Toxic Plants in Common Areas

I would pay the money to remove these plants but not the bills. Common area is still PUBLIC area to the private residents. The truth is that they too are owners of that common area. So they are at fault just as much. See a HOA is ONLY funded by it's members for it's members. The money they want? Comes out of theirs and everyone else's dues...

Sorry I have dogs and would be upset as well. However, the HOA responsibility is to remove those plants. You can't control the dog from eating it as the owner is responsible for controlling their pet. Sorry but I would not be paying the bill unless they understand the money will require a special assessment or a raise in dues...

Remember, HOA property is COMMON PROPERTY of which each member is an OWNER of... So they would be suing themselves if they pursued the lawsuit....

I agree with Melissa.

I would remove the plants or fence them off but not pay the bills.

It is certainly sad when a pet dies or falls ill. However, the owner of the pet had a responsibility to keep the pet under control and apparently allowed the animal to eat the plants.

It's simply a tragic accident all the way around.

However, now that the Board is aware of the issue, if they do not do something (fencing, removing, post warning signs, etc.) the Association can be seen as negligent if another animal falls ill or dies because of the plants.

Word of caution - I would consult with the Associations attorney prior to running an article in you newsletter about the plants.

What kind of plants are they?

There are 938 Boxwood Beauty Natal Plum plants and 230 Green
Beauty Boxwood on the property. I am trying to find out how toxic they are. Does the dog has to eat half the plant to get sick or do they have to eat a single leaf to get sick. These would obviously be very expensive to replace, considering most of them are on a hillside whose lower side ends on one side of a community street.

I have asked multiple vets and have gotten a number of different opinions. One says it is highly toxic and even being in the vicinity can cause a dog to get sick and another says they would have to ingest "multiple leaves" and another says it depends on the dog's weight and health. They all agree that they kill horses, however we don't have any horses.

I agree.

I might even disagree with replacing the plants.

.... and they discourage loose or out of the owner's control dogs !!!!!!!

thank whomever planted them

The most common landscape plant in California (at least southern Ca) is probably Oleander.

Guess what? Toxic.

All along the walls, shoulders, highways and freeways of the state. Still, toxic if ingested at some quantities.

other toxic plants (or plants with toxic parts) commonly grown:
Tomatoes. Potatoes. Solanum. Jimson Weed. Cherry. Plum. Castor Bean. boxwood. Yew. Holly. Mistletoe. Hyacinth. Daffodil. Narcissus. Onion. Iris. Larkspur. Foxglove. Rhubarb. Wisteria. Rhododendron. laurel. Jasmine. Lantana. Oaks. Locust trees. Moonseed.

I would send a letter to the owners with the board's sympathies for their losses.

However, they need to teach their dogs to "leave it" and pay attention to what they are eating and doing.

How do you know EXACTLY how many of each plant are in the common area? Was it part of a plan that the developer executed?

Regardless, nature can be a dangerous place for animals. It's up to the owner to understand risks and be in control of their pets.

And those people are giving me tourette's syndrome!

Can I sue them too?

I have a hard time seeing any HOA responsibility here. Dogs should be controlled. Seems to me that a dog eating the shrubbery is not being controlled by its owner.

Keep in mind that any choice to reimburse the owner or replace the plants will cost all the other owners money. If you replace the plants you are talking a LOT of money per owner.

WELL SAID and SPOT ON TARGET

If possible, I'd close off the area with the plants in question - what if the parents of toddlers don't play attention as they should? That being said, as someone else questioned, 'is this an off-leash area?' It's hard to visualize someone standing by with a dog on a leash while the dog gnawed on the landscaping.
Some plants shouldn't be planted in open areas - including backyards - where children or animals can get at them because every part of them is poisonous (Angel's Trumpet and members of that family come to mind).
Obviously it isn't possible to specify all the possible harmful plants - a responsible parent or pet owner needs to take responsibility (get off the damn cell phone and pay attention!)

I am going to be the oddball here, but take 10 steps back from the situation. A HOA is supposed to protect the interests of the stakeholders. The stakeholders are the homeowners. The stakeholders expect the HOA to act in such a manner so as to protect the property values. There are plants in common areas or HOA maintained areas that are toxic to household pets. What is most conducive to protecting the overall property values in the community? Keeping the toxic plants or exchanging them for non-toxic plants? Do the stakeholders wish to bear that expense in exchange for protecting their pets and/or perhaps their overall property value? I wouldn't put toxic plants in my own backyard if it was going to have a negative effect on my property value. I also feel that the negative publicity is damaging to the HOA and property values. Nobody, dog owner or not, is going to want to be in the "oh, it's that community" of dog poisoning plants when they put a "For Sale" sign in their front yard.

LOL! Perhaps! But negative press and dead dogs is probably never good for resale values. Plus it is just going to be an ongoing problem if the plants remain. Just doesn't seem worth the hassle of keeping the plants.

I agree.

"I don't necessarily just see it as people who are too lazy to monitor their dogs."
Well since most CC&R's if not local law require pets to be on a leash when in public, then these "loving" pet owners knowingly allowed their dogs to chow down on the shrubbery. Instead of paying for vet bills as some owners wanted, the HOA should fine them for destruction of the common elements(:>) Besides since the toxic plants are now known, all responsible dog owners need to do is to keep their pets away from them.

And when you read the article, it sounds like this poisoning isn't from ingestion. Fred the dog has been sick for the last 9 months. I somehow doubt that Fred the dog has been munching on these shrubs for the past 9 months- would he not have been dead long ago? It sounds more like a general exposure. Perhaps the alkaloids from the shrubs are leaching into the ground? All you then need is runoff (and since these plants are on a hill), could there be more widespread contamination?