Dogs Banned From Roosevelt Island's Riverwalk Lawns By Related Management - Will RIOC Do Same For Riverwalk Commons?
Unleased Dog On Riverwalk Lawn Between 405 and 415 Main StreetDogs pooping and running unleashed on the Riverwalk communal lawns continues to be a problem for the Roosevelt Island luxury Rental and Condominium complex. At first, Related Management sent out a warning memorandum:
...Dogs will continue to be permitted on the lawn as long as it remains a clean and safe environment for everyone. However, if concerns arise in the future the lawn will become a dog-free zone. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.Looks like there was not much cooperation because soon thereafter this memorandum came out from Related Management:
Re: Dogs on Lawns between 405, 415 and 425 Main Street
Effectively immediately, dogs are no longer permitted on the lawn between 405 and 415 Main Street or the lawn between 415 and 425 Main Street.
This decision was made for the safety of our residents and appearance of our landscaping.
Staff from both buildings will be monitoring this space to ensure that residents are adhering to this newly established policy.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Aerial View of Riverwalk Lawn Between 425 and 415 Main StreetI sent the following message to Related Management:
I saw the notice that dogs are no longer permitted in the grassy area between 405 -415 -425 Main Street which I think is a very good idea.Related's representative responded that the 425 -455 Riverwalk Commons area is not under their jurisdiction but is governed by RIOC.
Will that prohibition be extended to the Commons Area. between 425-455 as well?
I certainly hope so.
The dog problem there is as bad if not worse than the other Riverwalk grassy areas.
Yesterday, I inquired of RIOC's Interim President Steve Chironis and VP of Operations Fernando Martinez:
...will RIOC follow the policy of Related and ban dogs from the Riverwalk Commons area between 425 - 455 Main Street in order to protect the safety of Roosevelt Island residents and the appearance of the lawn as well?...Have not heard back yet but will let you know what RIOC's position is on the matter.
I witnessed another dog related incident last Monday. On the way through my building's lobby heading to the elevator I encountered two tiny dogs being admonished by their owner who was carrying a very smelly poop bag in his hands. Apparently, the dogs could not hold it in and crapped on the lobby rug.
Dog Crap Stain on the Building Lobby RugNot properly curbing your dog outside is bad enough but inside a building is particularly disgusting.
Unfortunately, responsible dog owners are being punished for those who are not.
There is a new Roosevelt Island Dog Owners Group being formed. It's called FIDO - Federation of Independent Dog Owners of Roosevelt Island. Perhaps they can come up with a solution.
Here's another Roosevelt Island dog encounter. It's going after it's owner's mom.
52 comments :
I'm skeptical that the displayed lawn damage is significantly caused by dogs. Neither that nor the lesser *patterns* of damage between 405-415 seem random/dog-like to me. I further maintain that children (diapers, food spills, littering) and wild animals (especially geese) cause more damage than dogs do (no pun intended); should we ban them too?
I didn't use the 405-415 area because it isn't fenced. If I had, I'd complain to Related for changing the rules after the signing of the lease. Instead, I used Firefighters Field (at dusk, when it was empty), until dogs were banned from there.
My lease is up at the end of next month. The more I learn about attitudes towards newcomers and how eager they are to engage in silly witch-hunts, the more I hesitate to renew. No need to reply... I know that the overwhelming response to this is "good riddance, you dog-loving, professional-class SOB."
My "1 year take" is that RI started off as a planned community (where does that ever work?) which was failing to the point that it had to change its ways but did so only as little as possible while still surviving somewhat as it was (albeit in ever-mounting debt?)
Despite all this, RI is still a marvelous place and I'm sure that plenty of people will be willing to put up with these mostly harmless shenanigans and support its finances. As for myself, I'm a more of a proponent of *progress* and am less afraid to move on to something better.
