how many animal  control "officers" are currently employed in the city ? will they be returning all or part of their salary's for all the years of basic office management neglect? like checking the state ag dept. for dog license renewals? or flagging dangerous dogs locations or just doing what the job entails...ANIMAL CONTROL

i remember a few years back two overweight ladys/1 was an animal control officer trying to catch a tagged goose in the duck pond part of central park...
if i had a camera i would have sent it in to americas funniest home video tv show...best show ever in the park!!!!!!

so now we wait till one of the kiddie corps census takers gets bitten...then its another lawsuit for sure!

edited to add; i realize they announced a $6000 dollar cost to do this, BUT its already been paid for how many times thru the animal control officers salary's!!!!!

Quoted from mikechristine1

Now here is something else I wonder what the city will do.

There is NOTHING as far as I know in rental inspection/certificate of occupancy requirements that addresses tenants and pets.   The city CANNOT mandate nor prohibit a landlord from making a personal choice to allow or disallow a tenant from owning a dog.  

Assume a two family house, tenant upstairs, tenant downstairs.  Downstairs tenant owns the dog.  College kid hears dog bark, reports to the city.  City sends notice to property owner of record.  

Who is responsible for paying the fine?

Granted, the landlord could pay and then attempt to get money from the tenant, but that may not be that easy in all cases.  

If they send the notice to the address, if it's a two or three family house and college kid hears dog bark but unable to determine which apartment it is, who gets the notice?

Sounds like a major complicated mess and the city should put it's resources on cleaning up the blighted abandoned houses, lower taxes, reassess the city, enforce the recycling rules, enforce trash can rules, etc.

Not very well thought out at all, but then, in the city these days, no one has any brains.

From what  I understood from one of the news articles was that the address that the youth notes goes
back to city clerk who checks licensing records for that address. If no record, then tenant of record (if one
exists, ie cert of occup), then that tenant gets notice.

If no cert of occup exists, who knows what they will do. Especially on the case of an apt building, how will they determine? They can't hold LL responsible, what if the tenant has a dog w/o LL permission? LL is not responsible for that!

Quoted from Ididntdoit

From what  I understood from one of the news articles was that the address that the youth notes goes
back to city clerk who checks licensing records for that address. If no record, then tenant of record (if one
exists, ie cert of occup), then that tenant gets notice.

If no cert of occup exists, who knows what they will do. Especially on the case of an apt building, how will they determine? They can't hold LL responsible, what if the tenant has a dog w/o LL permission? LL is not responsible for that!

There are so many possibilities, I mean of answers and really, what is the city going to do?

People legitimately visit homeowners or tenants and the visitors have the dogs.  Resident of the house/apartment/flat could have friends over, friend has dog, they are all out in the backyard when teen census taker rings doorbell, but resident of unit does not hear doorbell, or doorbell doesn't work and teen does not know this.  But they hear dog barking.

Son or daughter comes over (with their own dog) to check on elderly mom or dad, to help the parent, and perhaps son or daughter is in the basement doing mom or dad's laundry and doesn't hear doorbell, but their dog barks (regardless of whether or not the dog hears doorbell.   But elderly parent/resident does not hear doorbell.  

Resident has many friends that have dogs   ONE friend is visiting on the day the teen comes by, but again, maybe sitting in yard or whatever, resident and friend do not hear doorbell.  But teen hears dog bark.


So many possibilities, but what comes after?  Teen goes to city hall, reports that house at 123 Ronnnie St has a dog (because of barking).  City follows up with owner, gets notice in mail.   Homeowner/resident get's mail and calls clerk's office, "Hi, I got a notice about an unlicensed dog here, I don't have a dog."

So what does the clerks office do?   Do they say "Oh, OK, sorry, no problem."   Or do they reply "well sorry, a census taker was there and clearly heard a dog on your property."  What are they going to do?  Make an unannounced visit with a search warrant?

And sometimes the teen may hear a dog, homeowner or resident does have a dog, but calls the city and claims they don't have a dog.  


But the people of the city have a birthright entitlement to know how many animal control people there are now, and how many there will be later.  Let's say there is only one now,  and they claim they add two, show the budget and names of the new staff.  

City keeps so many secrets.

Quoted from firefox

City Hall can finally see how our neighboorhoods are run down by McCarthy's laws with drug dealers owning all the dangerous Dogs! I hope MCTHUG & COMPANY gets bitten in the A$$ by one of these DOGS! HA HA HA!

Have you seen City Jerk Chuck Thorne with chapeau walking around Upper Union and Northside? Bet he doesn't walk Ham Hill nor Mt P. Remember not to vote for his wife
running against Sen Farley. The City has officially gone to the dogs under McCheese and his sock puppets. It's hilarious how much these DEMS don't know about the City they
claim to represent.