Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved. NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Arrogant Dog Owner Outs Himself in T&V



Well, Stuy Town management has his name and his own words in the latest Town & Village paper. The guy flat out admits, rather boastfully, that he lets his dog in the lawn space of Peter Cooper Village. "I take the position that my dog has every right to occupy lawn space as do the trees." Well, buster, you may take that position, but it's a position that is against the dog rules here, so you are clearly violating these rules by your own admission.

This guy also must be a fan of retractable dog leashes. "A major advancement in dog walking technology is the retractable long leash." Well, it's not a major advancement in New York City, for if you extend your leash beyond six feet, you are breaking the law. Every single time I see a retractable leash in Stuy Town or PCV, it's owner eventually or automatically extends it beyond six feet. The new owners of ST/PCV should just simply ban the things in the complex.

As a final boast, he claims that his "dog bites back," whatever the hell that threat means. Mister, if your dog bites me, I will receive a nice sum of money from you in a lawsuit--and then I will be able to afford a condo here, while you'll be living in a flop in Jersey . . . with your dog.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good post, STR, but you know what: management won't do anything about this moron because they don't give a ff so long as this a market rate renter. They rent to anyone with a pulse and a checkbook and don't care beyond that. That's why buying into this community with all the expense and commitment would not be such a great idea. At least when you rent you can just up and leave if it gets too intolerable - which is exactly what management wants rent stabilized tenants to do. Hence the indifference toward this type of asshole.

Anonymous said...

Thanks STR. You just wrote my response to T&V. It amazes me that they would even print this letter aside from the obvious fact that they were trying to instigate an argument.

I suggest that people call the property manager, quote this residents letter and their name (Eric Anthony) and ask what they're going to do about it.

Anonymous said...

The only amazing thing about T&V is that it exists. Dogs are great. Some of the dog owners, like Eric Anthony, aren't.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

T&V is indispensable for this complex and neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

Just a difference of opinion. You think it's indispensable but that doesn't make it true.

Anonymous said...

As much as the "Public Safety" department is totally incompetent and given that, whoever the new owner is should fire every single person and start over, you can't blame them entirely for this. I blame the NYPD and the Tenants Association. After all, it is NYC law that these people are violating. OK, there is the agreement they sign when they get their dogs into Stuyvesant Town but with the "owner" telling its employees not to enforce this agreement the issue becomes, where has the 13th precint been. Leash laws, curb laws etc. are the responsibility of the NYPD. However, I recently found out by discussing this with the former commander at the 13th Precint, the 13th Precint does not patrol Stuyvesant Town or Peter Cooper. They leave the "policing" of our neighborhood to the buffoons at Tishman Speyer. The same people whose employees will flat out tell you there isn't anything they can do. It's disgraceful and I have called the NYPD and written to Comm. Kelly requesting an answer as to why ST/PCV doesn't receive the police protection that we pay tax money for. Are we entitled to a refund of taxes paid because we do not receive police protection?

I also blame the ST Tenants Association for failing to address the quality of life crimes committed by all of these irresponsible dog owners and the noise issues regarding the irresponsible NYU, New School, Pratt U , etc college students housed amongst us and the irresponsible new breed of tenants who are carving apartments into illegal apartments and stuffing them with as many people as they can fit in. Instead the TA has focused entirely on becoming owners and co-oping or condoing ST, which despite their claim that they are fighting to keep ST affordable and unifying the tenants, their actions will have the totally opposite effect, (they need to be reigned in since they really don't represent but a small portion of tenants), but that's a discussion for another thread. So despite the fact that upwards of 100 quality of life crimes occur on a daily basis in ST/PCV the TA remains silent and the NYPD remains invisible. I would complain to Mayor Mosque but we all know the Speyers are his best friends.

Maybe what we need is a new Tenants Association that will represent the 80 to 85 percent of the residents who aere interested in seeing ST/PCV remain a rent stabilized RENTAL community!

Anonymous said...

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!! WE DEFINITELY NEED A NEW TA AND WE SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE SAME PROTECTION BY THE 13TH PCT AS EVERYBODY ELSE OUTSIDE OF PCVST WHO IS IN THEIR PCT. THIS IS A DISGRACE.

Anonymous said...

Hello Stuy Town Reporter and friends.

I am a dog owner that sympathizes with the frustrations of the non-dog owners. I am frustrated that this issue has become so divisive in our community. You can't blame the dog-owners for management's decision to allow dogs, and the dog-owners can't blame their neighbors that value landscaping and sanitary lawn space for insisting that the rules which are in place for dogs and their owners be followed.


I believe that Management is to blame for this growing war b/w PCSTV's dog owners and non dog owners. Dogs do need grass (not to mention that the residue left on the pavement where they are required to relieve themselves after is disgusting and unsightly for ALL residents, no matter how hard the dog owner tries to clean it all, it's impossible).

I agree that the lawn areas should not be ruined or made unsanitary by dogs, which is why I would propose that only a few plots be designated permittable dog areas (please note that I'm not proposing off-leash privileges, as this would be absolute chaos without a fenced in area).

