Of course, in the search for money to fill in the budget gaps, this idea came up to sidestep the exiting process and make it an immediately due charge like a parking ticket, and the "what ifs" are thinking about $100 for barking dogs and a few other things.
"L.A. wants to put the bite on owners of law-breaking dogs -
The City Council seeks an ordinance that creates immediate fines for violations of the city's leash law and noise regulations." By Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2010 2:54 p.m. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0506-barking-fines-20100506,0,1959121.story
This really seems to me to be just another excuse to collect some money from residents with the the "guilty until proven innocent" approach undeniably the best feature to get that cash rolling in. I don't think any of that "safety" of the public and quality of life consideration really takes the forefront here and, though I didn't see or hear the discussion in the Council meeeting, I have seen them go off the deep end with the projections for collecting money as if the public were the enemy or some sort of target that's loaded with money to be extracted as deftly as possible.
The well being of the public, only one part of this, probably doesn't really come up on their radar when the money-grubbing mode if fired up. They might think about the impact of the process on the city RESIDENTS. Dogs barking? Well, you know that's one of the things dogs do. They do it as a way to communicate different messages- often that there's something that's got their attention. Some, of course, becomes irritating to people on a variable level, according to one's particular sensitivity and incessant barking does need to be addressed. It's a lot of behavior issues of the dog that you have that come with the territory and the owner should handle it.
I am concerned that the newly found money source will have the animal regulation officers quick to write up violations and there's probably more people than not for whom a $100 hit will cause severe impact, maybe not hardship, but it will need some budget moves to cover.
There's also a chance and I don't know how big it might be, that there's going to be some dog owners who will resort to some immediate and severe corporal punishment as the response when this thing comes into effect, as I do think the Council will not change their collective and narrow minds on this topic.
Another side effect: You will have some pet owners turning in their dogs to the animal shelter and certain death attaches to that choice. These are the ones who probably shouldn't have a pet to begin with if they do that. I think that when you have a pet you have a commitment to do some working on the problems and not dump the animal like an old toaster. The existing rules as set up, deal with a lot of the errors and remedies, and have some element of fairness to be found.
This change to an "administrative fee"eliminates that, and there's an uphill battle to challenge it if you compare that to getting a parking ticket that arises due to confusing or missing signs, actual hours cited and so on. And then, even if you have a good case, you have to have the time to jump through the hoops and attend a hearing, assuming also that you did not exceed the time within which to request one.
All in all, the purpose of the City Council is to run the city and serve the public. The have done the running part very well. They have run the city right into the ground with so many examples, including continual waste and lack of oversight when they fund projects and non-profits (and non profits aren't subject to the city layoffs once they are funded- but then you might say city workers aren't subject to city layoffs, either, if you look at the actual actions so far).
They will, however, have to have someone show them how their actions are doing anything even remotely resembling "serving the public." Being "in charge" has the benefit of allowing them to call the shots, but it's got the responsibility, too, of doing things CORRECTLY. They call shots, spend money and many spending choices are poorly made, overly generous and, plainly, serving to funnel money to associates, special interest, and, quite easily seen, union interests that, in the end, don't do much other than give a lot of people a paychecks from tax dollars.
I really think most of the CMs are out of touch and that opinion comes from hearing them for so many years and seeing the position changes that they make on issues for reason that lack a logical basis other than being influenced from outside sources, usually monied ones. 15 grand a month I think is just too much money for them to walk away from and they will do all they can to stay on this job, at the voter's expense, the dog owner's expense or the rental property owners's expense. A pay cut here might make this job attractive to the truly dedicated people instead of the ones there now. Cut the pay in half and see the howling come out of all the politicians- but it still would not affect them by law for any current terms of office, anyway, and they know that. But a future crop of CMs would be under such a change. Nobody MAKES you run for council.
There's going to be a lot of people making complaints to the city who want dogs to be quiet instantly. As it is, the staffing of Animal Services is in jeopardy. Tony Villaraigosa talked big about having no-kill shelters as a goal, but it's stated in the story that there will likely be closures of two shelters. Just owning a dog will be risky financially, I expect. Herb Wesson, the CM with the dog adoptions might have to figure out another sales pitch on Fridays when he does that pet adoption part of the Council meeing on Fridays.
Nice job of city management, council members and mayor. When it comes time to put bandages on the system where years of ignoring financial warnings were ignored, who has to foot the bill? Us. And, like choosing which Electric Company and Water Company we will use, there is no choice. Lucky us. Thei biggest utility company in the nation and one that pays it's employess premium pay AND one that's taken hundreds of city "general fund" refugees" to give them new life, nice raises, and a real "NO LAYOFF" job, with generous benefits, on top of all that. Nothing to say against the workers, but the managers' "plans" don't seem to really save the RESIDENTS much like they benefit the CITY WORKERS. But on "City Hall Math" I have to confess I don't follow it at all.
There's always so much to counter to whatever nonsense that the Council does. It's a real effort sometimes just to tolerate hearing what goes on there. The continue to call the comments "testimony" and I continue to say, "Who is sworn in to tell the truth?" It would be simple to do that if they were serious on "taking testimony" but you could come in and lie up and down and nothing of consequence will happen. But sometimes I see that the council ignores the comments as they hastily call for the vote and, other than when the Chambers are packed with people, the votes are UNANIMOUS and it's FOR whatever the motion happens to be.
REMINDER- The L.A. TIMES reported the story of the automatic "Yes" votes on the Council's voting machine- you don't even have to be there as many aren't. The "Yes" vote happens every time UNLESS you are there to push "No."
See this report in the L.A. Times that shows the lack of real attention to business during council meetings where CMs and their usual arrogant style is seen to be exercised. The result, it's just something of convenience that gives lip service to any "hearing" and deciding that should be happening- with my favorite jr. lawyer, Tony Cardenas right up there.:
"Automatic 'yes' votes allow time for back-room dealing at City Hall
Thanks to voting software, City Council members can hold meetings, give interviews, even grab a smoke while deciding the day's issues." March 08, 2010 By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/08/local/la-me-backroom9-2010mar09
I don't see there's going to be a good outcome for the pets or the owner, but that, as usual, matters not where there's a buck to be collected by this group, so desperate to get any money in at all costs to integrity, just to be sure they head off any bancruptcy filing for the city. It's very close to happening but expect more money grab and on the other end, the cutting of expense, watch out there. Already the lowly and pretty defenseless library is cut back a lot and more is to come. But it's all stops out in this cover-your-ass term of office- nobody wants to be stuck in this musical chairs situation of being the guy (or woman) in office when the bankruptcy filing was made. I think they call such things "career killers" and you know the CMs will have none of that. To a person, they are "Career Politicians."
More to come- Tomorrow they vote on a Rent Control one year moratorium- and what does that do? Hurt the mom-and-pop landlords, increase maintenance penny pinching and in the end make the owner try to do something with the real estate other than renting the property - That will cut housing even more in the long run, at least the closest that we now have to affordable housing. But CMs like Ed Reyes who complains about that won't figure that out any time soon. Who want's to have even the small raises in rents that rent control allows in the first place? And then you can't pass all the increases in costs while water and power rates climb (thanks to the CMs and ultra complicit Mayor). Not a good time to be a landlord in L.A., especially if you are under rent control.
Posts
