Re: Pet policy | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: R Philip Dowds (rpdowds![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT) |
That is not at all the answer I was expecting. In most cases, no citizen, HOA, church, whatever, has any responsibility at all for enforcing the law on other parties. By extension of this reasoning, if a homeless undocumented alien is found sleeping behind your bushes, you could get prosecuted and fined, maybe even jailed, if you do not discover him and turn him in. But I don't think so. Maybe my neighbor is acting fishy, but I will never be prosecuted for not calling the police. I was actually working toward a different point altogether. If you "allow" pets, you may get sued by those who are damaged by the pets. On the other hand, if you "prohibit" pets, you may get sued for denial of property rights otherwise guaranteed by your master deed and bylaws. Best way to stay out of court, therefore, is to do nothing. Ever. This, of course, is not good. RPD On Apr 24, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Sharon Villines wrote: > > > On 24 Apr 2012, at 1:00 PM, R Philip Dowds wrote: > >> What if your community is totally silent on dogs? That is, you neither >> allow nor prohibit any specific actions re dogs, cats, birds, snakes, >> whatever. It has never even occurred to you discuss the matter. Are you >> then still liable? > >> From what little I know, ignorance of the law is not a successful defense. >> The Board is responsible for ensuring that the law is followed on condo >> grounds. Even if we had no policy, the city policy applies. And in our case, >> residents had complained to the board that the law was not being followed. > > "Liability" may only apply if you get to court, but the city will impound the > dog and levy a fine, which makes you look very guilty. If the fine is on the > community because it allows the practice by policy or lack of enforcement, it > can be sured. It is a much better target than an individual because it has > more money and more ability to borrow money. In our neighborhood, our > building looks pretty rich. > > Sharon > ---- > Sharon Villines > Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC > http://www.takomavillage.org > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > >
- Re: Pet policy, (continued)
- Re: Pet policy R Philip Dowds, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Diana Carroll, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy R Philip Dowds, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Diana Carroll, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy RPD-Comcast, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.