February 1, 2008

Representative Peter Nehr

State of Florida

905 East Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., #430

Tarpon Springs, FL 34689

Dear Representative Nehr,

I want to thank you for your willingness to assist tax-paying homeowners in their just and reasonable wish to live with a companion animal in their homes. I serve on the board of Pets in Condos, Inc. and am a strong supporter of the right of homeowners to have a companion animal regardless of whether they live in an apartment, a condo, or a single family home.

As you prepare the legislation, I would like to ask you to keep the following thoughts in mind:

The large majority -- 2 out of 3 -- households in this country have one or more animals. In California where I was from until recently, the unusual households – whether single family home, condo, or rental unit – are those without pets. Furthermore, California passed the bill we would like to see here seven years ago. California Assembly Bill 860 was signed into law in 2000 and became effective January 2001. It states:

’No governing documents shall prohibit an owner of a separate interest within a common interest development from keeping at least one pet within the common interest development subject to reasonable rules and regulations of the association." Under California law, "governing documents," include "operating rules." The law also applies to mobile home parks.

I find the rigid anti-pet stance of many Florida condo associations to be out of synch with the general population of our country. In all my years of condo living and serving on condo boards, I encountered not one single problem with a pet, be it dog, cat, hamster, bird, even ferret. We barely were aware of them – even in the apartment next door -- and dog owners always carried a disposal bag. Note how almost every television commercial features a pet alongside a human.

It is a well-documented medical fact that a companion animal serves a healthful purpose in relieving loneliness, easing anxiety, and lowering blood pressure.

This is why hospitals, hospices, nursing homes and assisted living homes invite and welcome therapy dogs to visit patients.

This is why Federal laws permit the disabled to have service animals without restriction and permit them not only in residences, but in planes, trains, buses, boats, restaurants and hotels and motels.

One should not have to be disabled to benefit from having a pet. Tax-paying condo owners should have the same rights as single family home owners. The idea that someone living in a condo should have to be disabled to have an animal is ridiculous in extremis.

Truthfully, most of these Florida condo developments are huge – almost small towns in size. Most of the CC&Rs were written in a different era in the 1960s or 1970s. Thousands of newer, younger residents have very different lifestyles from their older neighbors.

Communities should indeed establish their own pet policies, but I remind you that policies which are 30 – 40 years old may be outdated and in need of a facelift. Unfortunately, most condo boards find it difficult to get people to serve and often the same few people remain entrenched for decades set in their ways and unreceptive to change. This small number retain decades-old policies even when the lifestyles of the majority have long since changed.

What’s more most condo owners remain dismally ignorant of their association’s power processes. And most aren’t interested.

I realize that legislators hear from the “negatives” far more loudly and frequently than from those who want the facelifts. Truthfully, the argument for “quiet enjoyment of one’s home” works on both sides, as does the one about government intrusion in the privacy of one’s home.

As for the question of insurance and liability raised by one of your correspondents, this is not an issue. Condos do not and should not have liability here. Individual owners’ insurance covers them. It is true that insurers may not write where the owner has a pit bull or other recognized aggressive breeds. Most people living in small homes prefer small dogs. And only an idiot would keep a huge dog in a tiny condo. And not all condo residents live within breathing sounds of each other. Many developments have unattached housing.

Anti-pet regulations also will not induce young, well educated people to move here. We already have a problem with a lack of “smart” jobs – the kind you need a good education for, and that pay well. If we want to attract a young, well-educated workforce, we need to offer high-level jobs, great technology, good salaries and smart housing that has no pet restrictions. Let’s not be known as the anti-pet state.

We would like to see legislation that permits responsible homeowners whether it be condo, apartment or single family home to have equal rights to a companion animal.

The requirements should be the same as for any other citizen responsibility: no disturbance by noise, no mess of elimination, no odors, only one letter from a licensed health care professional. No size restrictions. Strict compliance with HIPPA and all Federal legislation.

Since non-pet owners number only one of three households, let us not permit the minority to tyrannize the majority. (de Tocqueville would turn over in his grave.)

Thank you for your efforts,

Sharon Brown

Delray Beach, FL