How far do you go to accommodate disabilities?

Any competing interests? What does that mean?

I think we both agree that there is a line somewhere -- that the person with disabilities can't make infinite demands for accommodation, and that the non-disabled person can deal with some inconvenience to accommodate the disabled person.

But just like I think a disabled person can overreach, I think there are "competing interests" from non-disabled people that should be discounted. If someone at a business meeting is wearing a white sweater when a blind co-worker brings in her seeing-eye dog, who is a black lab, I don't think the white-sweater-wearer has the right to bar the blind co-worker from the meeting because the black dog hair might get on her sweater.

I don't think there's any question that people should have to deal with some inconvenience to accommodate people with disabilities. And I'm on both sides of that of course (I get some accommodations and then have to deal with some, like handicapped parking spaces). (Although the "inconveniences" sometimes turn out to be the opposite -- I used to get stink-eyes when I'd ask to turn on captions on tv's at bars and such, now they usually have captions on for everyone all of the time.) Just a matter of where that line should be drawn.

And what does said "deathly afraid of dogs person" do when outside walking around and someone is walking their dog?

'zactly.

That's all dependent on whether it's an officially licensed and trained service animal who's serving someone who actually has a disability, of course. But, excellent re-stating, thanks.

I was taking it that the dog was not liscenced. Purely because if he was I'd think this was non-issue - in other words the condo association would have to immediately allow this person access as if she the dog was a cane and not a dog.

My take is that she is fighting to be considered disabled and to have her dog considered a service dog.

Of course that is just my assumption here.

The high rise has a no-dogs-allowed policy. I take that to mean no dogs, except for dogs that work with the blind. Mary Joe bought the condo, knowing the rules of the condo association. So, at that time, she knew about the no-dog policy. The board permitted her to keep a dog if she obeyed the rules.

I see no problem with the rules of the condo association. She should keep the dog in a carrier in the common areas and she should use the service elevators and entrance. However, one thing missing concerns the weight of the dog.
How much does this dog weigh? My miniature Poodle weighs about 27 pounds. I find it very hard to carry him for a some what long distance and if he were to be in a carrier, I wouldn't be able to carry the dog at all. Too heavy for me. Besides my dog would never sit in a carrier. He'd bark and pee the whole time he was in the carrier.

I remember a California case, a while back, where the two married dog owners were being treated for mental disorders and their MD wrote a letter to the Court explaining that the dog owners needed their little dog in order to function somewhat normally.

The Condo board objected to the dog. The case went to Court and the dog owners won their case. They were awarded an amount in the neighborhood of $60,000. Their dog, by the way, was not considered to be a "service dog".

After the case was settled, the couple and their dog moved away.

Those Condos on the northside of Chicago seem to be pretty fussy places in which to live. I remember a Condo board ( northside ) trying to evict a retired, elderly Chicago Police Captain, because of his accidental urination while in the common areas of the Condo. I think the gentleman was in his 80s and was incontinent. I don't remember how that issue was settled.

It means any interest of comparable importance that is inconsistent with the disabled person's interest.


Yes, I agree. And I'm not even necessarily opposed to this woman's dog. Personally, I like dogs, and I'd never live in a no-pets building. I would not only support this woman's right to have her dog accompany her on a leash in the common areas, I'd support anyone who wanted to own a dog. But, like I said, I'd never be a resident there in the first place.

I think the administration has done what they could for the woman.
What does she do when the dog has to do its business? Does she carry the dog all the time and only puts it down when it is necessary? This would more or less mean the poor dog never gets to walk or run. If the dog is allowed to walk she does not need the dog at her body all the time.
Does this woman drive a car? Where is the dog? Does it sit on her lap while she is driving? That is dangerous in traffic. If the dog sits in the back of the car it is a sign she does not need the dog on/at her body all the time.

If I was the woman being attacked by the Board of the Association, I'd rent out my condo and move. I'd never live with snots who hate little dogs.

What's with Chicago anyway? Suddenly so full of it...

Exactly. What if she has to use public transit? What does she do when she wants to go to the theatre or the opera or a restaurant? There are 'no dog' policies everywhere, and I'm not talking about seeing-eye dogs. What will she do when the dog dies?

