Barry Shapiro, a resident of this complex, stepped up to the plate and contacted our General Manager, Rick Hayduk, about the ST/PCV dog policy. Mr. Hayduk responded. Below is Rick's letter; then the extensive response. The posts are at the independent Facebook:
Subject: Dog Policy
Pardon the delayed response; it's one of the pitfalls in trying to respond to resident inquiries on my own.
We'll be introducing a new process to identify registered dogs (see the attached photo) thus enabling Public Safety Officers to clearly approach offending dog owners. The registration will hang from the leash handle; clearly identifying the dog as registered.
If the dog is not registered by May 1; a summons will be issued at the point of contact. If we learn the dog owner is not a resident, they will be escorted off the property.
Yes, enforcement has been lax but in defense of our team, they would have had to stop every dog owner because the registration tag could not be seen. The new process will allow the rules to be enforced.
Please don't hesitate to reach out with any other observations that will make our community better.
Very encouraging hearing from you. But to be honest, so far very little has been fleshed out. During our meeting with you, you mentioned the possibility of the new tags back then, so it seems as if in the past 5-6 weeks, nothing else has been developed.
I have several questions.
1. At the Stuyvesant Town Peter Cooper Tenants facebook site (not the TA site), there was a report of a child knocked down by an excited dog on extendable leash. The law across both public and private property requires a 6 foot leash, but the extendable leashes are ubiquitous. What if anything can be done about this?
2. Someone also reported that her dog's eye was ripped out during an attack by another dog. Tishman-Speyer very publicly published a list of certain breeds that would not be allowed. But everyone knows that these breeds are here, owned by residents. What will be the policy about these breeds moving forward, what done about those already here?
3. To be absolutely clear...there is no NYC law requiring clean up. The applicable law is actually New York State Public Health Law 1310 requiring clean up in any city with a population over 400,000. I think any policy statement management makes should reflect this. So what will you do about people who might be caught not cleaning up after their dogs?
4. Again, to be clear and transparent, NYC health code 161.03 which has been quoted at the STPCV site does not apply here. It doesn't involve clean-up. In place since 1978, it involves curbing dogs, not cleaning up after. Under this provision, dog owners are not allowed to let their dogs defecate on public sidewalks. But since STPVC is on private land, code 161.03 does not enforce curbing here. So if dogs are allowed to defecate on sidewalks within STPCV, it should be clear that this is due to a policy set by STPCV management, has nothing to do with city ordinances per se.
5. Tishman-Speyer published indecipherable maps showing where dogs were allowed to defecate. Needless to say, dog owners paid no attention. To be clear, are there designated areas for dogs to go or is anywhere fair game? Not talking about just the sidewalks now. Currently, owners lift their dogs over the fences to go in the grassy areas. Sometimes they walk their dogs openly within the fenced-off areas. Again, what is policy? Not every grassy area is posted 'no dogs allowed'.
6. With respect to enforcement, what is the impact of a summons? I assume these aren't NYC tickets. Since STPCV is private property, if the tickets are privately issued, these might be enforceable as owners are allowed to set a lot of policies on their own land . I assume there would be fines; you can't evict someone for not cleaning up after a dog. Not sure if these fines could be challenged if not stated in leases.
7. T & V reported there are 1200 dogs registered. Is there a limit on the number of dogs you will license? If there is, how will management address if and when it discovers unregistered dogs once the limit has been reached?
8. If you go to the STR site, the tenant site at facebook and the TA site on facebook, you will see ample complaints about the responsiveness of Public Safety. I would say that with respect to prior dog policy, lax is not an accurate description. Non-existent might be closer, but that's not even accurate. When I pointed out an 'illegal' breed dog (German Shepherd) around the Oval to one PS sergeant, he just made a snide remark to me and kept walking. So it seems to me that it is more accurate to say that PS has regarded enforcement of management dog policy in the recent past as something of a joke. What can you do about that?
A lot to be addressed. And I imagine on the other side of it you have your management pressing for measures that won't discourage dog-loving renters. And PS folks stating their problems asking exactly what you expect them to do under difficult circumstances.
Nonetheless, I hope that in the weeks to come you're able to release policy measures that will put these issues to rest.
Many thanks again, Barry
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.