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. Please note: Posts that overdo their passion and veer into name-calling or that make serious accusations without proof are going to have a hard time getting through.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Dog Rules Showdown



So, the powers that be have placed several "designated no dog area" signs in front of the southern portion of the Oval Lawn, where the Farmers Market is held on Sunday.  And, of course, dog owners (like the one pictured above) are ignoring the signs.  A Public Safety officer was around when I was there and did notify dog owners of the rule, while checking registration tags.  I overheard one older dog owner, whose dog didn't appear to have such a tag, reply to the officer, : "You tellin' me this?  You can repeat it to me about ten times!"  And he walked away.

Okay, management has drawn a line in the sand (almost literally considering the ground at the Farmers Market). Now, let's see how well this dog rule will be enforced.

My suggestion is for management to also put up a chain-link barrier that can be removed for the Farmers Market.  Having those signs up is not going to stop dog owners when Public Safety isn't around, and you know they are not going to be around 24/7.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

You know Wussie Rosie isn't going to enforce this or any other quality of life rule. Doesn't have the cajones.

Anonymous said...

Is that the infamous EV Penistrator?

Anonymous said...

I am a dog owner with a registered dog. I follow the rules, I clean up after my dog 100% of the time. I want to point out that not everyone who has a dog ignores the rules. I get very upset when I see people who just ignore rules and have no respect for registering your dog. Please just recognize that not every dog owner is irresponsible. The hate and harassment towards dog owners is getting old.

Anonymous said...

Interesting change in the dog regulations that happened, I believe, around 3 months ago. Before, “Aggressive breeds are NOT permitted on the property”. Now, “Aggressive breeds are NOT allowed." Legally, not sure what this means, Also, Siberian Huskies were taken off the list for aggressive breeds. The SOP of Rose Associates, dictated by CW Capital, always seems to be, in my opinion, that if expenditures to enforce QOL issues impact the bottom line (churning apartments to allow the maximum allowable rents), then such QOL regulations will be watered down, eliminated in their entirety or just ignored . The 80% carpet requirement is a classic example of this, that being, it is just ignored.

Anonymous said...

I just spent a wonderful hour outside on the grounds. Chatting with the owner of two little terriers.

A husky walked by (he and I are familiar). About 100 lbs. Could not be sweeter. The terriers (30 lbs. combined) totally terrorized the husky. He is very submissive and sweet.

You could make the case that the husky does not belong here because of his size and breed. You could also make the case that the terriers do not belong here because they were aggressive towards the husky.

If you took 5 minutes to get to know any of these three dogs, you's be comfortable with all of them.

I understand why we have rules. We have to. But the reality is that the problem lies with specific owners and specific dogs.

Anonymous said...

"Also, Siberian Huskies were taken off the list for aggressive breeds"

In my experience, these dogs are very sweet. I don't support most of what Rose does here--including what they allow with respect to dogs--but I'm OK with this.

Anonymous said...

It needs to be understood a LOT of people come in from the East Village to walk their dogs here. I have a dog and regularly walk with a group of friends and their dogs and we would NEVER think of letting our dogs take a dump and not pick it up. We also have the blue Stuy Town dog tags on their leashes so security knows we live here. I understand not all dog owners are as responsible as we are. Id be curious to know if public safety kept none residents and their dogs off the property if the poop problem wouldn't be so bad. But that would require public safety to do their job and we're all aware of their shortcomings and the divisive effect it has on the community.

Anonymous said...

PCV dog owners utilize a strength in numbers strategy.

Early mornings and late evenings 4-5 persons walking 5-6 dogs often gather together at designated locations adjacent to large grass covered areas to socialize and scope out the vicinity. When satisfied the coast is clear the group slowly meanders out to the middle of the lawn where the conversation is resumed. Sometimes dogs are unleashed to romp around and do what dogs do on bushes, plants and grass.

Peer pressure controls group behavior. More often than not, if one person cleans up after their dog before walking away the others will follow that routine. If one person neglects to pick up before walking away the others will usually repeat that infraction.

Anonymous said...

To 2:40 p.m.: Thank you for your consideration, although I hope you're not letting your dog urinate on the plantings or defecate on the pathways (or anywhere on the property, ideally). You know what would help? If you and the other considerate dog owners made a point of informing the inconsiderate ones of the rules. Then the rest of us could let up on the "hate and harassment."

Anonymous said...

