Sometimes I think retirement village regulations can be a little bit mad. For instance, what is the thinking behind all the rules about pets? Not only do they seem to ignore the myriad health and social benefits of companion animals, but the zeal with which the regulations are seized upon and enforced by some resident committees and body corporates suggests a level of miserable, mean-spirited pettiness I’d rather not contemplate, let alone want to expose myself to.
I admit up front here that I’m a ‘dog person’. I adore dogs and I suppose, like the majority of humans, I’ve always at least liked them. But actually I’ve only owned one for the last five years so I’m a relative newcomer to the ‘dog-person’ world.
But having a dog these last five years has brought a level of joy to life that I couldn’t have guessed possible. The arrival of our labradoodle, Ada in our home brought an enormous transformation to the family dynamic. She was everyone’s best friend. She loved us all. If one of us was out of sorts, she was there with her big brown eyes and loving presence. If there was a disagreement between a parent and teen, Ada was the quiet moral support, ever eager for happy equilibrium. Almost immediately she became a very valued animal friend and family member. This is how it is for most dog owners.
There is a huge and growing body of research into the relations between humans and their companion animals but none of the findings, when you consider them, seem like ‘rocket science’. Pets can provide security, affection and companionship. They relieve stress, keep us moving, promote social interaction and offer purpose beyond our own immediate needs. Like babies and small children, pets draw total strangers into social interactions; remind us of the simple pleasures in life; and make us smile. If you’ve lost a partner, or any loved one, a cherished pet’s unconditional love can be a crucial support.
Surely this was a joke, a spoof on the kind of passive-aggressive, mock legalese spouted by the rod-backed, beak-nosed civilian rule-maker from a Monty Python sketch.
Why then do so many retirement villages demonise pets? I was recently shown a letter issued to residents of a retirement village, alerting them to a resident committee’s decision to ‘reluctantly consent’ to a prospective resident bringing her ‘existing pet’ (a cat) with her into the village.
Well, the language of the letter! And ‘reluctantly consent’! My first instinct was to shriek with laughter. Surely this was a joke, a spoof on the kind of passive-aggressive, mock legalese spouted by the rod-backed, beak-nosed civilian rule-maker from a Monty Python sketch. Sadly, no.
I have changed the names and a few terms to protect the innocent but it read more or less like this:
NOTICE OF RESOLUTION – Fabulife Villages – Charringate – Owners Committee
As required by by-law number 84C.1, a written application has been received from Mrs Margaret Todd who is the prospective purchaser of Unit 17, Cabbage Tree Close, to bring her existing pet Siamese cat, Mr Ling, with her into the village. In order to protect the interests of existing Unit Owners as well as the Prospective Purchaser, and in compliance with the new policy relating to companion animals agreed at the full Committee meeting of 17 February 2015, a representative six members of the Committee met with Mrs Todd to ensure she was full appraised of the aforementioned policy and its attendant requirements pursuant to bringing an ‘existing pet’ in the village with her.
After considering previous counsel on this vexed area from Fabulife Villages Resident Advisory Service and the village manager, Mrs Janet Swain, and following the Committee giving very serious consideration to the possible ramifications of NOT granting consent, the Committee has resolved to reluctantly grant consent to Mrs Margaret Todd, to bring her existing pet Siamese cat, Mr Ling, with her into the village.
This consent however is subject to receiving written consent from Mrs Todd that she will diligently comply with the standard 14 Conditions of Ownership of Companion Animals (otherwise referred to the COCA commitment) imposed by the Committee, including those three new conditions agreed at the full Committee meeting of 17 February 2015.
The full 14 COCA conditions are set out in the attached.
And those conditions! Good luck to poor Mrs Todd. Mr Ling will need a steady diet of tranquilisers and a sturdy cage to have any hope of conforming to those rules. If Mrs Todd is still willing to lay down her hard earned life savings in order to move into this environment, her situation must be truly desperate.
Making it work
Why a retirement village takes such a dim view of pets baffles me. Of course, some pets can be challenging in various ways (though arguably nothing compared to humans!). Dogs can be territorial and they bark sometimes (which on the flip side can be great for security); they’re ‘business’ needs to be taken care of; and, like humans, they require a certain amount of care and maintenance (but again, nothing in comparison, really).
Cats like to prowl about, slink along fences and curl up in sunny locations, not always necessarily within the borders of their home.
Of course, where there is communal living, there needs to be some sort of policy framework about pets in the mix. But incredibly, millions of people and their ‘regulators’ across the western world, deal with this and more every day, and they take it all in their stride. And they do so because the benefits of companion animals in the community outweigh the inconveniences.
Councils all over Australia these days will fine you for not picking up your dog’s poos but increasingly they provide doggie-doo bags in parks now, so there’s no excuse. You do need to keep your dog on a leash when you’re on the urban or suburban street or at a children’s playground; but there are dog-parks and off-leash areas too.
Society recognises that companion animals are important. Dogs perform a wide range of working roles these days, from guiding people with blindness and rescuing survivors of disaster to sniffing out illegal substances and even some cancers. They provide therapy in hospitals – to children and the very elderly and the dying. They do a wide range of clever things but their core strength is their unconditional love and unswerving devotion.
Like babies and small children, dogs – and other pets too – can draw total strangers into social interactions. They remind us of the simple pleasures in life and make us smile.
The mean, begrudging, sanctimonious tone taken toward Mrs Todd and her ‘existing pet’ by the ‘joy police’ of this particular village speaks volumes about the culture of the resident committee and the village itself. And what it says to me as a potential future resident is, “keep you money in your pocket and stay far, far away from this place.”
