BY COLIN MIXSON
A pack of rabid Southbridge Towers dog owners successfully opposed new rules proposed by the co-op’s board that would require residents to register their pooches or face eviction.
The pet-loving shareholders — who turned out in force at the co-op board’s open meeting Thursday where a vote on the proposal was expected — argued that the rules would unfairly burden dog-owning residents because of the actions of dog owners from neighboring buildings, who’s canines chronically relieve themselves in the green spaces of the Southbridge complex, according to the opposition’s alpha male.
“It was basically punishing people who live at the building for the actions of people who don’t live here,” said 32-year Southbridge resident Paul Hovitz, owner of Gucci the shih tzu.
In lieu of pushing through the proposed rules, the co-op will instead convene a panel composed of five residents in favor of and five residents opposed to the new dog regulations in order to draft a more balanced approach to keeping Southbridge poop free, according to one board member, who’ll be chairing the new committee.
“The board is taking the advice of some of the people that spoke last night and we’re setting up a committee that’s going to be made up of five pro and five anti people and we’re going to try and come up with a sensible regulation,” said 21-year Southbridge resident John Fratta.
The proposed rules for dogs began circulating among Southbridge residents in June, and would have mandated a biennial registration of pets with the co-op, a limit to the amount of and maximum size of dogs allowed per residence, and sanctions against pooch owners who failed to clean up after their best friends.
Failure to adhere to those regulations would have resulted in fines and eviction — the latter of which was considered to be a particularly onerous and expensive proposition on the part of shareholders, according to one resident dog owner.
“You might think now it won’t cost anything, but it could be very expensive,” said Liz York of the prospect of eviction proceedings. “So whether or not they have a dog, this is not a good way for us to be handling this situation.”
And Hovitz, a former member of the co-op’s board, contended that levying fines against the owners of furry offenders was beyond that co-op’s authority, and would have necessitated a referendum to amend Southbridge’s bylaws.
Fratta, however, refuted Hovitz’s claim, and said that co-op’s board was well within its authority to institute fines and has done so in the past.
Thursday’s meeting was overwhelmingly attended by dog owners — or, at least, dog lovers — who “lambasted” the board, according to Hovitz.
“The room was packed,” he said. “One person spoke in favor of the policy, and everybody else lambasted it and lambasted the board for initiating this and for initiating a policy they have no power to enforce.”
And the one gentleman who did speak in favor of the rules was quickly shouted down by the furious dog owners.
“The one person who spoke in favor of the regs was hissed and yelled at,” said Fratta.
But the turnout, or lack there of, among residents in favor of the rules had less to do with the proposals dearth of support, and more to do with the intimidation factor posed by the rabid pooch fans, according to Fratta.
“This is such a hot topic — and a very controversial one, especially for people who have dogs — that people in favor of the regulations would be intimidated to come to the meeting,” Fratta said. “The fact it was only dog-friendly people there doesn’t really mean anything.”
