Residents face stricter rules for pet ownership

From the intimidating pit bulls that bite on command to the droopy eyed Saint Bernards that slobber and snore, dogs—and their owners—who live in New York City Housing Authority buildings will face new rules and regulations starting May 1, and local responses have ranged from relief to outrage.

NYCHA, which traditionally banned pets in its buildings, changed its policy to allow limited ownership of domesticated animals in 2002 in response to the national Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, which required that the Housing Authority grant tenants the right to own one pet per apartment.

The resulting rise of dogs in public housing led to a surge of reported dog attacks, some of which led to police intervention and open gunfire, said Howard Marder, public information officer of NYCHA. Pit bulls specifically have been determined by NYCHA to be predators to public housing residents, and in response to pit bull attacks, NYCHA will enact a stricter policy starting in May. The new policies will require dogs to be under 25 pounds, a change from the current 40 pound maximum, and more specific limits will be placed on the types of breeds allowed—all with the goal of eliminating “vicious” dogs, Marder said.

Ethel Velez, executive director of the New York City Public Housing Residents Alliance, and self-professed dog-lover, called the issue “a double-edged blade.” She expressed doubt with the revisions of policy, saying, “The fact that we are going to have smaller dogs does not mean that they will be less vicious,” adding that she fears the 25-pound limit will only result in “smaller bites.”

Velez also said that rules on paper are not always practical. “The Housing Authority has no one to monitor who has a dog and who doesn’t, and who is cleaning up after their dog and who isn’t.”

At NYCHA’s Grant Houses on 123rd Street and Amsterdam, residents reported that dangerously aggressive dogs are common and rules are not followed.

“They don’t regulate them. Nobody says anything. Everybody has a pet,” said resident Michelle Seroy, as she walked her dog.
Another resident, Jackie Nieves, expressed concern with the current rules. “There have been a lot of attacking incidents,” Nieves said, adding of the new policy, “the rules need to be reinforced,” Nieves said. “People don’t follow the rules, they’re not supposed to have large dogs.”

Others argued that the rules were too strict in the first place. “I think it is outrageous,” said Paul Ordóñez, a Grant House resident. “A dog is a dog and should be treated like any person wants to be treated.” Ordóñez, who once owned a pit bull, said that his dog was never violent, adding, “It was unfair that I didn’t get to keep it. We pay rent.”

Seroy echoed these sentiments. “Pets are great for older folks. And for me, I have a disability, and it is a reason for me to get out,” she said.

Marder admitted that, since 2002, the pet policy has been somewhat of an experiment. “It was kind of like, you go out and write your own rules,” Marder said, noting that the revision “became necessary because of abuses to the system.” Marder added, “We are not a police force, we are a landlord.”

Velez acknowledged a need for change, despite her love of dogs. “People feel threatened by dogs who are walking their masters,” she said.

news@columbiaspectator.com