Condo Cat Fight Has Some Purring, Others Fleeing

All was quiet Saturday at the Lakeside Condominiums in Culver City.

But then it’s always quiet at this complex, where you enter through a guarded entry, only to be greeted by a posted inquiry: “HOW LOUD IS YOUR CAR RADIO?”

There are no barking dogs and no squawking birds (though quiet birds are allowed). And there were few openly disgruntled homeowners complaining about Friday’s California Supreme Court ruling that had its small but incendiary beginnings in a battle between a Lakeside homeowner and the condominium association.

The high court ruled Friday that homeowner associations such as Lakeside’s could ban pets from owners’ units.

“It’s not that I dislike animals,” says Aurora McNally, a Lakeside homeowner of only two months. “It’s just the fleas.”

But in her first-floor condo, Natore Nahrstedt, the devoted owner of three cats, is hardly quiet. It was her fight against a $25 citation from her condo association that escalated into the court case that ended up in the state Supreme Court.

“I’m disappointed in their decision, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to campaign to have it overturned in the Legislature,” says Nahrstedt, a 47-year-old entertainment business manager. As she speaks, two of the offending felines, Boo-Boo and Tulip, hunker down near her. Dockers, too shy to appear, hides under her bed.

Nahrstedt (who pronounces her first name “Nature”) contends that not a soul would get fleas from her cats, who she says get regular baths and never venture outside.

“I’ve had a barrage of phone calls in support from people who are devastated by the ruling,” says Nahrstedt. “People in the building, in Culver City, someone from Arizona. (My lawyer) got phone calls from the Animal Hospital Assn.--they wanted to donate money and time and see if there’s anything we can do.”

Boo-Boo rolls over on her back, all four paws hovering in the air.

Nahrstedt, who began fighting with the condo board nearly six years ago, does not share Boo-Boo’s easygoing demeanor .

“I’ve been diagnosed with asthma, a heart condition, insomnia and extreme exhaustion,” says Nahrstedt, who maintains that the real estate agent who sold her the condo told her the pet restriction was rarely enforced.

Nahrstedt contends that she has been harassed by condo board members and employees of the association and will soon leave the complex.

“I’d get rid of Lakeside before I’d get rid of the cats,” she says.

But many of Nahrstedt’s neighbors support the no-pet policy.

“I concur completely,” says longtime resident Joe Winston. “This place was constructed with tissue-paper walls. We have a hard enough time adjusting to our neighbors.”

But they are loath to report a pet-owning neighbor.

“I must confess I know pet owners and I wouldn’t snitch or turn them in,” Winston says.

Another outlaw cat owner agrees. “I’ll be out watering my plants and people will say, ‘You have a beautiful cat,’ ” says the woman, who asked not to be named. “Most of the people who live here don’t care.”

Some sympathetic neighbors simply chafe at the litany of rules governing life in the Lakeside Condominiums, a complex of 14 low-slung buildings landscaped with lush shrubs, crew-cut hedges and even tiny babbling streams. It’s a pastoral--if controlled--environment where every building has a captain (to pass out news of the condo association meetings) and no bikes or barbecue grills are allowed on balconies. (Though this rule is largely ignored.)

The local cable Channel 8 serves up chatty news and gentle admonishments: “We are getting better, but some of us are still speeding on Summertime Lane,” reads one video flash across the silent screen.

“It seems like a lot of the board members have nothing to do but set restrictions,” said Ninfa Abarquez, who disagrees with the no-pet rule.

Of course, in a complex with 530 units, for every opinion there is bound to be a dissenting voice.

“In one of the buildings we had a flea infestation,” says Frankee Lund, who like other neighbors, chalked up the problem to surreptitious cats. “Previously we had a very loose board and they didn’t enforce the (rules). Now, they really impose the rules.”

Few understand Nahrstedt’s zeal at fighting those rules. She has spent $50,000 in legal fees.

“I thought she could have bought a place for that,” mused one neighbor.

That’s one thing Nahrstedt and her neighbors agree on.

“In retrospect, if I had to do it again,” Nahrstedt says, “I’d buy a house and get out.”