| Shelter Reform Action Committee (SRAC) ShelterReform.org: Everything you ever wanted to know about the AC&C, but were afraid to ask. |
Report of the September 21, 2011 vote on Int. No. 655
Zelda Penzel, co-founder of Save Our Shelter Animals (S.O.S) attended the September
21 hearing on Int. No. 655. Here is her report on that proceeding as well as the
statement by Queens Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr.’s offered in opposition to the bill:
Along with a half dozen or so activists who were able to take time out of their busy schedules, I
attended the City Council Meeting today at which, in a vote of 46 to 4, Intro 655 was passed. It was
interesting to note what Christine Quinn and some of the Council members had to say about the
reasons for approving this bill and also to observe that the ASPCA (they must have given the day
off to half the staff to attend), Jane Hoffman, and Steve Nislick, representing New York Class, were
singled out for praise by both Quinn and some of the Council members. Also mentioned among
the "animal rights" community that supported this bill were Bide-a-Wee, the Humane Society and
PeTA. No wonder the Council members, some of whom seemed to know squat about the Bill and
the issues, were in awe and in agreement. Of course, they know even less about animal rights and
who's on first.
What was clear was that more attention should have been paid to the Council members who
represent the Bronx and Queens, because in the end, they were the only ones to vote No on the bill
and/or speak out against it. FYI the Council members who voted against Intro 655 were Halloran
(Q), Ulrich (Q), Vallone (Q) and Comrie (Q). Remember their names and be sure to send them a
note of thanks. Among the reasons they gave for voting No, were Queens still being short-changed
by the elimination of the mandate to build a full-service shelter there (see Vallone speech and
interview, below) and the City's failure to keep its promises, which should not be rewarded. One or
two others voted Yes but with objections that they wanted noted in the record as well, such as the
deplorable conditions at AC&C and the fact that far too many animals were being killed there
(Ignizio, S.I.).
Quinn made several interesting announcements in describing why the Bill should be passed and
among them was the fact that the Lawsuit about to be heard on behalf of Stray from the Heart, will
not be affected by the passage of this bill. That was nothing less than disingenuous but it managed
to gather support from some who had hesitated on voting yes. Sure the case can proceed, but the
outcome will be irrelevant and she failed to mention that. Another piece of news was of a newly
concluded deal to add 2 additional members to the ACC Board, who would come from the business
and/or philanthropic community. Who they might be, how they might be selected and appointed,
when this would all take place was not made clear. This too, was surely a move to co-opt the
proposal put forth by Borough President, Scott Stringer, which calls for a complete overhaul of the
ACC Board.
Below please find a copy of Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr.'s floor speech in
opposition to Int. 655 earlier today. Thank you.
In 2000, the City Council passed the Animal Shelter and Sterilization Act, requiring among other
things a SHELTER IN EVERY BOROUGH and we set aside 4 million to get that done.
In 2002 the city came to us and asked for an extension. They PROMISED they would have it done
by 2006, so we gave them until then.
Ten years later, the people and animals of Queens and the Bronx are STILL waiting. The City didn’t
live up to promises then, and it won’t NOW.
We are told the bill is moving now because there is an “urgent need.” Well, there’s been an urgent
need for twelve years. There is only one reason we are moving now. There is one reason we had
one hearing less than 2 weeks ago and were given notice this morning’s Health Committee vote at 6:
30 PM last night. There is one reason we fast tracked this with as little notice as possible and that is
because the Administration is afraid of a pending lawsuit in the Court of Appeals, that’s why. If we
wait 90 days, the City may have a COURT MANDATE for full service shelters in Queens and the
Bronx. If we pass this bill, the case becomes irrelevant.
This bill does some good things, that is why some animal rights groups support it. The majority
DON’T, by the way. It absolutely improves services for animals in three of five boroughs and
increases hours for receiving centers citywide.
But a receiving center is just a place to drop off an animal, which then gets shipped to another
borough
-It doesn’t provide care.
-It doesn’t provide place to recover lost pets before they are potentially put down.
-It doesn’t relieve overcrowding in current shelters.
We could pass a bill that accomplishes all the good things that this bill does AND provide funding,
without denying Queens and the Bronx a full service shelter.
There is no reason to force the people and animals of two boroughs to wait another ten years as we
“work towards” shelters. There is a law in place now and very soon a possible court mandate
requiring them.
This bill ensures that Queens and the Bronx, two boroughs each larger than most states, will NOT
have animal shelters for a long, long time. We might as well wait for it to rain cats and dogs. It
actually changes a law which requires EQUAL treatment for all boroughs and mandates that the
people and pets of Queens and the Bronx get LESS services than the other boroughs.
