Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...)

[BARANSKI (BARANSKI]

RE: Rob Sandelin <robsan [at] microsoft.com>

  First of all some background. Sharingwood is a development which has a  30
  acre greenbelt. We are considered rural and the appreciation of  nature is a
  common element which binds us as a community.

  Whenever we have dealt with potentially divisive issues we tend to  start at
  the big picture conceptual level and then work down into the  details.  As we
  started our discussions of pets we found we agreed on  the following
  concepts:

  We wanted to preserve and protect the local native wildlife 
  No one should have to be impacted by another members pet 
  Members have the right to have pets 
  Members should be responsible for their pets

Sounds like a good place to start.  Are these in order of importance?  Or are
they somehow equally important.  I would take the first and the last as a
given, however, the second and third will contradict each other, and some sort
of compromise will have to be worked out.

  A large amount of research was done on the impact of pets on wildlife.   We
  had a presentation from a  state non-game biologist who gave us some 
  detailed information, based on research, on the impacts of pets (Cats  and
  dogs) on wildlife.

Can you give a quick summary of the high points?

  From the conceptual agreements the following pet policy was adopted at  our
  1991 annual meeting:

  The intent of the pet policy is to protect wildlife and ensure each  unit
  owner the right to enjoy pets without infringing on the rights of others.

  1.  Dogs are to be kept on the owners unit (lot) and are allowed on the  road
  when accompanied by the owner.

This seems pretty restrictive to me...  Won't this require fences around the
individual lots, which will detract a *lot* from the co-housing landscape?

  2.  Dogs are not allowed on the trails or in the campground.

Again, seems pretty restrictive.  Does this mean even when with the owner?  On
a leash?

  3.  Cats are to be belled and all new cats ( after Nov. 1991) are to be  kept
  indoors at all times.

Belling all preditor animals seems like a good idea.  As far as keeping all
cats in doors, again it seems like a restriction that I don't quite see the
exact sense in.  Yah, it will cut down on some of the problems, but will it cut
down on the exact problem that is of concern, without being an unnecessary
imposition?

It seems like you might as well just say, no outdoor animals, and be done
with...

I guess I'm a bit touchy on this subject, because I'd like to have a pretty
rural oriented community.  Aren't animals an important part of a rural
community?  Aren't dogs & cats, etc, important parts of the 'wildlife'?  It
seems a bit like you are trying to 'city-fy' a rural community.

Then again, there are plenty of animal lovers out there that think that it's
unthinkable to let any animals/pets roam around loose, even under any
conditions, and any kind of community.  I really have a problem with that
attitude.

You have to keep in mind that, just as there are people who do/don't fit into
co-housing, there will be different types, and different individual animals
that may or may not fit into a given co-housing community.  I'm much more in
favor of working out any individual problems that come up, as opposed to
coming down with 'thou shalt not...'s beforehand.

  4.  All cats and dogs are to be spayed /neutered.

Of course...   Ah, what about people who have breeders?  Does this mean that
they should not be considered?

  5.  All cats and dogs are to be kept indoors after dark.

Sensible.  At night is when most animals will get into trouble, and it's the
most annoying to get up and deal with any problem in the middle of the night.

RE: hartman [at] informix.com (Robert Hartman)

  I can see some very good safety reasons for banning guns from any shared
  housing facility.  For one thing, they probably aren't needed for
  security--presumably there's usually someone about so burglars wouldn't be a
  threat.  Also, if you've got your kids running all about with other kids, who
  knows who might find a gun and start "playing" with it.

These are good points; guns are less likely to be needed in a community; and
the concern about kids is an important one.

  Socially, cohousing is much more of a community commitment than buying a
  condo.  Guns are deadly weapons.  Unless the community is banding together to
  promote rugged individualism, a lassiez faire attitude about guns doesn't
  strike me as quite in the spirit of the endeavor.  

I previously mentioned my feelings about the macho-ego-worship of guns...

However, guns are not merely deadly weapons.  Anything *can be* a deadly
weapon.  Guns are not merely for security, but some people also use them for
target shooting.

  Having said that, it is interesting to note that the restrictive covenants of
  many condo complexes also ban guns.

The fact that other people do this does not necessarily make it the best way to
handle it.  I would also question whether such a restriction is constitutional.

  On the other hand, it is very difficult and somewhat undermining to make up
  rules that cannot be enforced.  If a ban is not in the restricive
  covenants--which can be very difficult to amend--it would be very difficult
  to enforce.

In any case, it will be difficult to enforce, unless you are planning on
regular searches of people homes; even then it's still unenforceable.  Instead
of having possession be an unenforceable restriction, why not have the certain
ways of handling weapons that are problems be enforceable restrictions?  My
motto is, 'If no one can tell that there's a problem, there's probably not a
problem'.  Kind of akin to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.  If a dog or cat,
or gun, isn't causing a problem, why be restrictive, unless it's on some sort
of principle, like you really *don't* like guns, or dogs, or cats...

  If the no-ban adovcate is already part of the community and personally wants
  to own guns, I'd advocate a compromise by grandfathering in an exception for
  guns purchased prior to a certain date by residents then living in the
  community, requring trigger locks at all times for those guns while on the
  premisis, and banning all other guns.  Or, the community could perhaps
  provide a triple-locked storage compartment for storing guns, and otherwise
  ban guns and ammunition from the premisis.

Trigger locks are a great idea.  What exactly do you think are the utility of
triple locks?  IMO, simply having the weapons and ammo locked, out of sight,
and out of mind is sufficient.

  If the no-ban advocate is simply being ideological, I'd advocate outvoting
  him or educating him sufficiently to bring him around to a consensus.

This sounds like *you're* the one being 'ideological'...

  Again, a cohousing arrangement requires more of a commitment to compromise
  than a condo, and many if not most condos have pet restrictions in their
  restrictive covenants.

Again, I'd like to think that co-housing can offer a *better* deal then your
standard condos; you aren't going to be able to do that by copying them...

  People who aren't willing to compromise with their cohousing comrades
  probably haven't been sufficiently educated about the nature of the
  commitment involved.

Compromise, sure.  But what you are talking about does not sound like a
compromise.  I've heard of some condo-associations being goose-stepping like
this, but it's not my idea of a co-housing "sommunity", that I want to be part
of...

Jim Baranski