I am a resident of Riverwalk Court (415 Main Street). The problems with the lawn (pictured in the aerial photo) were caused by lack of watering. I can confirm that I received an email from a Related management representative today who informed me that "the irrigation system wasn’t working properly before but has been repaired and is scheduled to water the land every night."
As someone who recently purchased a condo and owns two small dogs, it seems like a "bait-and-switch" tactic to market the condominium as pet-friendly (and even feature people walking their dogs in their advertisements) and then unilateraly ban dogs from the lawn once most of the units have sold. I'm not even sure that it is legal to do so. The Offering Memorandum (which sets forth what each prospective condo buyer gets in exchange for their money and is registered with the NYS Attorney General's Office) provides that owners are permitted to keep dogs in their units, subject to reasonable regulations for health and safety. No one from Related has it made it clear how banning dogs has any reasonable connection to health or safety. Had we known about this anti-dog attitude, I think my husband and I would have thought twice before making Riverwalk Court our first home.
I agree wholeheartedly that owners should be responsible pet-owners, that the lawn should not be used primarily as a place for dogs to "do their business" and that dogs should not do any damage or disturb other residents. However, if there are problems with certain individuals being irresponsible dog-owners, those concerns should be directed toward those specific individuals. This blanket ban on dogs on the lawn is going too far and it is not fair to those who made a substantial monetary investment in the property with the understanding that dogs would be allowed.
Furthermore, the lawn is private property (condo-owners and Related pay ground rent to RIOC for exclusive use of the land) and is not intended to be publicly accessible as "no trespassing" signs are posted. I see no issues with allowing dogs to run around on the lawn, particularly at times when no one else is using it.
I do not know of any specific instances where dogs have caused harm to the property. However, I have seen children playing in the landscaped gardens, a Public Safety officer riding his segway across the lawn while on patrol, and numerous people who do not live in Riverwalk trespassing across the lawn on the way to Firefighter's Field. These issues at Riverwalk should also be addressed instead of using dogs/dogowners as a scapegoat for lawn problems.
I strongly encourage other residents of Riverwalk and the Island to consider joining FIDO (Federation of Independent Dogowners), in the hopes of making this Island a place where dogowners and non-dogowners can live together more harmoniously.
All they want from you is to keep dogs away from the lawn. Nobody is going to make you get rid of your dog in your apartment. What is the problem again?
Those comparisons between children and dogs are plain silly. Since when are dogs like children? Since when are they supposed to have the same rights? They are pets.
Btw, RI has a history of not having dogs for a very long time. Don't be surprised that there is an anti-dog attitude among the residents who have been on RI for a long time. Even I knew about this before I moved to RI (but then I don't have a dog and don't particularly like dogs and thus fit in just nicely).
The issue is that Related shouldn't tell people that if you buy a condo at Riverwalk, you can hang out on the lawn with your dog and then change the rules later on. You give Related your money and you think you are getting one thing and then find out you are getting something different. I don't think it's fair to do so.
Of course, children and dogs are not the same and dogs do not have rights. The point is that nobody has the right (through not controlling their children or their pets) to cause damage to the flower gardens. You should be able to do whatever you want with your children or your dogs as long as you aren't causing harm to other people or their property.
If you don't like dogs, don't get a dog. Whether people have dogs on the lawn at Riverwalk shouldn't be negatively impacting you in any way.
You are right, it doesn't. I just look at this from the outside and think that a landlord or property owner has the right to restrict usage of common grounds as fit. Plus, it doesn't surprise me that this is happening considering the anti-dog culture on this island in general.
Jason,
I don't think the issue of banning dogs from Riverwalk lawns has anything to do with newcomers versus oldtimers on Roosevelt Island. Most Riverwalk residents are newcomers and they are the ones objecting to the dogs on the lawns. If not, Related would not have banned them.
I also think the old residents vs new disputes get way overblown. Have you personally ever experienced a significant problem with an older RI resident because you recently moved here? All established neighborhoods in NYC have the same issue of some old time residents resenting the newer ones. RI is no different.