I posted the regulation removal of the Siberian Husky as a aggressive breed. I should have been more clear, in general I think they are OK, a beautiful and loyal breed, and their removal from the list was most probably a realization from management accordingly, not necessarily a watering down of the current regulations (in this case). However, please note the following, as per the still current dog regs:

“Limit on Number of Pets: Only two pets shall be allowed in any one apartment. Their aggregate adult weight may not exceed 50 pounds. The mature weight of only one dog residing in an apartment may not exceed 50 pounds. Any dog having a known mature weight that normally exceeds the 50 pound weight limit will not be permitted.

There is a non-resident who walks two Siberian Huskies here. Both of these dogs ARE aggressive and the next time, I will call PS on him.

Anonymous said...

The reason why the signs were put up i would think is because since food is sold there they probably don't want dogs shitting and pissing there. Of course they seriously misjudge the consideration of MOST of the dog owners at this complex. Since there are many dog owners who read and post on this blog I would be interested in hearing why they choose to ignore these rules. I have no doubt they are justified in their entitlement.

Anonymous said...

It is usually the little dogs that have the most aggressive, Napoleonic personalities! Think Bloomberg!

Anonymous said...

Poster 6:10 - It's not our job to police the other tenants, its Security's. In the past I have spoken up when a dog was off leash or in the flowerbeds and the response was always hostile. But I know this is not a reflection of all dog owners, just a few a-holes who give the rest of us a bad name.

Your comment further illustrates my point about the horrible job Security does enforcing ANY rules and how it divides the community.

with held for fear of retribution said...

Its a shame it has all come to this, I have a dog who is 13yrs old, a bit over weight, rarely barks, etc. The multiples of Pit Bulls on the property is amazing, in all they seem calm & collective and then you see these sad news reports regarding these once calm dogs attacking children.
I agree the new signage probably has more to do with the prepared foods, (probably a violation) served at Farmers Market. This & the Concert events appear to be a big issue with management, so be it and let them have it. So please call off the dogs!!!!!

Anonymous said...

It's true that Security does a horrible job. Yesterday, someone dumped a pile of filthy pillows, household items and cardboard boxes on the sidewalk in front of 445 and just left them there. They were there all night. PS has security cameras all over the place with a very prominent one overlooking that very spot. Do you think they did anything about it? They must have seen the culprit who put all that shit out. This place is a total disaster and is not going to get any better so long as we have incompetent management and lazy "security" all the time renting and churning to students and transients and their friends, acquaintances and casual "guests." BTW, 435/445 must be one of the worst "no-tell motel" buildings in the whole project from what I see coming and going.

Anonymous said...

To 9:52 a.m.: I still think that if we want to be a community, we should all take some responsibility for keeping this place livable, especially since Management and its minions aren't interested in doing that. Yes, comments to violating dog owners are usually met with hostility, but peer pressure can be powerful. If more people spoke up, we'd probably see less bad behavior.

Anonymous said...

Re the dogs...management themselves called the rules into question when they published a map of the property that said dogs are essentially allowed everywhere except the Oval, inside the playgrounds and where posted signs indicate. They then erected many signs on light poles saying that you were within the rules if you leashed and picked up after your dog. Therefore, many grassy areas are actually now in bounds.

Prior management also threw a monkey wrench into the garbage dumping "rules" when they posted signs on the loops that indicate dumping is permissable within certain hours (which is very ghetto), while also posting "no dumping" signs in the carriage rooms, thereby raising the question of where and when to dump legally.

And PS...the allowable weight for dogs was initially one dog, 40 pounds or less, which eventually became 60 pounds and then 80 pounds (spread over one of more dogs)...and then was lowered back down towards 50. But by then, several larger dogs were legally registered and have been grandfathered in to the current regs.

Anonymous said...

"Re the dogs...management themselves called the rules into question when they published a map of the property that said dogs are essentially allowed everywhere except the Oval"

This is true. Apparently, now only "pigs and their guests" are allowed on the oval. Come see them root around on Saturday starting at 3pm...

Anonymous said...

To 6:10 PM: I do my part but unfortunately my dog isn't an astronaut and does need to walk on ground therefore, use the bathroom on the ground.

Anonymous said...

Dogs are always a bitched about on this site. But what about the humans?
I mean, all the random folks who probably don't live in Stuytown, who routinely litter and at night use the lawns as their facilities?
There is far more spilled drinks, cigarette butts, and wrappers than dog poop in the grass.

Anonymous said...

6:10PM but who's gonna talk to the drunks who wee on the plants the early morn?

Damian White said...

Right on. The way this post was worded grouped all dog owners into that irresponsible and defiant category and I resent it. I too am a dog owner, and a very responsible one at that. I suggest choosing your words more carefully and not making a blanket statement as if you were starting a revolution against dogs and their owners in stuyvesant town.