Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
Catholic League Pissed at PETA
New Photo Brings Flying Overweight Debate Back
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Since the New York City Housing Authority implemented a ban on pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Doberman pinschers in public housing projects last April, at least 113 pets have been turned over to centers run by Animal Care and Control, and 49 have been euthanized. Tenants and animal welfare groups are outraged about the ban, which also prohibits any dog expected to weigh more than 25 pounds when grown.
Critics like Jane Hoffman, president of the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals (a coalition of animal rescue groups and shelters unaffiliated with the city), tell the Times, "You can’t predict what a dog is going to be like just simply based on its breed. I don’t want a dangerous dog out there. But doing it this way is wrong and it’s condemning perfectly innocent dogs to death." The article puts a canine face on the ban by telling the tale of one Tyson, a pit bull whose owner, Marc Hernandez, insists "was a big baby." Nevertheless, Hernandez had to tearfully drop Tyson off at a shelter.
One resident of a housing project who owns a 28-pound poodle told City Councilwoman Rosie Mendez that she wasn't going to feed her pet until it met the 25-pound limit. Mendez wants the city council to re-examine the policy, but not everyone's against it. Victor A. Gonzalez, the tenant association president at Rabbi Stephen Wise Towers on the Upper West Side, says the ban is necessary because "the elderly are fearful. They’re afraid to get on the elevators with these dogs, much less be in the lobby when they get in."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
STFU or stop living on other people's dime.
I had no idea this ban went into effect. Completely stupid, as stupid as the whole Rottweiler paranoia of the 90s, the Doberman paranoia of the 80s, and the German Shepherd paranoia of the 70s.
Once and for all, it's not the breed, it's the owner.
Yes you're right it's the owner, and in the projects there are a lot of irresponsible dog owners with scary dogs. This is not some vast generalization about all those who live in the projects, just about enough of them to warrant this being a real problem.
I pay rent without the city subsidizing it and my girlfriend desperately wants a cute little shitzu, yet we are not allowed to have dogs. If the the NYCHA chooses to ban large dogs, then they are just doing what many other landlords have already done, rather than persecuting pitbulls as you have suggested.
I find dogs weighing less than 25 pounds more offensive than those over that weight.
I certainly don't think anyone living in a project should be allowed to continue to care for an animal, as that would likely lead to abuse and neglect of either their own fiscal responsibility or the animals well being. But I also don't think an animal should be euthanized because its owner has fallen on hard times.
The correct solution here is to have a function for caring for these animals. But obviously this falls into the age old problem of caring for stray domesticated animals. And there's only so much irresponsibility that can be dealt with through charity before you hit a wall.
Does anyone who lives in or near the projects in Mahattan kid themselves that there is not a huge dogfighting culture going on here? Sorry for the Pit Bulls that aren't violent, but maybe this ban will ultimately help curb the rampant breeding and dumping of Pits in my neighborhood. I love the depiction of these dogs as beloved pets. Personally I would not cut my pet dog's ears off flush with his head with a pair of cutting pliers, but maybe that's just me...
How can someone not afford to move out of the projects but somehow afford all the food that a big dog needs? The people I know with big dogs (mostly retrievers) say they eat them out of house and home. Not to mention the vet bills. If they're going to buy the cheapest of the cheap dog food and never take them to the vet, they don't deserve to own a pet. That they quickly drop them off at shelters rather than trying to find good homes for them tells me these people feel the dogs are disposable.
'How can someone not afford to move out of the projects but somehow afford all the food that a big dog needs? '
EXACTLY
The sad reality in these economic times is there are too many pets abandoned to be adopted.
Couldn't agree more. The idea behind public housing is not to make it so comfortable that it becomes a permenent home on the working man's dime, but to get you back on your feet until you can pull your self together financially.
I make a young professor's income (let's just say that's really not a lot, but just fine) and only recently felt that I was financially stable enough to afford a dog. I adopted a very healthy three year old mutt and here's the tally so far:
Adoption fee: 200
collar and leash: about 40 for an adequately strong one
dog shampoo: 18 (you can't use human shampoo because they have a different PH and it will irritate their skin)
Anal glands have to be drained every three months at about: 5-10 a visit
Food: 40 a month at least (for a 30 pound dog) I've had a 70 LB dog who consumed at least $80 of food a month
He got a ring worm: 40
floppy ears need to be cleaned every week to prevent infection: 20 meds about every 6 months
Annual exam and shots: 180 (shots are a must if you don't want your dog to die from a disease)
Heartworm meds: must be taken every month $30 for a six month supply. Heatworm is very common, transmitted by mosquitoes, and a horrific way for a dog to die. Heartworm pills are a must.
That's the absolute basics right there. By my estimation basic care will cost around $1078 a year for a healthy thirty pound dog. Now imagine what a 60 pound pit. would cost.
And, that doesn't include the inevitable sickness or accidents that dogs always get into from anything form eating food on the sidewalk to being hit by cars.
You had me at 'anal glands'.