This bill is inherently unfair and I vote NO.
SRAC Home Page
Zelda Penzel, co-founder of Save Our Shelter Animals (S.O.S) attended the September
21 hearing on Int. No. 655. Here is her report on that proceeding as well as the
statement by Queens Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr.’s offered in opposition to the bill:
Along with a half dozen or so activists who were able to take time out of their busy schedules, I
attended the City Council Meeting today at which, in a vote of 46 to 4, Intro 655 was passed. It was
interesting to note what Christine Quinn and some of the Council members had to say about the
reasons for approving this bill and also to observe that the ASPCA (they must have given the day
off to half the staff to attend), Jane Hoffman, and Steve Nislick, representing New York Class, were
singled out for praise by both Quinn and some of the Council members. Also mentioned among
the "animal rights" community that supported this bill were Bide-a-Wee, the Humane Society and
PeTA. No wonder the Council members, some of whom seemed to know squat about the Bill and
the issues, were in awe and in agreement. Of course, they know even less about animal rights and
who's on first.
What was clear was that more attention should have been paid to the Council members who
represent the Bronx and Queens, because in the end, they were the only ones to vote No on the bill
and/or speak out against it. FYI the Council members who voted against Intro 655 were Halloran
(Q), Ulrich (Q), Vallone (Q) and Comrie (Q). Remember their names and be sure to send them a
note of thanks. Among the reasons they gave for voting No, were Queens still being short-changed
by the elimination of the mandate to build a full-service shelter there (see Vallone speech and
interview, below) and the City's failure to keep its promises, which should not be rewarded. One or
two others voted Yes but with objections that they wanted noted in the record as well, such as the
deplorable conditions at AC&C and the fact that far too many animals were being killed there
(Ignizio, S.I.).
Quinn made several interesting announcements in describing why the Bill should be passed and
among them was the fact that the Lawsuit about to be heard on behalf of Stray from the Heart, will
not be affected by the passage of this bill. That was nothing less than disingenuous but it managed
to gather support from some who had hesitated on voting yes. Sure the case can proceed, but the
outcome will be irrelevant and she failed to mention that. Another piece of news was of a newly
concluded deal to add 2 additional members to the ACC Board, who would come from the business
and/or philanthropic community. Who they might be, how they might be selected and appointed,
when this would all take place was not made clear. This too, was surely a move to co-opt the
proposal put forth by Borough President, Scott Stringer, which calls for a complete overhaul of the
ACC Board.
Below please find a copy of Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr.'s floor speech in
opposition to Int. 655 earlier today. Thank you.
In 2000, the City Council passed the Animal Shelter and Sterilization Act, requiring among other
things a SHELTER IN EVERY BOROUGH and we set aside 4 million to get that done.
In 2002 the city came to us and asked for an extension. They PROMISED they would have it done
by 2006, so we gave them until then.
Ten years later, the people and animals of Queens and the Bronx are STILL waiting. The City didn’t
live up to promises then, and it won’t NOW.
We are told the bill is moving now because there is an “urgent need.” Well, there’s been an urgent
need for twelve years. There is only one reason we are moving now. There is one reason we had
one hearing less than 2 weeks ago and were given notice this morning’s Health Committee vote at 6:
30 PM last night. There is one reason we fast tracked this with as little notice as possible and that is
because the Administration is afraid of a pending lawsuit in the Court of Appeals, that’s why. If we
wait 90 days, the City may have a COURT MANDATE for full service shelters in Queens and the
Bronx. If we pass this bill, the case becomes irrelevant.
This bill does some good things, that is why some animal rights groups support it. The majority
DON’T, by the way. It absolutely improves services for animals in three of five boroughs and
increases hours for receiving centers citywide.
But a receiving center is just a place to drop off an animal, which then gets shipped to another
borough
-It doesn’t provide care.
-It doesn’t provide place to recover lost pets before they are potentially put down.
-It doesn’t relieve overcrowding in current shelters.
We could pass a bill that accomplishes all the good things that this bill does AND provide funding,
without denying Queens and the Bronx a full service shelter.
There is no reason to force the people and animals of two boroughs to wait another ten years as we
“work towards” shelters. There is a law in place now and very soon a possible court mandate
requiring them.
This bill ensures that Queens and the Bronx, two boroughs each larger than most states, will NOT
have animal shelters for a long, long time. We might as well wait for it to rain cats and dogs. It
actually changes a law which requires EQUAL treatment for all boroughs and mandates that the
people and pets of Queens and the Bronx get LESS services than the other boroughs.
This bill is inherently unfair and I vote NO.
SRAC Home Page
