The Emotional Support Animal bill was dropped by state-level Senator Eleanor Sobel of Hallandale Beach just before the beginning of the 2009 Florida legislative session, due to early strong opposition by very organized association board/association attorney groups. According to her aide, the opposition said “the bill was worded to keep condo boards out of the decision as much as possible.”
New federal HUD rules, which regulate fair housing for people with disabling conditions, "pretty much eviscerate no pet restrictions" according to attorney Gary A. Poliakoff. Read more here. ESA legislation at the local level helps to keep local law in sync with federal standards. “We've come a long way in understanding and promoting a comprehensive approach to mental health. We shouldn't be going backwards by excluding and denigrating entire fields of science-based professions and methods,”says Barbara Feeney, MPA, public health administration advisor.
Please contact your own Florida legislators to tell them you want an Emotional Support Animal bill to fix the loopholes in Florida disability law (statutes 413.08), which currently only covers physical disabilities, and put Florida law in line with federal fair housing and disability law. Please also contact the governor at charlie.crist@myflorida.com and lieutenant governor at Jeff.Kottkamp@myflorida.com.
In addition to saving the lives of untold numbers of perfectly adoptable cats, dogs and other companion animals, The Emotional Support Animal bill would:
o help people in extreme cases get relief, especially those who can not afford good legal representation
o clarify federal ADA/fair housing law covering rights of people with emotional disabilities, in one combined statement
o allow people to get help without violating their HIPAA rights.
Click here to read the text of the draft bill. This bill states 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 spells out what kinds of medical and mental health professionals could document the need for an ESA. And it clarifies that ESAs do NOT NEED SPECIALIZED TRAINING in assisting people with specific emotional/mental conditions.
Florida State Representative Peter Nehr was the sponsor in 2008, but he did not find a sponsor in the Senate. In 2007, the bill was contained as part of the Condo/HOA reform bill sponsored by Florida State Representative Julio Robaina and Florida State Senator Alex Villalobos. In 2007, the bill was considered and passed through a number of committees, without any changes to the ESA portion, but never made it to the floor for a vote.
.~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~ .~.~ .~.~ .~.~.~.~.~.~
Here is what we would like to
submit 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
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 1360.50.
____________________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
Details: If an animal has been present for two years
and has caused no complaint, that is implicit
acceptance.
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.
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.