This is getting confusing.
First Ward Councilman DeFusco has put up two pieces of legislation this week: to limit the number of dogs that a dog-walker or owner may bring to a dog run and the number of aides that a mayor may bring to his Office. Specifically, the Councilman will allow one more dog than mayoral aide in each respective location: 3 dogs, 2 aides.
Why is the Councilman allowing more dogs than aides? Dogs socialize by sniffing each others' asses. The mayor's aides do not sniff each others asses, but make the City run more efficiently. The Mayor's aides do not bark, bite the furniture or have flea infestations. They work enormous hours, answer phone calls, attend meetings, get things done.
So why does Defusco want less aides than dogs?
Does his legislation mean 3 mayoral aides are allowed in a dog run but not in the Mayor's office? And 4 dogs are allowed in the Mayor's office but not in a dog run?
Does his legislation mean 3 mayoral aides are allowed in a dog run but not in the Mayor's office? And 4 dogs are allowed in the Mayor's office but not in a dog run?
About dogs: GA is not a dog owner. So, it doesn't matter to me whether the Councilman's limit is 3 dogs or 5 dogs or 7 dogs. But blocking dogs from using the dog run will have an economic impact on dog owners and the people who hire them. Dog walkers will suffer economically, and likely raise service fees, maybe some will quit altogether. In turn, dog owners will have a harder time finding help, and when they do will pay more. The most likely outcome will be more dogshit on our streets as multi-dog walkers shun dog runs for sidewalks and public spaces.
Which makes this dog-gone dumb legislation. What inspired this? Did someone's little Fifi get humped too vigorously at the park? Did Muffin get gangbanged? C'mon. Dogs will be dogs.
This three-dog limit is arbitrary, punitive and bound to hurt people, not dogs.
A two-aide limit is arbitrary, punitive and the legislation is illegal.
DOG RUN ORDINANCE: 3-DOGS MAX PER DOGWALKER/OWNER
MAYOR'S STAFF ORDINANCE: 2 AIDES MAX
Maybe Tony S (owner of dog) put him up to this? Seems goofy.... it is a bad look putting a limit and could hurt small businesses that walk dogs and such.....obviously DeFido doesn't care about small business unless they give big donations.......
ReplyDeleteI actually agree (to an extent) with this legislation on dogs. How many dogs can one person reasonably control? When I see someone with many dogs on a leash walking them (and I mean 5+), I often think "and I don't want to be here when they decide to stop listening."
ReplyDeleteIs't that the idea? Bring the doggies to a dog run and let'em get their ya-ya's out. When they're all pooped out and done sniffing ass, take them back home!
DeleteLOL yes, but my point is that they don't teleport to the dog run. They have to walk there. And I don't think it's unreasonable to limit how many dogs a person should handle at one time (on a leash or off) for public safety.
DeleteI see below many people have commented on the law being unenforceable and without teeth or consequences. I see those as different issues to be addressed as well.
I grew up in a home with multiple large dogs (70 lbs-100+ lbs). The trainer always told us to take them out on a 1 dog to 1 person ratio because they're pack animals and will follow the pack leader. You don't want to be in a position where a dog becomes the leader.
Another unenforceable piece of shit legislation from him. There are a lot of dog owners in town, and he just made some new enemies. He's good at that.
ReplyDeleteThe City doesn't need more stupid unenforced and unenforceable laws. According to the full dog ordinance currently in effect, dogs are actually barred from all public parks except to directly access dog runs. That means no dogs allowed at all in parks without dog runs like Pier A, Pier C etc.
ReplyDeleteObviously here in the real world dogs are welcomed there and any attempt to enforce that law would result in massive public opposition.
We should be cleaning up our laws to make them real and then enforce them. We shouldn't be adding even more stupid dog restrictions that will be univerally ignored.
What will be the COST to the City to enforce the dog law? I would rather the police spend their time policing package thefts and reviewing security footage to find perps ('tis the season, you know) than patrolling dog runs to count how many dogs per human. Plus, if this stupid law passes and dog walkers have to make changes to their routine and/or charge more for their services, there will be a bunch of really ticked off dog-owning residents who count on dog walking services during the day while they are at work.
ReplyDeleteAgree with you. When dog walkers and dog owners find out what this idiot did, they'll be P-Oed. Who on the Council owns a dog?
DeleteGiattino and Cunningham own dogs. I don't know if any others do. Fisher owns rabbits. I doubt she let's them hop around in a dog run. Probably would be unwise.
DeleteWAIT...tiff owns rabbits??!!
DeleteDoes she boil them?
DeleteI imagine the complaint came from a dog owner. People who don't have dogs don't give a rats what happens in the dog run. But an owner who uses the dog run and feels his/her dog is at risk from a bad dog:owner ratio would complain.
ReplyDeleteMy guess, "someone who matters" cried to the councilman about Little Muffin getting knocked around at the dog park. Probably discoverable.
A woman's small dog was recently (June) mauled to death by a large dog in the dog run. The large dog was there with a dog walker. I don't know (the article didn't say) if the walker had more than one dog under his care at the time. Perhaps this is the genesis of the ordinance.
Deletehttps://abc7ny.com/pets-animals/family-devastated-after-yorkie-mauled-to-death-at-dog-park/3598828/
If this thing passes and doesn't get enforced, and it's pretty obvious it won't be, the law will just create potential legal liability for the City while not making anyone safer.
ReplyDeleteThe law as proposed doesn't even establish a fine for violating it. It's complete BS.
Well it is DeFusco. He is all about BS. The man eats it for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
DeleteHow about a limit on the number of poll workers a campaign can "hire" (or buy) on Election Day?
ReplyDeleteYet another solution in search of a problem from the Worst Ward Councilman.
ReplyDelete#AssinineIdeas #MisguidedEnergy
Maybe he'd like to sponsor legislation limiting the number of drunk assholes who descend upon us twice a year. Not all of his ELEC-law-violating supporters are corrupt developers, some are owners of the fake ID bars in the first ward.
ReplyDeleteLook what's happening this weekend, just in time to fuck up retail sales during the "no-one's holiday-will-be-affected" season:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/official-hoboken-santa-crawl-2018-tickets-42240762257
Ahhh Santacon. I had so much fun in NYC at one of these - must be 7-8 years ago now.
DeleteCouncilman DeFusco has a history of advocating for interests of individuals who he calculates can help him politically even if it is not in the best interest of the majority of Hoboken. The changing of the rules to allow a hairdressing shop to use a sidewalk feather flag when they have been ban in Hoboken for many years is one instance. More recently advocating for his politically connected friends to get variances to build a thirteen story building on the Jersey City-Hoboken border that does not in any way reflect the best interests of Hoboken. Interesting too is that he is not posted anything on his Facebook page about this new ordinance.
ReplyDeleteActually, the feather flag in question pre-dated the ordinance. The shop owner rightfully fought to keep it as it was grandfathered in. The zoning officer levied fines and did everything they could to have it removed, including dragging them into court where the judge ruled in the salon owner's favor. A huge waste of taxpayer money went into that personal vendetta of enforcing an ordinance that the zoning officer probably wrote.
DeleteFox meet chicken coop.
In this instance, DeFusco, as bad as he is, was correct in trying to help a business in his ward, whose owners don't even live in town, but their customers do.
Certain councilmembers aren't the only toxic fuckups in city hall.
We can agree he is toxic, bad for Hoboken no stranger to personal vendetta's. The City once again again is al little bit uglier due to his efforts.
Delete