Why “Pets in Condos”?
A Civil and Property Rights Perspective
by Barbara Feeney, Advisory Board,
Citizens for Pets in Condos
Regarding every public policy issue, the law must balance a broad range of competing claims of rights and responsibilities. Our founding fathers well understood the complexity of human nature when they bravely and boldly crafted and ratified our Constitution, thus bequeathing to us a glorious guide to justice. In time, and consistent with the United States Constitution, the great State of Florida followed suit and adopted its own Constitution which enumerated basic rights such that, “…All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property.” We, in turn, are called to reason together through each public controversy in order to ascertain the just and proper role of the government (E Pluribus Unum) in protecting the constitutionally enumerated rights of all Americans – including, of course, all Floridians.
Meeting the challenges implicit in striking the correct balance between individual rights and mutual responsibilities is the just and honorable duty of all public officials. Glib rhetoric criticizing the legitimate role of government is, at best, a disingenuous and transparent tactic of those who would, without restraint, impose their own will on others. Thus, claims based merely on the “majority of owners” must never be allowed to trump the carefully crafted separation and balance of powers by which all Americans, including minorities, are ensured protection against tyranny imposed by any individual, group, or branch of government.
Despite rumors to the contrary,
the Constitutions of Florida and of the
Thus, the issue of “pets in condos” should properly be considered within the context of competing claims of constitutionally protect rights and mutually held responsibilities. There is no doubt that extensive federal, state, and local laws - properly legislated, implemented, and adjudicated – already exist to balance the rights and responsibilities of animal owners and homeowners. If an animal should cause a nuisance, remedies are already available – within the context of duly enacted laws and rules. The presumption that the mere presence of a “pet” in a neighbor’s home constitutes a nuisance (when ownership of that “pet” is otherwise allowed under existing civil law) and therefore justifies pre-emptive denial of the neighbor’s right to pet ownership, constitutes a flawed justification for infringing on the legitimate rights of others.
The injustice of such pre-emptive denial is compounded by an extremely asymmetrical imbalance of power and resources between the individual homeowner and the condominium association. Specifically, the homeowner must bear the costs and strain of litigating his plea for a waiver of the rules against the much greater resources and legal talent of the association. Mitigating the potential tyranny implicit in situations characterized by such a disparity in power is exactly the purpose of our carefully crafted Constitutional system. After all, the condominium association is a creation of state law and as such, the state bears responsibility for ensuring that its implementation meets Constitutional muster and for mitigating, through legislation, any unintended consequences, especially ones that improperly and unjustly infringe upon basic and civil rights.
Were this not the case, all Florida corporations could claim exemption from conducting itself in a Constitutional manner by stating that they are a business, can do as they please, and can conduct business according to the will of a majority of their board and stockholders. Clearly, this is not the case. They must abide by a wide range of laws and rules and may be subjected to civil and criminal penalties if they do not. Simply stated, they may not violate the civil rights and liberties of their employees, their customers, their suppliers, or the general public with impunity – nor may condominium associations.
Rather than pre-emptive denial of pet ownership, condominium associations should be encouraged to establish rules and procedures to prevent and mediate pet-related conflicts – with the understanding that their activities may not infringe upon the civil and property rights of others.
I will leave to another time a treatise on the ancient and priceless bond between man and God’s other creatures and man’s noble duty to protect them – to another day for a heartfelt plea for mercy for the thousands of helpless and innocent animals put to death for want of a home, and for the thousands of people who long for the tender love of a companion animal. I trust that a compelling case regarding these issues is self-evident.
Please feel free to contact me if I can do anything at all to help you serve our great state.
Sincerely,
Barbara Feeney
============================================================================================================
Barbara
Feeney, MPA
Senior Health
Planner
Phone:
(561) 844-4220 Extension 27
Fax:
(561) 844-3310