I, too, think it's no big deal for her to carry the dog (not in a carrier) in the common areas and see no reason for her to use the service elevator; however, that is what the accommodations were and if even a quarter of the people in that building decided they needed an assistive dog, there'd be chaos. Well, I guess they'd have to change the by-laws.

It sounds like she's suing because of how the accommodations are making her feel (second class citizen) when it's all really a matter of how you look at it - she could feel grateful instead, but then she may well have other issues besides her anxiety disorder(s).

Agree!

Here's an interesting article about how a landlord has to pay $25k for trying to evict a tenant with HIV for trying to force him to get rid of his emotional support dog.

http://www.boston.com/community/pets/articles/2011/04/05/landlord_must_pay_25000_for_trying_to_evict_HIV_patients_dog/

Interesting article. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to learn that the landlord's decision to enforce the no-pets policy after the tenant had already moved in was really an attempt to evict the tenant because he had AIDS.

Sadly, I wouldn't doubt it either.

Personally I wouldn't care if someone had HIV OR a dog (I always allowed pets if they had a flea collar), but I was a landlord for 9 years and there are easier ways to get rid of a tenant.

In BC, you can give them three months' notice if you want to rent it to a family member or if you plan on renovating it or if you decide not to rent it out anymore. In writing, of course. Simple. Of course, it was a suite in my house, not an apartment building, so that might make a difference. But there are Landlord and Tenant laws and guidelines and if you take the time to read them, you can make it happen legally.

I had to get rid of someone who was smoking pot in my suite. Actually there were two of them in there smoking up. I don't care about that, personally, but the smoke was coming up the air vents and I had kids in the house and it stunk to high heaven. After ignoring several requests to smoke it outside, I gave them the three months' notice and they were quite good about it (didn't trash the suite).

Ah, but what if it had been medical marijuana?

hahaha

that was my first thought as well - must be a Canajun thing (esp. when thinking about the Wet Coast)

When pets prove a problem
Simon Johanson
April 11, 2011
Australia
Excerpt from the artical
http://theage.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/when-pets-prove-a-problem-20110410-1d9cf.html
As more Melburnians make the switch to high-density living, how to manage animals in apartments is a hairy issue.
t's also a social issue, with many Australians condemned to lonely and unhealthy lives because of bans on pets in rental accommodation, according to University of Tasmania sociologist Adrian Franklin.

Professor Franklin says there is considerable evidence to show companion animals are highly beneficial, but ''as our population ages until fully a quarter of the population is over 65, the disparity [from pet bans] can only become more obvious''.

No pet'' clauses in advertising and rental agreements are a constant source of grievance among tenants and landlords, according to Tenants Union policy worker Toby Archer.

Although Victoria's Residential Tenancies Act doesn't have rules on pets, the commonly used Real Estate Institute of Victoria's tenancy agreement does.

''The tenant must not keep any animal, bird or other pet on the premises without first obtaining the written permission of the landlord or agent. Permission will not be unreasonably withheld,'' it states.

The Tenants Union successfully challenged this ban several times, arguing landlords are not entitled to restrict tenants from having pets because it interferes with their ''quiet enjoyment'' of the property.

Tenants can't be evicted on the basis of the clause, says Mr Archer, but they can be evicted if their pet is a nuisance, damages property or is a danger.

Pets are not the worst problem.

''Kids do more damage than dogs,'' she says. ''Dogs can't draw on walls.''

Studies about human ownership of animals have been done for a very long time; it's been proven that it helps people live longer and healthier lives.

We have had neighbors who owned dogs that barked every time I go into our back yard. There are city ordinances against those kinds of annoyances, and I have report them to the city police. Neighbors on both sides of us now own dogs, but they are not constant barkers, and I can handle their occasional barking.

I also wanted to own a dog after I retired, but I'm not home enough to be a responsible owner, so I have gone without one. There may come a time in my life when I quit traveling when I'll buy a dog. I look forward to the companionship, and for it to keep me healthy by keeping me active by walking with the dog daily.

Well, thay just OBJECT to u.
Thay have canine good taste.
Thay can sense that relative to THEM, u are IGNORANT.

Who can blame them ?????

Yes, David, I'm ignorant, but you're an idiot! Ignorance can be changed, but idiot is permanent.