Suki
08-20-2006, 10:40 PM
It only takes people who care enough to speak up, and who want to make a difference.
One more city to go... (this month)......
Thanks, Fall River!!!
FALL RIVER - A proposed breed-specific dog ordinance was sent back
to committee after the City Council heard impassioned
pleas from several residents opposed to the legislation and received
a letter from the city's attorney stating the City Council's
proposed breed-specific dog ordinance was "unconstitutionally
vague."
About 150 concerned residents, some wearing T-shirts emblazoned with
the phrase "Blame the deed not the breed," attended Tuesday night's
meeting to voice their displeasure with the council's proposed
ordinance.
The ordinance would have required all owners of pit bulls and
Rottweilers to keep the dogs confined behind 6-foot high fences. The
dogs would not be allowed off their properties except to go to the
veterinarian. Also, those two breeds would not be allowed to be sold
within the city limits.
In his letter to the council, Corporation Counsel Thomas McGuire
said, as currently drafted, the dog ordinance is unconstitutional.
He said the state's Supreme Judicial Court in 1989 ruled that a
similar breed-specific ordinance penned by the Lynn City Council was
unconstitutionally vague.
"As I stated to the Committee on Ordinances at its meeting on July
11, the ordinance, as presently drafted, appears to be
unconstitutional," McGuire wrote. "I am therefore unable to approve
the legal character of the ordinance in its present form."
McGuire's legal argument against the ordinance was bolstered by a
more emotional argument from countless members of the public who
addressed the council Tuesday night.
Several dog owners said it was unfair to judge all dogs the same
way, and asserted the council lacked an education on dogs in general.
"There's no such thing as a bad dog. There are bad owners who don't
know how to train their dogs," said city resident Joe Silvia. "We
really need to educate owners. Dogs need exercise. If you pen them
in, they become more violent."
Worcester-based attorney Rebecca Carner, who said she has already
been retained by angry Fall River dog owners, said she is prepared
to challenge the ordinance in court if need be, but said she and her
clients would much rather work with the council on a more sensible
dog ordinance.
She also questioned the relevancy of a breed-specific dog ordinance,
asserting that criminals the ordinance is intended to root out would
adjust to the change in law, leaving law-abiding dog owners with the
heartache.
"Drug dealers are already ignoring your laws," Carner
asserted. "They will just switch breeds."
The most emotional plea came from city resident Anthony Babine, who
told a story about his sister's Rottweiler, Coco, that silenced the
150 or so audience members.
Babine said one day Coco began relentlessly pounding his head up
against his sister's bedroom door to get the family's attention.
When Babine finally came to the door, he found it was locked. But
Coco would not stop slamming into it.
Babine said he eventually broke the door down and found his sister
choking to death on her bed.
"Coco saved my sister's life," Babine said.
Although opponents of the proposed ordinance won a victory Tuesday
night, the matter is still open. Instead, it was referred back to
committee where it can be reworked and resubmitted to the full
council for another vote.
City Council President William F. Whitty said the Committee on
Ordinances will now reassess the issue.
"This ordinance was not just pulled out of the air," Whitty told the
audience members. "We tried to be fair with it."
A date when the Committee on Ordinances next meets has yet to be
scheduled.
E-mail Gregg M. Miliote at gmiliote@heraldnews<WBR>.com (http://us.f389.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=gmiliote%40heraldnews.com).
ŠThe Herald News 2006
One more city to go... (this month)......
Thanks, Fall River!!!
FALL RIVER - A proposed breed-specific dog ordinance was sent back
to committee after the City Council heard impassioned
pleas from several residents opposed to the legislation and received
a letter from the city's attorney stating the City Council's
proposed breed-specific dog ordinance was "unconstitutionally
vague."
About 150 concerned residents, some wearing T-shirts emblazoned with
the phrase "Blame the deed not the breed," attended Tuesday night's
meeting to voice their displeasure with the council's proposed
ordinance.
The ordinance would have required all owners of pit bulls and
Rottweilers to keep the dogs confined behind 6-foot high fences. The
dogs would not be allowed off their properties except to go to the
veterinarian. Also, those two breeds would not be allowed to be sold
within the city limits.
In his letter to the council, Corporation Counsel Thomas McGuire
said, as currently drafted, the dog ordinance is unconstitutional.
He said the state's Supreme Judicial Court in 1989 ruled that a
similar breed-specific ordinance penned by the Lynn City Council was
unconstitutionally vague.
"As I stated to the Committee on Ordinances at its meeting on July
11, the ordinance, as presently drafted, appears to be
unconstitutional," McGuire wrote. "I am therefore unable to approve
the legal character of the ordinance in its present form."
McGuire's legal argument against the ordinance was bolstered by a
more emotional argument from countless members of the public who
addressed the council Tuesday night.
Several dog owners said it was unfair to judge all dogs the same
way, and asserted the council lacked an education on dogs in general.
"There's no such thing as a bad dog. There are bad owners who don't
know how to train their dogs," said city resident Joe Silvia. "We
really need to educate owners. Dogs need exercise. If you pen them
in, they become more violent."
Worcester-based attorney Rebecca Carner, who said she has already
been retained by angry Fall River dog owners, said she is prepared
to challenge the ordinance in court if need be, but said she and her
clients would much rather work with the council on a more sensible
dog ordinance.
She also questioned the relevancy of a breed-specific dog ordinance,
asserting that criminals the ordinance is intended to root out would
adjust to the change in law, leaving law-abiding dog owners with the
heartache.
"Drug dealers are already ignoring your laws," Carner
asserted. "They will just switch breeds."
The most emotional plea came from city resident Anthony Babine, who
told a story about his sister's Rottweiler, Coco, that silenced the
150 or so audience members.
Babine said one day Coco began relentlessly pounding his head up
against his sister's bedroom door to get the family's attention.
When Babine finally came to the door, he found it was locked. But
Coco would not stop slamming into it.
Babine said he eventually broke the door down and found his sister
choking to death on her bed.
"Coco saved my sister's life," Babine said.
Although opponents of the proposed ordinance won a victory Tuesday
night, the matter is still open. Instead, it was referred back to
committee where it can be reworked and resubmitted to the full
council for another vote.
City Council President William F. Whitty said the Committee on
Ordinances will now reassess the issue.
"This ordinance was not just pulled out of the air," Whitty told the
audience members. "We tried to be fair with it."
A date when the Committee on Ordinances next meets has yet to be
scheduled.
E-mail Gregg M. Miliote at gmiliote@heraldnews<WBR>.com (http://us.f389.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=gmiliote%40heraldnews.com).
ŠThe Herald News 2006