Anyway, I hope you stay. In your short time here you have contributed much to the community by organizing the pick up softball game.
The thing is that when you purchase a condo, you are also purchasing a certain percentage ownership interest in the land and common elements. Related isn't my landlord, they are just the managing agent for the building. The condo-owners pay ground rent directly to RIOC.
I have heard that two Riverwalk residents complained vigorously about the presence of dogs on the lawn to Related. However, the opinions of a small minority should not dictate the use of the property. In my opinion, if the residents want to change the rules there should be a vote on the issue among residents. Alternatively, Related could crack down on people whose dogs are a nuisance.
I respect that you have been on the Island for a long time and have certain views. However, one of the strong points of Roosevelt Island is that there is a diverse group of people and viewpoints - there isn't just one Roosevelt Island way of thinking. I think dog owners need to respect the Island and keep it clean and safe and non-dogowners should respect that some people want to keep pets. Live and let live.
Roosevelt Islander,
jamieps summarized the situation better than I can. Without proof, I do not believe that dogs caused any significant/provable amount of damage on that lawn. Nor am I convinced that it's "most... Riverwalk residents" who are "objecting to the dogs on the lawns". Did a Related representative tell you that? Until they demonstrate otherwise, I suspect external pressure.
And, no, I have not personally gotten negative attitude from any Islander besides PSD officers. However, I have seen plenty of it in the WIRE's letters to the editor and from your commenters. If the attitude didn't affect my life (expanding dog bans , diminishing storefronts), I would be more able to ignore it.
As a possible compromise, how would dog owners feel about a designated fenced in area on lawn between the Riverwalk buildings that the dogs can use.
That way, they don't interfere with those residents who don't want their children or themselves stepping in dog poop, the dogs don't pee on and damage other portions of the lawn or otherwise disturb non dog owners.
Jason, I don't know how many people objected about dogs to Related other than what is in their memo. Find it hard to believe Related would take such action based on 2 reports.
Also, the dog issue is not just on Roosevelt Island. It exists all over NYC. See post from Curbed
http://ny.curbed.com/tags/pets
I would much prefer a fenced area for dogs but I don't think it would be large enough. The Southtown dog-run is near enough but I think people preferred Related's lawn and Firefighters Field because they are far more spacious. And, of course, the larger it is, the more right non-dog-owners would be to complain.
Wouldn't a camera be a good, cheap solution? It would deter violators and those who are still rude enough to leave a mess can be dealt with by Related (or referred to the PSD if they are trespassing non-residents).
I understand that dogs disturb some people in this City and elsewhere. I can name dozens of things that disturb me even more in public. Rather than calling for "bans" of behaviors that *potentially* lead to misbehavior, why not encourage courtesy and punish those who harm others instead of restricting the innocent?
I despise walking behind smokers on the sidewalk. Should we ban all outdoor smoking? No -- most smokers manage without bothering anyone.
I can't stand when people play music so loud, even through earphones, on the subway that I can hear it from 10 feet away. Ban all music on trains? No -- most listeners are considerate.
Many days, walking around the Commons, toddlers whose parents aren't paying attention are liable to trip me. Should we force parents to leash their children or ban children from the area entirely?
I also want to get something off my chest about people who block the long RI subway escalators when people behind them want to walk up but I can't come up with an example "ban" :)
I find Jason Murad's comment about providing a spacious area for the dogs puzzling. Does he provide them a spacious area in his apartment ?
Is your apartment spacious enough for jogging, Anonymous?
Dogs run to exercise. They don't stay home and lift weights.
Jason , are you not allowed to jog with your dogs on the promenade ?
Anonymous, in fact, that's precisely what I do. My earlier comment mentions that I do not personally use the lawn for the purpose of exercising my dog or anything else.