Those of us who became dog owners in Stuyvesant Town at the time the pet policy changed were promised a dog-run, and didn't know our dogs would be limited to the pavement or that owning our dogs would place us in a tense position with other tenants. I don't personally rebel against the rules, but I think management spawned the sense of entitlement among dog-owners, not the dog owners' personal arrogance or wish to disrepect other tenants.

Why can't PCSTV ease the tension by designating a few small strips of lawn or one of the medium plots of lawns in the corner, or even designate one of the soccer fields/playground areas as a dog run. A small compromise might be enough to foster each group's respect for the other's preferences.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Thank you for your calm and thoughtful message.

I wish a dog run would solve the problems here, but I'm afraid it wouldn't. I still think the bad dog-owners would behave the way they are doing now, but on top of that, we'd have a designated area (more than one, if I'm understanding you) which would annoy the non-dog owners who live close by and who would be hearing the continual barking and smelling the strong scents of a concentrated area where dogs gather.

I agree that it's unnatural for dogs to NOT want to go on grass, and that if we are thinking just of the dogs, then sure, they should be able to frolic on the grass and play with their peers. But I think that whatever Stuy Town will do "for the dogs," humans (the non-dog owner kind) will balk, because THEIR space is being taken up or violated or their peace disturbed.

Tishman Speyer's removal of the no dog policy was a very bad mistake because it set in motion what we are seeing now--a conflict among tenants where there was none before. Obviously, no one is going to take dogs away from tenants now, but I do believe a step in the right direction would be to have a moratorium on any new dogs in the complex. (I think such a moratorium is imperative at this point.) Then we should decide on some kind of behavior/set up that is going to be fair for both dog owners and non-dog owners, even if one side or the other, or both, aren't happy by the final resolution.

But after that, the rules here must be obeyed. Considering how lax management and security are about the current dog rules, I don't think we'll be seeing enforcement, even with whatever new owners we get.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the point that dogs should be allowed to stay. I believe any new owner should change the policy back to one of "no pets". I used to work at a property management company and on more than one occassion we were charged with changing policies regarding pets. People were given until their leases expired to get rid of their pets or leave. That should happen here!

Anonymous said...

I wasn't aware that that could legally be done. If it can, I agree with the previous poster. I was obviously a big mistake.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the ability to change the pet policy, I don't believe that once you grant permission for a Rent Stabilized tenant to keep a pet, you are legally allowed to rescind that permission. You could ban non regulated tenants or condo/co-op owners according to the rules of the condominium or cooperative.

That's why even with a conversion, you'll never get rid of the dogs.

Anonymous said...

However, if what you say is true we would be able to get rid of a whole lot of them (assuming people are going to want to buy their apartments). Also, will the extra maintenance needed to clean up all the dog shit and urine puddles have to be born out of all the tenants or will there be a kind of "dog tax" for the dog owners. It just doesn't seem fair that we all should have to pay for the extra maintenance that's going to be needed.

Anonymous said...

A new owner would be allowed to set any policy it wants. Rent stabilized or not.

Anonymous said...

@Anon: October 11, 2010 11:53 AM

As much as I would love to share your optimism, the housing courts have dealt very favorably with RS tenants who kept dogs despite a prohibition against them. Met had a lot of difficulty with this, and now that everyone has been allowed, I sincerely doubt that a change in policy will have much effect.

If you research this issue on tenant.net, you'll see that it's a tangled legal web.

Anonymous said...

i wonder if there isn't a different tact that new management can take, e.g. enforcing the rules and having a uniformed force distributing substantial fines for violations. These dog owners aren't confused, they just don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. I think they would understand a 100 dollar fine. Hopefully this would only apply to the people who stay RS. Perhaps, as has been stated already, people who want to buy CAN be forced to get rid of their dogs or not be allowed to buy (i.e. they would sign a document pre-puchase acknowledging that pets are not allowed. I don't know, I'm just hoping.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, we're not living in the utopian MetLife version of our old community. New managers/owners will be under the same pressures that Speyer was under in terms of having market rate rents supporting their rent roll, unless there's an overwhelming majority of apartments that are sold.

But I think it's time to hold city agencies to task on the health issue of the unchecked dog waste in the complex. Health laws are being violated, and the security force has breached it's sworn duty in failing to hand out summonses to violators. It's time to involve the finance department and the DOI.

Anonymous said...

Since the tenants association is not willing to get involved in this issue, several tenants and I took it upon ourselves to write to Commissioner Kelly of the NYPD and The NYS Dept of finance. We asked why Stuy town and PCV do not receive police protections despite our paying taxes and if so weren't we entitled to a refund of taxes paid. No response has ever been received but I did notice a police car around the oval recently and I noticed less loose dogs running freely in the grasses and playgrounds. So, someone must have gotten on Security departments case. It's not solved but it's a little better. Write letters if you still see problem at your playground.

Anonymous said...

good for you guys. I also noticed a police cruiser on the grounds. Unfortunately, I have not noticed a decrease in the dog infractions. I also agree with your assessment of the TA. I so regret paying my dues this year. That won't happen again.