Dogs: No Means No

The Board recently voted to remove the No Dogs Affidavit from applications to purchase apartments, but the fact that dogs are not permitted is still abundantly clear as stated in our House Rules, By-Laws and Proprietary Lease. Why remove the affidavit without changing the rule?

The issue is indeed confusing. There are city laws that seem to allow dogs to be "prescribed" by doctors or that allows dogs if they remain uncontested for a certain period of time; there are concerns of property values, sanitation, and quality of life. There are also the potential facilities, fees, registration and regulation that would have to be drawn up for dog owners. Most importantly, perhaps, is the question as to whether people want dogs to be permitted in our buildings.

The Board has taken the No Dog Affidavit out of the purchase application and there is serious consideration for using our property on Hester Street as a Dog Run. Such decisions seems outright sneaky; whose agenda is being served? Shouldn't we first address the Dog question once and for all?