[RiderOnTheStorm]

Originally Posted by conman5652@aol.com

If the dog doesn’t go pass six feet on your front yard that not your property. That area is own by the untility and you must maintain it. So as long as owner of the dog cleans up be nice.

You can pick up the poop but not the pee which creates burn marks in the lawn. Besides, despite the utility easement, it is the property owner that maintains the lawn. Why damage it for them?

[Randyj66]

I've got a great Idea!
How about a pet village with no people!
Boy I bet they would get along great!

[mrpete2]

I agree.

[airstreamingypsy]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I believe you have made that statement before, and I find it very sad. I like some dogs (my dogs) more than some people (criminals, bullies, self-centered jerks,etc), but if I had to live in a world without one species or the other, I would chose to live with people.

I probably have said it before, and may well say it again during the next dog thread. In the scenario you mention, I would have to think long and hard which I would choose.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by conman5652@aol.com

If the dog doesn’t go pass six feet on your front yard that not your property. That area is own by the untility and you must maintain it. So as long as owner of the dog cleans up be nice.

It is not owned by the various utilities or emergency services. It is an area they have the right to access for work/emergency service. The easement access does not extend to the general public. Just be a good neighbor and respect their in the manner you would like others to respect yours. Consider that, if fences were allowed, you could put the fence at the edge of the street/sidewalk.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

70% of Americans have pets. I'm sure the Developer would do well, trying to sell units, after eliminating 70% of his potential buyers.

The answer to this burning question is obvious.

Check post #152.

[dadoiron]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

With respect to pets, it seems that there are three types of people.
They are

1) people who love them and think everyone else should love them.
2) people who don't like them and don't want other people bringing their pets onto their lawns or in stores or restaurants and they don't want to live next to neighbors who have noisy pets.
3) people who are neutral - they don't care either way.

I am attempting to come up with a solution where all sides are satisfied. Would it be possible to have one of the new villages be pet-free? You would know going in that you couldn't have a pet and that none of your neighbors could have one.

This would seem to satisfy all parties. If you loved pets, you would probably have more neighbors with pets in those villages that allowed pets. If you didn't love pets, you would live in a village where pets are not allowed - people from an adjacent village could not walk their dogs in the pet-free villages.

And if you are neutral on pets, you could decide if you wanted to live in a village that allowed pets or you could decide if you wanted to live in a pet-free village. This would seem to be a win-win-win. You could live where you wanted and everyone should be satisfied.

But would it work?

Nope. But there should be non-smoking sections. Sucks to be between two profuse smokers houses. Can't ever seem to open lanai windows or house windows in fall without getting the stink from the smokers.

[Luggage]

I prefer a village with no cranky seniors

[Luggage]

In Paris you take your life(shoes) in your hands as NO one picks up dog poop. Real disgusting

[OhioBuckeye]

This why TV has a board that sets rules. Now you would think this is why they don’t let residents make rules, they would be protesting in the Streets. Besides TV won’t upset any resident that moves there it’s a great place to live & if you don’t like pets there, move to somewhere where they don’t allow pets, good luck with finding some place! I have pro’s & con’s about pets but I’ll keep it to myself.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Randyj66

I've got a great Idea!
How about a pet village with no people!
Boy I bet they would get along great!

Until the alphas and alpha challenge one another.

[Gulfcoast]

Disclaimer: I love animals and dogs in particular. However, I can understand how someone might not want to live next to a little yapper or have dogs leave poop on their lawn or have a dog jump all over you while your out trying to get a nice walk in.

I can see designating certain spots "dog free zones". I don't know that there would be enough demand to create an entire "pet free" village, but maybe there could be some streets, parks, walking paths that are designated "pet free".

[Byte1]

Sounds like click bait to me.
Personally, I LOVE animals BUT/BUT/BUT I do not want them on my property unless I own them. Of course that does not include wildlife. When you have neighbors that have beautiful landscaping, that force their animals onto other folk's lawns to do their thing, that is just disrespectful, arrogant and crass. But, once again that is a horse beat to death argument that dog owners do not wish to get involved. No, you cannot build a village that bans pets.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Luggage

I prefer a village with no cranky seniors

Are there any?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

You are not eliminating 70% of the potential buyers. They can buy in one of the other 100 villages.

About 40.02 percent of all family households in the United States have children under 18 living with them. However, a new cruise line - Virgin Voyages - bans children under 18. And the line is doing well.

Virgin Voyages says no kids on the ocean. And the kids aren’t pleased. | Virgin Voyages

Renaissance Cruises tried that back in to 90's... They went bankrupt and the ships were bought by other cruise lines...