The Emotional Support Animal bill will be resubmitted to the 2009 Florida legislature. Help us find a sponsor in the Florida Senate. Contact your own Florida legislators to tell them you want an ESA bill with "teeth" - one that is at least as good as Federal law, but a bill that clarifies the right to have Emotional Support Animals.

The Emotional Support Animal bill submitted last year would have:

o helped people in extreme cases get relief, especially those who can not afford good legal representation

o clarified federal ADA/fair housing law covering rights of people with emotional disabilities, in one combined statement

o the addition of a second opinion, while not required by federal disability and fair housing law, would have allowed a more substantiated basis of need without violating unit owners’ HIPAA rights.

Click here to read the text of the bill that was submitted in 2008.  This bill would have clearly stated that people being treated for emotional/mental conditions have the right to have Emotional Support Animals, no matter what type of housing they reside in. It spelled out what kinds of medical and mental health professionals could document the need for an ESA. And it clarified that ESAs do NOT NEED SPECIALIZED TRAINING in assisting people with specific emotional/mental conditions.

Florida State Representative Peter Nehr was the sponsor. Florida State Senator Jim King had signed up to be the sponsor on the Senate side, but he took on new committee responsibilities that resulted in his abandoning all bills that he planned to sponsor in 2008. Unfortunately it was too late to find another sponsor.

.~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~

Here is what we would like to submit for next year, or as soon as we have the minimum 50,000 signatures to support a new law:

Association boards must allow unit owners to have pets, within reasonable guidelines.

Details: There is ample evidence that animal companionship provides health benefits such as reducing anxiety, depression, loneliness, and even blood pressure. People who are willing to follow reasonable guidelines should be allowed the opportunity to have pets. Pets are more accepted into people’s homes than they were many years ago. Almost 65 percent of all US households have at least one companion animal.

Pet nuisance issues can many times be resolved with animal behavior training and clarification of rules. In fact many issues are already sufficiently covered by city and county law.  There is no need to reinvent the wheel!

California already has a law to allow pets: California Civil Code Section 1360.50, effective Jan 2001. It states  that:

’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."   The  law also applies to mobile home parks.
Under  California law, "governing documents," by the way, includes "operating rules."’

Read a speech by CA Senator Tom McClintock in favor of California's AB 860*:  AB 860: Of Poodles and Freedom

Activists in California are working to remove any limit to reasonable number of pets.  Citizens for Pets in Condos wants to see multiple pets allowed, within reason, because having other animal buddies often prevents or minimizes some behavior issues.

A few years after AB 860* was enacted, and pets were allowed in condos, Kathy Riordan, Commissioner, LA AnimalServices stated that “the kill rates in our shelters are going down; something is working.” Fewer animals are euthanized (killed) when there are more choices for placing them!

*the number of bill that resulted in California Civil Code Section 1360.5.

____________________________________________________________________________

We may consider these temporary changes, until our demands are met:

• Accountability of rules and decisions:
  

  a) Require by law that selling real estate agents must provide with the current/latest copies of documents, including rules and regulations, as verified by the board of directors.  This must be done prior to closing.
  

  b) Any decision in favor of allowing a pet must be provided to the unit owner, signed and dated.
  
  Details: Citizens for Pets in Condos has documented numerous cases where people have been surprised by reactivation of old rules by over-zealous anti-pet board members.  Unit owners have been caught in traps by lack of disclosure of rules.  In other cases, unit owners  have obtained permission to keep pets, but have no record when a new board comes in to challenge them.

• Boards must accept independent assessment of selective enforcement.

Details: It is illegal to selectively enforce no pet rules, ignoring some instances of “rule breaking” while going after others.  Unit own owners are severely limited in using this perfectly acceptable defense, because association boards typically ask for the names of the other rule violators and promise to go after them, too. The state Condo Ombudsman’s office or another impartial agency should be brought in to validate the selective enforcement without causing grief for yet other unit owners.

• Condominium association boards may not request removal of pets that have already been in place for at least two years as long as there are no unresolved nuisance complaints. A board cannot use no-pet rules to cause removal of the animal. Simply being there, against the rules, is not sufficient reason to remove an animal that has not been the cause of any mess or disturbance.

Details: If an animal has been present for two years and has caused no complaint, that is implicit acceptance.

• New condominium complexes or conversions cannot have no-pet policies, only pet agreements.  This would assure that responsible animal guardians can have pets and that people who don’t clean up after their dogs or otherwise allow their animals to create a nuisance are the only people who pay the price.

Details: Pet guidelines that specify rules regarding cleanup of animal waste, where pets may be walked, and other clear directives have been successful. Pets are not the problem. Owners who allow their pets to be a nuisance to others create the problem.

• Condominiums are not allowed to add “poison pill” clauses to their pet-related declarations. If pets are allowed, they cannot add a clause that says that when pets die they cannot be replaced.

Details: People have a difficult time finding affordable places to live that allow pets. They agree to move in, even with a poison pill, just to be able to keep their beloved companion animals. The issue of pets being allowed keeps coming up as their animals pass away. A lot of grief could be avoided if pet laws were open-ended.

In the future, Citizens for Pets in Condos would like to see similar bills introduced for other types of common interest ownership communities. We would like to see a gradual shift towards punishment of irresponsible owners and removal of animals that cause continued nuisance complaints. Pet guidelines allow responsible people to experience the health benefits of companion animals.