Whose Dogs Are In The Dog Run? *

The latest buzz is that a portion of our property will be designated as a dog run. This is surprising considering the severity with which the no-dog policy is laid out in all Seward Park documents:

No dogs or other animals or pets shall be kept or harbored in the Apartment, unless the Lessor's prior written consent shall have been obtained in each instance. Violation by the Lessee of this provision shall constitute a breach of a substantial obligation of tenancy and of this lease.

In spite of this, there are hundreds of dogs here, some owned by Board members themselves, in further violation of our By-Laws:

No Stockholder harboring a dog in such Stockholder's apartment or in any other apartment in the Corporation's buildings without prior written consent of the Corporation shall be eligible to run for or serve on the Board of Directors.

l present the issues relating to dogs in another article, but the none of those issues are at point here. The issues, as I seem them, are:

• On what basis do rules get enforced?
• How are priorities are being set?
• On what basis are decisions being made?
• Who benefits from these policies?
• Why aren't these issues being dealt with squarely?
• Why aren't shareholders kept informed?
• What's the best use for our property on Hester Street?

Readers may fault me more not presenting arguments for or against the dog run in this article. But until the issue of dogs is addressed, I just don't see a dog run as being a valid issue.

*This issue was the subject of a March 24 article in The Villager.