On tap at the Council tonight: dog doo, scratching Ruben's itch

Tonight's Council meeting agenda is packed.  Included are the following:

COST OF RUINING MY SHOES GOES UP

Hear ye, hear ye.  Next time you want to leave Spot's shit on the sidewalk for someone's shoe to find, think again.  

The City-- and it's shoes-- have had it with your doggie-doo. If Ordinance No. 18-358 passes, next time Fluffy drops a load on the sidewalk, it's gonna cost you anywhere from $250 to $2,000, with the possibility of imprisonment!  So, who's gonna walk Muffin when you're in the Big House? 

Serves you right. 

What I don't get is the range of fines: $250- $2,000...  

Does the size of the fine correlate with the size of the turd?   Does it correlate with the size of the dog?  For example: a Tea Cup's poop will set you back $250, but a German Shepherd's will cost you two grand? What if the excrement ruins $30 Crocs versus a $1,200 pair of Manolo Blahniks? Why not set a fixed amount for the penalty? A turd is a turd.   

Unless... the victim slips on the turd and gets hospitalized. Is the City liable? The dog owner?   What if you slide on the turd off the sidewalk and under a NJ Transit 126 Bus? Whose fault then?

Maybe this isn't so simple. 

RUBEN'S ITCH GETS SCRATCHED OR SCRAPPED?

If you are one of 2 dozen (out of 53,00) Hoboken residents who watch our Council meetings, you've noticed a pattern.  Every meeting-- at some point-- Council President Ruben Ramos harangues Corporation Counsel about codifying Mayor Bhalla's of-counsel position. 

As a concept I don't disagree. I expect the Mayor and all City Council members to obey Hoboken law, such as Jen Giattino not accepting gifts of value (like the Ryglicki opinion) or Mike DeFusco not violating Pay-to-Play law (DeFusco took $93K from Unions and PACs above P2P limits). 

So, codifying outside employment is not a bad idea, as far as delineating any potential conflicts of interest.  

Ruben's ordinance is below; I think there are problems with it. 

First, why would a mayor be allowed to work in "other governmental employment"? So a mayor of City A can be a lobbyist for City B?  How is that not a conflict?  

Next, are any of the conditions set forth privileged? I don't know, that's for Corporation Counsel to decide. 

Lets face it: Ruben's motives here are purely political-- he's casting his rod, hopes to haul in a catch.  Hey, if anyone knows about side gigs it's Ramos-- once a triple dipper: councilman, assemblyman and public school teacher.

Like I said, the concept is fine, even good. Not so sure about the execution. Stay tuned.