|
|||||
October 21, 2004
City Councilor Roderick Royal was furious. Pacing outside Mayor Bernard Kincaid’s office after the October 12 Birmingham City Council meeting, Royal waved a police report detailing a recent encounter with a ferocious pit bull that occurred while the councilor walked his Springer spaniel in his Pratt City neighborhood on September 29. During the council meeting, Royal had introduced a pair of resolutions: one allowing an increase in the $20 fine for anyone whose dog chases someone; the other requiring anyone with more than three dogs to have a fenced-in yard, if state code does indeed allow such an ordinance. If not, the resolution requested that a city representative lobby the state legislature to permit the fenced-in yard law. Royal became irate after a reporter told the councilor that during the Mayor’s post-council meeting press conference, Kincaid had described Royal’s proposals as nothing more than political posturing. “I don’t appreciate him saying this is politics when I was being chased up the street. And I’ve got the police report to show it!” Royal fumed as he waited to express his anger directly to Kincaid.
Royal’s resolutions requested that the Mayor direct the law department to both amend city code to allow for the penalty increase and to submit a fenced-in yard resolution to the council. But Kincaid was not happy that Royal took that route, and during the council meeting City Attorney Tamara Johnson told the council that they should have simply sent a memo to the law department requesting that the proposed resolutions be investigated for viability. At his press conference, Kincaid explained that when the council calls for a change in ordinance, the normal procedure is to go to the law department for the drafting of a resolution rather than introducing it on the dais at the weekly council meeting. “I view it as just a political ploy,” said Kincaid. “The process was to refer it to a committee in the first place. . . . That’s why council meetings are lasting so much longer. They are being used for committee meetings and for political posturing. What you saw [today] was political posturing at its finest. . . . One year from today is the election for city council, so you’ve seen the political posturing start.”
|
||||||||||
During the council meeting, Councilor Carole Smitherman said that it was not fair to levy identical fines for small and large dogs, and suggested that fines be increased up to $500, depending on the ferociousness of the animal. Councilor Valerie Abbott agreed, focusing her criticism on pet owners. “What we really have is an irresponsible owner problem,” said Abbott. “We need to increase fines to the point that it gets the attention of irresponsible pet owners.” Instruction in elementary schools on proper pet care was one of Councilor Carol Reynolds’ solutions, while Councilor Joel Montgomery complained that Birmingham Jefferson County Animal Control is perhaps not doing its job. “Folks, we pay animal control $56,000 a month to pick these dogs up,” said Montgomery.
In an interview two days later, Royal took exception to Kincaid’s explanation of legislative procedure, complaining that it frequently takes too long to get the law department to respond to council requests. Royal argued that the Mayor doesn’t control the council’s agenda, and that councilors are free to discuss any resolution or ordinance they feel is necessary. He then explained the definition of a dangerous dog: “The [city] code says that a dog is vicious if it comes out of the owner’s yard and chases you, attacks you, or bites you.” The councilor continued: “[These days] people don’t have poodles that chase you, they have Rottweilers.” Addressing the public health advantage of a fenced-in yard, Royal explained, “It’s just to further protect the public safety. It’s more likely that you can protect the public safety by an enclosed yard than by an unenclosed yard where a dog is chained to a tree or pole. . . . If you have a female dog, and a male dog chases you, I don’t think you’d be posturing at all. In other words I wasn’t posturing when I was chased by a pit bull. Anything I bring up, [Kincaid] is against,” said Royal. “What’s the likelihood that I would be making a show out of something that would cost me a limb? So on this point, [Kincaid] is just clearly off-base,” the councilor concluded. Royal agreed with Councilor Montgomery that the current animal control vendor may not be up to the task. “The city may need to look at other providers, because $56,000 a month is a heck of a lot of money.”