One of the functions of a parliament is to anticipate problems and pass laws to make litigation to solve them unnecessary. All most people want is clear and fair rules to govern the way they live.
A recent case on the Gold Coast revealed an all too frequent source of friction.
A couple bought a pent house in an expensive ocean front complex after checking that it had a " Pet friendly " policy which would accommodate their small dog. Shortly after, a meeting of the body corporate decided to change this policy to one where no pets were allowed.
The dog owners were distraught. Moving out was not a financial option and having the dog euthanized was out of the question. They resorted to a court appeal - which cost $ 70,000 - won - and the body corporate were forced to reinstate the " Pet friendly " policy.
Apparently change of pet status is an ongoing problem in many areas and many people see it as " moving the goal posts " after the game has been concluded. Those moving in to a " Pet friendly " home have a right to expect that policy to continue - and those who dislike pets have the right to seek change if the majority agree.
The obvious compromise that the parliament should consider gazetting to avoid further costly litigation would allow communal living complexes to move from a " Pet friendly " to a " No Pets " regime - with the proviso that any pets in place before that decision was made had the right to continue residence for the remainder of their lives.
That should suit all parties. No existing pet could be displaced, but no new pets or replacement pets would be allowed.
It would be the best of both worlds. Now all it requires is for our parliamentarians to agree - and act to change the law !
No comments:
Post a Comment