You are aware, however, that there are differently-abled people on Roosevelt Island who may have dogs and would be appreciative of an exercise area? Such people cannot jog alongside their leashed dogs (as I can) and may wish to let them run, off-leash in a spacious enough area.
Would you tell these folks that they shouldn't have dogs? I bet I could find three YouTube videos about dogs providing aid and companionship for the handicapped and elderly (isn't RI intended to give special consideration for them?) for every "bite attack" video anti-canites can dig up.
I must admit that that existing dog-runs do a fine job providing for small dogs. Firefighters Field and Related (for its residents) were the best providers for our larger friends until the bans.
I appreciate the suggestions though. I'm trying to stay constructive and amused in the hopes that we do get somewhere with this. I couldn't attend the first FIDO meeting because it conflicted with Softball ( www.RooseveltIslandSoftball.com !) but I do intend to support them. I'd also like to thank Rick for providing a forum where such discussions can take place.
I agrre with Jason's latest comment that:
I must admit that that existing dog-runs do a fine job providing for small dogs. Firefighters Field and Related (for its residents) were the best providers for our larger friends until the bans.
The bulk of the problem is "our larger friends".
Would the number of your larger friends matter in an election if treated as residents. Maybe we are making a mountain out of a molehill
If you have a large dog and the dog needs more space to exercise than it is available maybe you have to move to a place that can provide it. Just a thought.
Bear dogs do not belong in NYC - it's selfish to have one here. Move to the suburbs where you can have a backyard for the dog to poop in and you never have to clean it up if you don't care! :)
- cat person.
Guess what I saw on my home tonight? A couple walking their doggie on the promenade without a leash. They walked past one of the numerous "Please put your dog on a leash" sign and didn't give a darn.
I know this is a pet peeve of mine (right after bicyclist not dismounting their bikes while using the sidewalk on the RI bridge) but isn't there anything that can be done about it?
Anonymous,
Perhaps as a compromise RI could have off-leash hours for certain designated areas at night between 9pm and 9am. In Riverside Park and Central Park, this is allowed. It gives dog owners a chance to recreate with their dogs off-leash without making people feel uncomfortable.
A better compromise would be to answer how many large dogs are involved. This number would put the matter in perspective and maybe let the dogs enjoy the light of day rather than be confined to an apartment at daytime and to get exercise in the dark (most of the year)
IT WAS A MISTAKE TO BRING LARGE DOGS TO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX FROM THE BEGINNING.
Echoing what Jason said, I don't think blanket bans on dogs or anything are the answer. The problem is not the dogs - they are just animals - it is irresponsible owners who are the problem.
I wanted to note that many people who have large dogs have adopted them from shelters. There is a pet over-population problem in the city because some people chose not to have their animals spayed/neutered and many larger breeds end up in shelters. I personally think it is noble of someone to adopt a large dog and give that animal a home (even in an apartment), rather than allowing it to be euthanized due to another person's cruelty, abuse or irresponsibility.
Also, large breeds serve the city and the public good in many ways, as seeing eye dogs, therapy dogs, companions to the elderly and canine bomb squad members.
If an owner cannot obey leash and pooper scooper laws or keep his or her dog from being destructive, that owner should be fined and probably shouldn't own a dog. We shouldn't punish owners who are just trying to give a nice pooch a good home though.
RIOC have already given the "nice pooches" two fenced-in dog runs.
It seems to be the ownerss of large dogs who are clamoring for large exercise spaces.
If you love large dogs and wish to own one buy a house in the suburbs.
Many residents on the island miss the days when we had more trees and greens and less cars and dogs.
I think we should go back to the days when the island was used for prisons and lunatic asylums because the island was greener and more peaceful then.
New residents and new developments bring in revenue for RIOC, leading to a well-maintained community that can better serve the needs of its residents (without budgetary shortfall). The island is a stone's throw from Manhattan proper and there is no reason that it should be used as an exclusive enclave for the relatively small number of people who moved here in the 1970's. Progress marches on and there is a public need for more housing close to the city.
