Lakewood goes breed-neutral
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:06 pm
Lakewood City Council voted this evening for revised dog laws, which do away with the pit-bull ban and with breed-specific provisions, entirely.
There's plenty more to communicate about this, including the timing, the new insurance requirements, other new provisions, etc.
I would however like to address the issue of how this came about. At tonight's meeting, nearly everyone who spoke thanked nearly everyone else. It was a moment of goodwill, understandably.
But as a historian, the question I ask is: what changed? Lakewood brought in breed-specific policies a decade ago. What changed, recently, that might explain their repeal at this time?
I don't believe the arguments are really new. The weight of evidence against BSL has probably increased somewhat, each year, but the present case against it was already largely complete when Lakewood adopted this policy.
Activism on the issue isn't really new. Many individuals have been working against this from the outset. I commend their persistence, and believe it certainly mattered, but I'm drawn to inquire at least for any more recently introduced factor.
Most of Lakewood government isn't new. Most of city council has been in office for multiple years, as has Lakewood's mayor. Throughout which time they have had access to activists' and experts' testimony, and research, if they chose to give it their attention. Yet repeal has only been formally on the agenda for, what, a month? Month and a half?
How about Charlie? As I recall, Charlie signs began going up perhaps nine months ago? I suspect that Charlie and the attention drawn by his story also encouraged this result, but Lakewood government had half of last year to respond to "I'm With Charlie." Lakewood government responded by banishing Charlie, and defending that banishment in court, and to appearances was content to limit its response to this.
Until this year. This year, two new members joined city council having committed to repeal BSL. Suddenly: suspension of the pit-bull ban. Introduction of genuine repeal. Now, after a deliberative process, repeal passes city council barely three months after the new members' arrival.
I belabor all of this because it was a 7-0 vote, tonight. Yet only two members of city council are new. While allowing credit to two more members who have publicly advocated repealing BSL, for some time, that still leaves three members of council whose votes seem difficult to reconcile with the policy's persistence until this year. Had they been amenable to repeal before this year, they could have accomplished it then. It's perfectly reasonable for people to reconsider their views, by all means. But again, to my knowledge the facts have not really changed. Nor has the readiness of citizens to explain them.
Cliché though it is, I'm going to submit that elections have consequences. Even if those responding to election results would prefer to point anywhere, everywhere, except at voters and those candidates who offered them an alternative.
There's plenty more to communicate about this, including the timing, the new insurance requirements, other new provisions, etc.
I would however like to address the issue of how this came about. At tonight's meeting, nearly everyone who spoke thanked nearly everyone else. It was a moment of goodwill, understandably.
But as a historian, the question I ask is: what changed? Lakewood brought in breed-specific policies a decade ago. What changed, recently, that might explain their repeal at this time?
I don't believe the arguments are really new. The weight of evidence against BSL has probably increased somewhat, each year, but the present case against it was already largely complete when Lakewood adopted this policy.
Activism on the issue isn't really new. Many individuals have been working against this from the outset. I commend their persistence, and believe it certainly mattered, but I'm drawn to inquire at least for any more recently introduced factor.
Most of Lakewood government isn't new. Most of city council has been in office for multiple years, as has Lakewood's mayor. Throughout which time they have had access to activists' and experts' testimony, and research, if they chose to give it their attention. Yet repeal has only been formally on the agenda for, what, a month? Month and a half?
How about Charlie? As I recall, Charlie signs began going up perhaps nine months ago? I suspect that Charlie and the attention drawn by his story also encouraged this result, but Lakewood government had half of last year to respond to "I'm With Charlie." Lakewood government responded by banishing Charlie, and defending that banishment in court, and to appearances was content to limit its response to this.
Until this year. This year, two new members joined city council having committed to repeal BSL. Suddenly: suspension of the pit-bull ban. Introduction of genuine repeal. Now, after a deliberative process, repeal passes city council barely three months after the new members' arrival.
I belabor all of this because it was a 7-0 vote, tonight. Yet only two members of city council are new. While allowing credit to two more members who have publicly advocated repealing BSL, for some time, that still leaves three members of council whose votes seem difficult to reconcile with the policy's persistence until this year. Had they been amenable to repeal before this year, they could have accomplished it then. It's perfectly reasonable for people to reconsider their views, by all means. But again, to my knowledge the facts have not really changed. Nor has the readiness of citizens to explain them.
Cliché though it is, I'm going to submit that elections have consequences. Even if those responding to election results would prefer to point anywhere, everywhere, except at voters and those candidates who offered them an alternative.