The vet drew me a diagram of a dog's ass and showed me how to do it myself. I'll pay anything to avoid having to shove my finger up my dogs ass and get sprayed.
Even a small cat is not much cheaper to take care of. Mine gets semiannual checkups because of her advanced age (older than the 15 years that used to be considered maximum life expectancy for cats), so that's $400 right there. Plus the best food I can get her. Not necessarily overrated and way overpriced "organic" food, but at least stuff that doesn't have by-products and grain fillers. Dick Van Patten's Natural Choice, Wellness and Before Grain are good. No supermarket food for her. That means close to another $200/year for food. I get kidded that the cat eats better than I do. Plus toys, litter, treats, cat furniture, Frontline, glucosamine, etc. But like you, I waited until I knew I could take proper care of a pet before getting it.
Keeping dogs in an apartment is inhumane to begin with. People who bring the dogs to animal control, instead of moving the fuck out of the goddamn projects are fucking disgusting sub human pieces of shit. They should be euthanized, not the dogs...
animals don't belong in apartments, let alone large dogs. & they certainly don't belong in the apartments of poor people.
While I mostly agree with you about the dogs getting adequate space, your comment is casting judgement on people like me who actually do give their dog enough excercise and are able to be with the dog all day. I work from home and jog two miles every day to the park with my dog. Then we play fetch for another hour and by the time we get home all he wants to do is sleep. He also visits my parents beach house nearly every weekend of the summer and runs around all day there too. He is by my side all day and if I couldn't provide that for him, I would not have adopted him. He's a really happy dog, but sadly there were a lot of nice dogs at the shelter that will not get that kind of life.
You sound like a good doggy owner. My "judgment" as you put it, is reserved for people who get big or small dogs, then leave them home all day as if they were a piece of furniture. Granted there are some folks who need to work and do a great job with their pets, I applaud those who do that. Leaving a 100 pound dog in a studio apartment all day isn't right. However I prefer that than the alternative of just killing the poor dog...
This is wrong, they should have grandfather the law instead of sentencing those innocent dogs to death. Also for the ignorant commenters, living in a project doesn't mean you are sub-human but poor. there are many people living in UES and UWS luxury apartments whose rents are also subsidized.
Wrong. The owners are choosing to have their dogs murdered. If they loved them so much they would move out of the projects. Move to a place that allows pets. Instead they elect to have their pets killed. That is sub human-fuck them...
Guardians and not owners and yes they made the wrong choice but it is the city to blame to pass this bill retroactively. what did they expect to happen? for people to really give up their apartments? I would but then again I can afford to move. The pet in housing billl which QUINN and Bloomberg refused to pass prevented seniors from evictions for having pets. SHAME. Bloomberg has been the worst person in office for other species as well as our own.
If they loved them so much they would move out of the projects. Move to a place that allows pets
Yeah, why don't they just find a nice two-bedroom condo in Park Slope, or a nice Coop with a board that allows doggies. These people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and move to a nicer neighborhood.
/sarcasm.
whatever man-maybe you like seeing dogs killed because of their underachieving, unmotivated owners, I don't
I agree with the first part of your post-- "This is wrong, they should have grandfather the law", but the problem is that once you start making exceptions, everyone is going to want them. With rules like this, it has to be all or nothing, unfortunately. Poor doggies :(
I may be wrong, but I believe that dogs who were licensed as law requires were grandfathered into the system. I believe they were also given fair warning months ago to get their dogs licensed if they weren't already.
As the proud owner of two pit rescues, I in no way support breed specific legislation. However, I totally support responsible care and ownership which is not being exhibited in most, if not all, of these cases.
It would have protected the tenants with dogs and stop any more of dogs in projects.. Phase it out but retroactively sentenced these dogs to death. The city has no regard for other species. Bloomberg gasses geese needlessly. He really thinks their life has no value. They could have easily grandfather this law. And only waive those tenants who had these dogs before the law. Shame.
Isn't that what they were supposed to do? I thought when i read this earlier in the year, as long as those who already had dogs registered them, they would be allowed to keep them and no new dogs above that criteria could be brought in, what happened??
yes, I read the same thing but the city council pass the bill without those amendments. Initially, they were going to waive existing tenants but now they quietly passed this bill without those discussed waivers. I didn't even know about it till this post. Christine Quinn is so disgusting.
How would it help to grandfather in the current dogs/dog owners? They're the ones causing the problems that resulted in the ban!
if you wanna cry about your big dog in public housing...get a better job and move out...
That kind of comment is just silly. "Get a better job and move out" - how Republican of you. Anyone who cannot afford a house and 2 cars is just lazy and does not have a good enough job. Right?
How about starting with A job. Do you see any of the hard working immigrants getting a pet before they get a job? The projects and welfare are about the worst thing that has happened to the urban "poor."