I am going to venture a guess that your wish to ban dogs has more to do with feeling like you need to maintain control over "your" island and actually has nothing to do with dogs at all.
As far as I know, payments to RIOC by the developers of the new
buildings will be completed and the revenue go to owners. It is not a great windfall for the Island
That's wrong - I can only speak to the way it is at Riverwalk Court.
The condominium pays ground rent in excess of $520,000 a year (that amount goes up 2.75% per year and can be re-adjusted if the fair market value of the land goes up in future), plus each unit owner makes a "public safety payment" of $20 a month to RIOC (subject to an increase of 4% a year) and a payment in lieu of real estate tax (ours is $88 a month).
In addition, if I sell my condo, I have to give 1% of the gross profits to RIOC.
And of course, I don't own my property outright because the land is subject to a ground lease. At the end of the lease term (2068), RIOC can take over the condo if the ground lease isn't re-negotiated.
Sounds like a win-win for RIOC and the Island in terms of generating revenue!
Bringing your dog, large or small on the rooftop common areas of Riverwalk Buildings is particularly annoying and shows a lack of courtesy and responsibility to others living in the building. I saw that last night.
It's also against the Building rules.
Every time I hear a dog owner say that they should not be punished for irresponsible dog owners I agree with them. But, it is getting harder to do that when other dog owners are allowing their dogs to crap on the lobby floor, fail to curb them outside, run unleashed etc.
So what *new* rule would you like to impose on all dogowners to solve this problem of someone brining their dog on the roof? People are already not allowed to bring their dogs on the roof or, obviously, let them crap on floor, etc. Wouldn't enforcement of the basic rules be the most practical solution to solving these problems?
I saw a group of teenagers causing mischief (banging baseball bats against the goal posts and yelling) in Firefighter's Field the other night. My husband called 9-1-1. I also saw a group teenager girls running around screaming on my roof deck w/o supervision. By your logic, we should probably ban all teenagers from leaving their homes after dark because some of them cause problems on the Island. Additionally, bicycles should be banned on the island because some people fail to dismount on the sidewalks or the bridge. Some people litter - no more picnics or eating outside for anyone. Some people drink and then publicly urinate (or commit crimes) - alcohol should not be sold anywhere on the Island either. No one should have any freedom to do anything they might enjoy because some people violate the rules. This makes no sense.
If there was an attempt to institute a ban dogs in my building, I would definitely take legal action. Everyone who bought a condo knew dogs would be allowed in the units pursuant to the offering memo (or, in the case of rental buildings, their lease). Pursuant to that document, I have a legal, contractual right to keep a dog in my home (particularly since I follow building rules), so if the plan is try to ban dogs in the Riverwalk buildings, that idea won't go anywhere.
Jamieps I don't think anybody disputes your right to have dogs in your apartment. What is in dispute is whether dogs should be free to run around elsewhere.
Did you forget to think about your dogs when you bought/leased your condo?
The examples in Jamieps's last comment reflect a lax enforcement of the rules and regulations by PSD, whereas his aim is to do away with blanket regulations for the sole purpose of benefitting a self annointed to be privileged few.
Jamie called 911, not Public Safety. Reading comprehension usually works before you start spewing garbage about the "lax enforcement"
Please, the operators at 911 are busy helping people. In future do not call 911 about mischief even if the goalposts are hurt.
Wait, you called 911 because of some yelling and banging? Whatever happened to just calling the precinct (or in our case Public Safety)? 911 is for emergencies. Leave the lines open for that.
Dog just crapped in the elevator of Riverwalk Landing. Nobody saw the dog or owner but the smell was putrid.
Re:Dog just crapped in the elevator of Riverwalk Landing. Nobody saw the dog or owner but the smell was putrid.
Didn't Riverwalk Landing install cameras in the elevators recently?