As the baby boomers ponder their future housing and lifestyle choices, my hunch is that, like me, they will by and large reject this sort of rigid, purse-lipped meanness and vote with their feet. And that can’t be good for the future of retirement villages, can it?
Discussion8 Comments
Re animals.
We were prepared to rip up our village entry contract when we were sent an A4 page of “Protocols regarding electronic dog control systems” It was a draconian set of rules which looked as if they had been written by a former SS stalag commandant. Our reaction was “if that’s what village life is like, we don’t want any”. After a hasty reaction from the sales office not wanting to lose a sale, the document was withdrawn. At that time, a pet could be brought into the village but not replaced after death. Subsequently, an enlightened village manager allowed residents to vote on whether this restriction should be withdrawn.
The debate was unbelievably acrimonious but fortunately common sense prevailed.
Earnest. It’s clear that you, as a fairly recent dog owner, have not researched many retirement village residents to seek their opinions and you are clearly biased towards the pet owners side.
I have always had a dog in my life even up until my first role as manager of a retirement village. This village had a no-pets policy however they kindly allowed me to bring my elderly German shepherd into the village as the manager’s villa could be fenced off and at that stage, he had been given only 6 – 8 weeks to live. He lived for 11 months as he clearly enjoyed retirement and was adopted by the residents.
However, since then, I have had 11 years in retirement village management and can honestly say that , not only do the vast majority of residents like the fact that no pets are allowed but also, from a managers point of view, pets, or more correctly their owners, can be a nightmare. You have owners who let their dogs out for a walk & they leave their deposits on other’s lawns or dig up their gardens and, short of doing a DNA test on their business, you can never find out which dog it was as “it’s never their dog”. I’m sure you , like most dog lovers, adore your dog and are very tolerant of it. If it barks, you say it’s good for security. I wonder if you would be as tolerant of your neighbours dog if it barked and you couldn’t stop it? Over the years, I’ve met numerous residents who are terrified of dogs and for some, they chose the village they live in because of the no-pets policy. I think there is place for both types of villages & it’s then up to the prospective resident to decide which one is for them??
Hi Roy, thanks for the comment and of course I do understand most of those circumstances you outline. And I know some people are frightened of dogs (no doubt because they have had a bad experience, possibly even as a child) and there is the other concern, particularly relating to younger or larger dogs, that boisterous behaviour might knock someone over or cause some other havoc. I would like to look into the issue a little more actually – and ideally find out how those villages that do accept pets, manage these things. I guess the thing that I found dispiriting and that prompted me to do the story was the level of what I can only describe as meanness in the wording of the letter that I saw. There seemed to me to be a real zeal in the way that the members of the committee (and there were multiple signatories) had seized upon the task of enforcing the rules in an almost menacing way. It is passive aggressive bullying. I can’t help thinking that poor Mrs Todd, should she ‘consent’ to the long list of demands placed before her at what might be a difficult time in her life, would forever be nervously glancing over her shoulder and worrying about offending the committee or inadvertently transgressing some rule or another. Surely this can’t be the norm in villages. It’s not nice and it’s just not the way I’d want to live.
I liked your comments.
I’m almost beside myself as I suffer from dog phobia. Have been told that a new resident is moving in next door with a dog.
I choose this village especially for a no pet policy… was told strictly adhered to only 4 months ago…. …
Don’t know what to do or how I’ll cope.
We have a shared back garden also.
I like dogs. I walk along the beach whenever I can and enjoy being ‘visited’ by the many dogs I encounter in this environment. My friend, on the other hand, can’t stand them. She has always been a little afraid of dogs, and, having had long-term issues with her back, she’s now terrified one will jump up on her and the resulting bump will send her back six months in her never-ending quest for a stable back.
As she puts out her hands to fend off any would-be jumpers, the thing that annoys her the most is not the dog, but the dog owners calling out to her ‘Don’t worry, he wouldn’t hurt a fly’. To which she replies, ‘You might know that, but as he thundered towards me, I didn’t!’.
Given the number of people in a retirement village setting with mobility issues, I can see this is a very real concern. However, I also know of the many, many benefits pet ownership can bring.
I advise retirees to make sure they understand the pet policy of any village they’re considering (whether it be pro or anti pets). Not only that, I tell them that if it’s important to them, make sure the policy is enforced as well.
I would hate every retirement village to ban pets and I would hate every retirement village to allow them. It’s one of the distinguishing factors between villages and I think it’s very important consumers are given a choice.
Hello Keryn, a very good article.
I think, Deborah, above, has the right idea. There are villages that have pets; there are villages that don’t; there are also villages that have specific pet-friendly streets/areas within. Our pets often have an impact upon our neighbours and really shouldn’t. No loose dogs, ever. On a leash only when out. Off-leash parks are common in suburbs and may be a marketing positive in some villages. And cats should have cat cages and cat runs – not really appropriate these days to have them out annoying neighbours and killing wildlife.
Interestingly, I find amongst my village clients that units in the pet-friendly areas within a village often sell more quickly and at a higher price than equivalent units in the village’s non pet-friendly areas.
Finally, the Companion Animals legislation may mean that all villages may need to review their rules against pet owning in any event.
I am currently in the process on moving into a Leasehold retirement village where I have been advised that I cannot bring my companion INDOOR cat if 11 years with me. I have asked Fair Trading and they advised that Retirement Villages are not governed by the Companion Animal Act. Is this true and who can I turn too to find put what options are open to me.
I suffer from asthma & am allergic to dog & cat hair & bird feathers. The thought of getting into a lift with someone with their dog with them scares me. Where can I find a retirement village with a “no pets” policy in NSW?