HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 3BLate8 10/19/2009
From: Zoomer [cnzkeats@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:10 PM
To: -City Clerk
Subject: Late Document Item 36
Greetings City Council Members,
It seems that the newly proposed feral .cat ordnance is being met with very little enthusiasm by the people that
the adjustments to the existing ordnance were meant to encourage. You may find this a little puzzling, however
if one would look at this with unbiased eyes you would see why. If you can't see it, then here are some of the
reasons why, although I think you have received many emails that may depict these reasons and others.
One Council member brow beat one speaker for not being prepared. Small wonder why the speaker wasn't
prepared as the ordnance was posted with very short notice which did not allow anyone to truly digest and
examine all the ramifications of the new ordnance. On the other hand, I don't think the City Council really
examined the new ordnance and just wanted to rubber stamp it as it was and be done with it.
In the ordnance (9.14.110.A.3) requires that any organization managing the feral cat colonies must have
insurance. Why is it that this ordnance requires them to have insurance when other organizations that the city
works with are just allowed to indemnify the city? Certainly this is a blatant bias.
It also seems that there"are some City Council members that are in conflict with this ordnance due to their
alliances and membership with certain groups and people, four of you to be exact. In this case MS Marcelle
Guy was correct in pointing out that these individual Council Members should, in fact, recues themselves from
voting on this ordnance. Granted there is no "monetary gain" to be had, however there is an obvious conflict of
interest which is a matter of ethics. If you are a member of an organization and you have not required that
organization to have insurance in its dealings with the City, yet you require another organization with which
you have no affiliation to have insurance presents a conflict of interest, plain and simple.
Also within the ordnance (9.14.110.D.1) in essence says that no feral cat colonies will be allowed between
Schollengerger Park and Lakeville Highway. Obviously there are apartments and businesses in this area and
I've been told that there is already one registered feral cat colony in that area. If anyone feeds a feral cat in this
area, on their private land, are they subject to arrest and penalties?
Lastly, now that this ordnance probably will discourage any organized group from lifting the burden of feral
cats off the city's back, what are you going to do when no group shows up to accept the responsibility? The
five year old ordnance MUST be changed as it is NOT working and is only a burden on the finances of the City
of Petaluma and just tortures cats. Isn't it time to accept what the feral cat experts want to enable them to do the
job that they have been doing in other places with documented results? They tried to convince the City Council
five years ago and you didn't listen then, will you listen now? Or do we just replace the tag of Petaluma being
the "Pothole Capitol" to the "Cat Killing Capitol"?
Zoomer
Mike Zenone
Petaluma, CA