This issue is being made so much bigger than it ought to be. First of all, there was no reason to post a video of a dog attacking the author's mother. That automatically shows which side of the fence he's sitting on and I don't think that's something the author wants to portray himself as. It causes people to become defensive.
Truth be told, Related has decided to forbid dogs on certain parts of their property - case closed.
Also, saying things that give the impression of "I'm a cat person and therefore I hate dogs" is sort of juvenile.
Commenting on a dog "crapping" in Riverwalk Landing's elevator will not lead to a solution for lazy dog owners. This is the same for individuals who comment on owners not leashing their dogs after the violation has already occurred.
Back to the real issue at hand, we need to come together as a community, along with the RIOC committee and seek realistic solutions if this is such a big problem.
If this is a problem it is because a group of individuals aggressive-ly try to push thru changes that will benefit only a small minority of island residents.
IF, and it seems a big IF, these persons refuse to adapt to what Roosevelt Island offers I think they will not gain their objective.
"Reaching a solution" thru regulations will take time and
some dog owners appear to be very impatient.
Anonymous, why do you choose not to reveal your identity? It just seems...ugh...idk...I'm not gonna say...but anyway, what I suggest to you is dog-sitting a cute little puppy dog for 3 days. Maybe that will make you happy and stop your grumping... Do you use the lawn ALL the time and there are ALWAYS these horrible furry happy beings around you? I don't understand what your goal is? I mean, how does having dogs on the lawn bother you? You don't like it when they come up to you and say "hi!" and are all happy to see you? Don't you remember when you were a kid? Weren't you really happy to see a dog? I just don't understand the purpose of your ultimate goal? Making everyone else miserable because of your slight annoyance that you choose to turn into the end of the world? Or do you just want to see how far your complaining as a resident will get you? I have never even seen dog poop on those lawns...ever! And as far as the appearance of the lawns, that's bc they don't water it properly. I think that you should look deep down and re-examine what you have done, call Related and remove the complaints and tell them that what you did was a mistake and that you didn't know it would bring so much sadness and concern to the entire community over just a slight little annoyance that you had. You would make so many people happy...just think about it. :) Oh and p.s. I think that you would particularly benefit from the movie "The Grinch who stole Christmas", and pay particular attention to the part where he realizes what he has done, and corrects it: "He puzzled and puzzled till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before! Maybe dogs, he thought, don't only poop. Maybe dogs... perhaps... mean a little bit more!
Narrator: And what happened then? Well, in Whoville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day. And then - the true meaning of dogs came through, and the Grinch found the strength of *ten* Grinches, plus two!" :) The end.
I would like to suggest that those people who believe that dogs add to our community and should not be banned from various areas voice those opinions to Related and RIOC. RIOC/Related should also hear the opinions of residents who have a positive view of animals and not just people who have a vendetta against canines.
I couldn't agree more that dogs are an incredible menace on the island. They must be responsible for the dead grass between 405 and 415. It couldn't possibly be the 103 degree weather we're having. I look out on what is now an empty lawn instead of people playing catch with their dogs or sitting quietly with their pets on a blanket, and a cool calm washes over me knowing that the world is a safer place because of all the residents that caused the dog ban - we owe a debt of gratitude to you all. All of those people that moved to Roosevelt island with pets for one of the truly great things it offers so close to the city - open space - are all just a bunch of suckers. At least we're making rules for the "benefit of all". Or something.
Anonymous, re: calling 911, I guess you would have had to have been there to judge whether you felt your personal safety was threatened by a large group of menacing teenagers with baseball bats, yelling at you. Menacing is actually a crime.
As a newer RI resident, I have not memorized public safety's phone number (I will put it in my speed dial from now on though), but I always know I can call 911 when I feel my physical safety is threatened or their is a potentially dangerous situation. Those kids could have hurt someone. I'm not really sure why you feel you need to weigh-in on whether it was appropriate to call 9-1-1 under a particular set of circumstances.
