humanity, a point of view that will get you screwed right out of a Nobel Prize.)
As far as I know dog owners are supposed to only walk their dogs on their association property. It is their association and theirs alone that is allowing them to have a dog. The rest of the village is off limits unless it is a service dog.
ReplyDeleteThat is my understanding also, but I would sure like to see it in writing. I saw a man walking his dog and cross the street and go to the bus stop in Bedford with the dog. He did pick up but should not have been there in the first place. If I had proof of where to walk, I would have accosted him
ReplyDeletePlease, no accosting. Recipe for disaster. Safety first.
ReplyDeleteThis issue came up 2-3 months ago, and I did a little checking on it, then left off. Don4060 had asked whether there actually was a rule against walking dogs on the Village property. (This would be the property ceded to UCO by the associations in the Bilateral Agreement.)
ReplyDeleteApparently there is nothing in the UCO bylaws prohibiting this. Such a law or ruling could be enacted, however. There may be such a County ordinance, but it is very difficult getting ANY such regulation, County or UCO, enforced.
I think Elaine B said there were signs inside the gates saying pets prohibited. I keep forgetting to look for them. I suppose these would be based on a County ordinance.
I still think the best approach is an educational campaign, but it would certainly be helpful to know in advance of such a campaign what the County rules and regulations say. Then we would know better how to word what is said. Perhaps somebody could track this down.
Lanny, go read the blue signs and check County regulations, see new post on Part 2 Blog.
ReplyDeleteDo not give untrained owners excuses.
I I read your post on blog 2,it looks to me like if they're on a leash they can go wherever they want
ReplyDeleteElaine, I read your post on the other blog, and took notice of the part that you highlighted: " confined to owners property only."
ReplyDeleteTime for some poolside lawyering. Obviously, my Association property is mine- I own in common with 24 other individuals, couples or trustees. Other Association properties do not belong to me- I have no interests there. But the common areas outside of the Association properties do, in a sense, belong to me- at the very least, I pay for the right to use and enjoy them safely and responsibly, same as everybody else.
The portion of the County Ordinance that reads "owners property only" seems, when restricted to a very narrow context only, to be tailor made to support the "no dogs on the perimeter walkway" side of the argument. But the Ordinance was not written specifically for Century Village. I doubt very highly that any Law Enforcement Officer would be willing to enforce the Ordinance in this way. Our own private security force will not even touch it anymore.
Agree with Ken. Dogs can be walked. And the guy who left the steaming pile is a dick.
And the "or leashed" part of the Ordinance kills any application in CV. Dogs is leashed, owner scoops the poop- that all folks.
ReplyDeleteManners, Morals, and Intelligence
ReplyDeleteRe Dog comments, not everything should have to be in law. I would hope that pet owners remember that most of the residents here came attracted by the No Pet history, and would follow the polite reminders on our blue signs IMHO. The Delegates could make rules for their common areas. See blue sign on blog part 2.
I think the foregoing posts point to the underlying problem here at CV. We have a majority of folks who embrace the rules and understand they are in place for the good of ALL C.V.'ers. It seems we have a growing minority of owners/renters who ignore the rules to the detriment of the community. The situation at hand is a microcosm of the greater problem here at C.V., loads of rules and regulations with no will or way to enforce them. For example, my wife and I enjoy playing "singles" tennis and do not wish to play "doubles." The "rules" say "singles" may not play until after 12:30 p.m. Of course, we understand the reasoning for such a rule. But, what if I don't want to wait until 12:30 p.m. to play "singles." After all it is especially hot at that time of day. Given the sage advice not to "accost" anyone, why shouldn't we ignore that rule too? The point I am making is the loss of civility brings us to a slippery slope where we all do what we want without consequence. Increasing "Quality of Life" issues such as the ones present here at C.V.are trail markers that will eventually lead to a place in which none of will wish to reside.
ReplyDeleteRight, it never was about enforcement, or confrontation, or security guards. It was always about most people being more or less on the same page, be they snowbird or year-round retiree. "Civility" was, for the most part, a natural result of this condition. Lately, this community has drawn people who are less about "lifestyle" and more about "housing". This is where the QOL problems start popping up. The remedy is stricter enforcement of income/credit requirements at the Association level.
ReplyDeleteRight on Don. You hit the nail on the head. But, once again, what does "stricter enforcement" mean. For some it's a stern warning that is essentially ignored. I don't think any of the current candidates are willing or prepared to address thorny issues such as requirements for ownership or rentals, pets in non-pet friendly condos and a myriad of other items that have kept our village safe and clean for decades. Instead, many condos are selling off the future of C.V. for the present and the association fees these new residents bring with them.
ReplyDeleteThere is no secret to "stricter enforcement". It means Associations making hard choices, even when that entails economic loss. It means rejecting inappropriate prospective owners and renters and not bypassing UCO investigations. It means calling the Lawyer when a resident starts bringing in dirtbag roommates, and then paying the bill. There are financially weak Associations here- they are the chinks in our armor.
ReplyDeleteI ride the CV bus, a few times a week. I see riders with red-stripe ID's who, by the looks of them, would never have gotten into my old rental building in Queens, or met the income requirements at UCO. These are your likely QOL offenders. Reap what you sow.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe do not allow dogs in our association but have 2. The owners brought me prescriptions from their doctors saying they needed a dog. that was before I heard they needed a psychiatrist's letter.
ReplyDeleteHi Grace. Suppose I live in your condo group and have a prescription from my doctor stating a "subjective" diagnosis that I have anxiety caused by dogs living in our condo complex. After all, I purchased my imaginary unit in your association because it was a "no pet" condo and I am fearful of even little dogs. I would much rather not take anti-anxiety medication either. The mandates of the ADA and its requirements for "accommodations" for people with disabilities opens the door for "opportunists" to create situations that can be manipulated to their advantage. In the theoretical case I noted, whose "anxiety" gets priority? The one who needs the dog to avoid taking medication or the one who may need medication because of the dog. Our next president, whomever that may be, has their work cut out for themselves. In the scope of things I see here at C.V., WiFi is the least of our problems. We need our leadership to get a handle on who is living here and whether they are qualified to own/reside here. Furthermore, hey need to find out what rules can and cannot be enforced. Those that cannot be enforced should be removed. Those that can be enforced should be enforced. In the case of "anxiety" dogs, I think that should be handled above your pay grade. A standardized policy/procedure should be worked out and put in place by UCO after review by its attorneys. If all are treated equitably and required to produce the same amount of documentation to support such an accommodation, I believe the majority of such cases will diminished greatly.
ReplyDeleteHah! I never thought of that! Dogophobia covered under ADA. Who gets precedent? Good one.
ReplyDeleteCynophobia
ReplyDeleteWell, if this ever gets court-tested, it will probably happen right here in 33417.
ReplyDeleteHi all,
ReplyDeleteIn the sidebar, you will find the following link:
SUPPORT ANIMAL SUGGESTED RULES AND DOCTOR AFFIDAVIT
It was prepared by our UCO Attorney, and provides a path of action as regards pets.
The building must enforce it's documents in order to make this work.
Dave Israel
SUPPORT ANIMAL SUGGESTED RULES AND DOCTOR AFFIDAVIT is below
ReplyDelete"INTERACTIVE FORMS - Click on desired form - Click the file tab/download for interactive version"