News | Opinion | Columns
Thank heavens for the wonderful constitution we have!
The lovely Snapdragon sent me an article this week. Apparently, the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS) has found that a Centurion complex’s rule that no new cat will be allowed is unconstitutional.
The CSOS adjudicator determined that the complex was not only discriminating against cats, but also against cat-loving owners. At most complexes, pets are one of the most emotional issues.
Our complex has exactly the same rules as the Centurion one. Existing cats can stay, but new cats aren’t allowed. And you can’t replace a cat once it dies. But, would you believe, small dogs are welcome.
Which means our conduct rules are unconstitutional, too. Only last week, our managing agent wrote us a somewhat impolite letter.
“A cat has been seen in your unit on several occasions. Whose cat is it? “What are you going to do about the problem?”
“I don’t know whose cat it is, you give no description,” I replied.
“We’ve had a cat since we moved into the complex seven years ago, it may very well be ours. Or someone else’s, I don’t know. The problem, as far as I’m concerned, is not the cat, but that someone is looking what is happening in our unit.”
Everyone in our household was upset by the letter. Except the cat, who obviously knew the constitution has her back.
When the CSOS adjudication order became public, Snapdragon couldn’t resist the temptation to mail the agent with a link to the finding.
“We have an illegal conduct rule. What are you going to do about the problem?”
Which, of course, is a fair question.
The powers that be have clashed with the constitution several times over the past months. But the constitution is still undefeated. And I’m sure the cat running around in our complex knows that…