Furthermore, maybe we should talk more about the potential for gang violence on the Island as opposed to focusing on dogs so much. I think it poses a more immediate and serious threat to the public.
I chose to be anonymous because this particular subject has turned into a marathon charade which does not deal with the main subject.
Roosevelt Island may not be the right place for you and your dog if you cannot be content with being able to exercise your dog on the promenade and in the dog runs.
I do not believe "everyone else" will be miserable if we do not change the existing regulations.
Respect the character of the island which tempted the first tenants to come to this island.
The repetitive "demands" by some dogowners to change the managers regulations are like the attempts by carowners to be able to park their cars everywhere else than at Motorgate.
Every resident could see what Roosevelt Island is like and has to offer before they moved here.
The author should take some action and close commenting on this post because they are digressing far from the point, and some are just outright insulting.
T,
I will be writing an update to this post soon so hopefully the comments will move on to that thread.
Don't see a need to close the thread. If there was something beyond the pale of insulting, I can always delete that comment.
This problem has piqued my interest on a psychological level. I have spoken to other people who live in "dog friendly" apartment buildings and told them about my problem (how there is this one dog hating guy that is complaining and wanting to ban dogs from lawns he himself does not even use).
Well, to my surprise, although I don't know why, (I bet if I were a little older and a little wiser this type of behavior wouldn't surprise me) she said that there's ALWAYS a person trying to complain about dogs no matter where you go. Even if the dogs don't really bother them. These people are like "racists" in that they look for something to take their problems out on and since there's so little for them to complain about (because they are people who enjoy complaining) they see the easiest target to complain about: dogs.
Either that, or they want attention and enjoy pissing everyone else off, or they just want to see how far their complaining will get them. Whatever their reason may be, these individuals are not happy deep down and they like and enjoy making other people miserable.
Oh yeah, I forgot, she said that she used to live in a "no pets allowed" building and this wise mid forties lady said that "with these kind of people, if they don't complain about dogs, they sure do find other things to complain about. The best thing to do is to ignore these people bc they may just be looking for attention."
Folks, people will complain, no matter what. It's simply their nature. And there's a great deal of truth in the old adage: the squeeky wheel gets greased.
I've read a couple of disturbing comments I'd like to address:
1. As a long time resident of Roosevelt Island, I'm happy the Southtown residents are here. You've breathed new life into the community and for many old-time residents, (like myself,) your presence is very much welcome.
Just to set the record straight, the arguments with Related prior to the construction of the buildings was not because we didn't want you here, but rather, we didn't want the first building placed on what was left of our diminshing parkland.
Dogs need a couple of things in order to be good neighbors. They need sufficient excercise for their breed, socialization and intellectual stimulation. Dogs need to be walked, not neccesarily just to go out to poop, but to establish the heirarchy of the pack. If their owner leads, the dog becomes submissive in the pack. If the dog leads, they are in the Alpha position in the pack.
Jogging or riding a bike with a dog is good excercise but it doesn't provide socialization. Only interaction with other dogs does that.
Most dogs can and need to run faster than their owners are able. Running with other dogs accomplishes that.
The dog runs we have are neither appropriate for large or small dogs. Large dogs need more space. Small dogs need to be separated from large dogs.
The manner in which a small dog plays will often make it seem like prey to a large dog. A big dog with a strong prey drive will attack a small dog. Big dog owners may think this is just "playful" but the small dogs can easily be hurt by this form of "play".
Until we can separate the large and small dogs off-leash in separate fenced areas, responsible owners will continue to try to locate remote areas where their dog's off-leash needs can be met. Multiple attacks have taken place in both the dog runs, hound to hound, and hound to hound-lover.
