03-30-2017, 01:20 PM
"Today, banning pets is (and I believe should) be seen as outrageous as trying to ban children from a building."
I'm mostly in agreement with what you're saying about accommodating pet owners, and I can't really think of a situation (maybe a small building with a common forced-air system and occupants with allergies?) in which pets should be banned from a building. But that sentence of yours is nutty, and unlikely to sway anyone's opinion who doesn't (yet) see it your way. Banning children from buildings (which is done) is not equivalent to banning pets. I don't think either is often justifiable, but they're not equally outrageous.
The pet cleaning facilities on the top of the podium strike me as a good selling feature and a sensible amenity. But you're right that they're not exactly permanent.
I'm mostly in agreement with what you're saying about accommodating pet owners, and I can't really think of a situation (maybe a small building with a common forced-air system and occupants with allergies?) in which pets should be banned from a building. But that sentence of yours is nutty, and unlikely to sway anyone's opinion who doesn't (yet) see it your way. Banning children from buildings (which is done) is not equivalent to banning pets. I don't think either is often justifiable, but they're not equally outrageous.
The pet cleaning facilities on the top of the podium strike me as a good selling feature and a sensible amenity. But you're right that they're not exactly permanent.