As the organizer of FIDO I recommend the following as a means to curb the pooper scooper offenders....I'd like to encourage all FIDO members to have their cell phones with them while they walk their dogs and for them to call Public Safety with the location and description of the dog and owner who failed to pick up. Also, if the offender lives in your building, and you know their apartment, please tape a sign on their door indicating that they failed to pick up after their dog at a specific time and location.
Related and Becker & Becker promoted their housing units, both rental and condo, as dog friendly. They have a responsibility to provide for the needs of the dog owners in their buildings. A common mud flat where large and small dogs play is not adequate for the needs of residents.
Just as dogs are free to roam Central Park wherever their hearts and masters desire within specific time constraints, I believe our parks at the North and South tips of the Island should present the same opportunity.... perhaps one for large and the other for small dogs.
Folks, people will complain, no matter what. It's simply their nature. And there's a great deal of truth in the old adage: the squeeky wheel gets greased.
I've read a couple of disturbing comments I'd like to address:
1. As a long time resident of Roosevelt Island, I'm happy the Southtown residents are here. You've breathed new life into the community and for many old-time residents, (like myself,) your presence is very much welcome.
Just to set the record straight, the arguments with Related prior to the construction of the buildings was not because we didn't want you here, but rather, we didn't want the first building placed on what was left of our diminshing parkland.
Dogs need a couple of things in order to be good neighbors. They need sufficient excercise for their breed, socialization and intellectual stimulation. Dogs need to be walked, not neccesarily just to go out to poop, but to establish the heirarchy of the pack. If their owner leads, the dog becomes submissive in the pack. If the dog leads, they are in the Alpha position in the pack.
Jogging or riding a bike with a dog is good excercise but it doesn't provide socialization. Only interaction with other dogs does that.
Most dogs can and need to run faster than their owners are able. Running with other dogs accomplishes that.
The dog runs we have are neither appropriate for large or small dogs. Large dogs need more space. Small dogs need to be separated from large dogs.
The manner in which a small dog plays will often make it seem like prey to a large dog. A big dog with a strong prey drive will attack a small dog. Big dog owners may think this is just "playful" but the small dogs can easily be hurt by this form of "play".
Until we can separate the large and small dogs off-leash in separate fenced areas, responsible owners will continue to try to locate remote areas where their dog's off-leash needs can be met. Multiple attacks have taken place in both the dog runs, hound to hound, and hound to hound-lover.
As the organizer of FIDO I recommend the following as a means to curb the pooper scooper offenders....I'd like to encourage all FIDO members to have their cell phones with them while they walk their dogs and for them to call Public Safety with the location and description of the dog and owner who failed to pick up. Also, if the offender lives in your building, and you know their apartment, please tape a sign on their door indicating that they failed to pick up after their dog at a specific time and location.
Related and Becker & Becker promoted their housing units, both rental and condo, as dog friendly. They have a responsibility to provide for the needs of the dog owners in their buildings. A common mud flat where large and small dogs play is not adequate for the needs of residents.
Just as dogs are free to roam Central Park wherever their hearts and masters desire within specific time constraints, I believe our parks at the North and South tips of the Island should present the same opportunity.... perhaps one for large and the other for small dogs.
Look at the dog run in front of Riverview. There is no grass left. Now imagine the rest of our green areas in a few years.
Amazing that dogowners feel they should have the same rights for their dogs as children do to run around on the lawn..I've owned many dogs, and Jason the issue is that the dogs don't wear diapers. When they need to go it's on the nearest shrub, rose bush flower bed etc. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?
I see my neighbor let's his dog pee all over the landscaped bushes in front of the building. He does it when no one is around...or so he thinks. Another commenter is a LANDLORD SO WHAT DO THEY CARE IF OUR YARD GETS DESTROYED. THEY DONT EVEN LIVE HERE THEY JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADVERTISE AS PET FRIENDLY TO GET MORE TENANTS AND MAKE MORE MONEY. And Jason, the reason kids are allowed on the lawn is because they wear diapers.
Post a Comment