Having a dog is a privilege - I thought living in the projects means that one is underprivileged?
the problem is the owners but the dogs should be banned. too many weak minded people get pitbulls as an expression of vanity. they want to look cool, tough, or get some sort of street cred by owning one. too often these dogs end up being agrresive as a result.
this is why the dogs have to be banned. too many people who own these kinds of dogs are too irresponsible to have one. there is no way to stop these owners from being stupid so sadly the dogs need to be banned.
I will gladly be the first to euthanize the ghetto dogs as they are merely a distraction for the ghetto trash from doing something more productive with their lives e.g. going to school, learning a vocation, you know... things like that.
Maybe those low-life, project-living vermin can get a job with the animal service department to inject the lethal dose into their overly aggressive, status-symbol seeking, trophy dogs. It would kill two birds with one stone, no?
Tough shit. You live on the dole, you follow the draconian rules. Is it infantilizing? Of course it is. Don't like it? Vote for true conservative Republicans who will end federal subsidies.
Oh, they're talking about euthanizing the [/i] dogs [i] in the projects. My mistake.
Leave the dogs alone! Start euthanizing the owners if you want to make the world a better place.
These peole had until May 1st to register their dogs. Most of them just didn't bother to do it. This is indicative of either laziness or somehting criminal going on. Bottom line is you're living on the public dime, you're asking for a handout and now you don't want to follow the rules. Too fricking bad.
You want your pit bulls back? Complain to the drug dealers and gangs that use them to terrorize people.
The projects are cowded enough as it is without the added burden of dogs that weigh nearly as much as an extra person. Notice none of these people want something reasonable like the thousands of cats overcrowding the shelters or the sad old blind poodle. No, they frequently choose a dog bred for aggession weighing over 60 pounds.
I absolutely agree with all the other comments.
Big dogs in the projects are not used for pets, but for intimidation or vanity. Its like having a gun, a fancy car or designer sneakers.
I am in awe at how supposely "poor" people spend their money. They live paycheck to paycheck because they waste their money on designer clothes and other non essentials-like giant dogs.
Its an neverending cycle. They, their children, their grandchildren will continue to live in the ghetto. It is just a shame that innocent dogs are being punished for their stupid owners.
If the ban works, then this killer dog subculture can hopefully die out, because I am frightened when I see a group of men and their snarling dogs.
I spent several grand on my persian cats teeth (adopted).
800 when my mini-pin ate a chocolate bar and another 600
on a biopsy w/blood tests, x-ray, vet and lab costs.
Most of the tenants in the projects near me are on some sort of
city, state or fed. funding. How do they afford such expenses?
First post was dead-on.
Maybe they can let their dogs live in their Escalades in the project parking lots in prime areas of Manhattan.
PS: They pay $50 a year for those spots by Licoln Center, Civic Center, etc. How much could the city make renting those?
You people are really ignorant and many of you are racists. Here are some of the eligibility requirements (maximum income) for public housing:
1 $43,000
2 $49,150
3 $55,300
Notice that you could be earning quite a bit (though hardly a King's ransom for NY) and still be eligible.
$43k keeps you eligible for a 1-bedroom? Surely one can find a non-project, pet-friendly 1-bedroom in the outer boroughs for about $1k a month. In fact, a quick perusal of Craigslist shows some that accept dogs as low $800 in Brooklyn.
If they're doing so well they can move elsewhere with their dogs.
Throw in SSI, WIC, Welfare, an illegal sublet, off the books work and a "spouse" that works but isn't on the lease and they're doing great!
That's gross salary, not net. They aren't doing 'well' by any reasonable standard.
$45K is a starting teacher's salary. It is reasonable to be able to live on your own in a pet friendly building, but you'd have to buy less $30 ball caps, $150 sneakers, $600 North Face coats and $60,000 SUVs.
It must be a good deal if they can afford PETS.
Actual poverty = No Pets.
The quote amounts are maximum income for a single person. Are you thick? And don't even start with the teacher's, $45K is the absolute minimum with no further education. And it comes with generous benefits, a pension plan, loads of time off, and additional opportunities to supplement your income. All paid for by taxes.
The people who live in public housing aren't getting these kind of benefits. Stop acting like being poor is some great deal.
Spoken just like someone who has probably never even walked past a project. There is so much fraud taking place in NYCHA properties. Here are some examples: unreported spouse (and therefore unreported income), grown children living in their parents' apartment (many of whom no longer even live in the city), people who work under the table, sell drugs, and various others who have a far higher income that what they're reporting. You'd be amazed at the lengths the scumbags will go to to hang on to these shitholes, all in the name of getting one over. When virtually every lowlife I see emerging from these places has $400 outfits, iPods, and often highly expensive vehicles, something ain't right. While there are some good people living in the projects who really need a little help, you shouldn't kid yourself. Most people living there are enjoying extravagant lifestyles beyond their means (based on reported income) that are being subsidized by taxpayers. I invite you to take a stroll through any housing project to see firsthand what I'm talking about, but I think we both know that will never happen.
People are stupid. They didn't register their dogs like they were supposed to, cry and complain about it, then have them put to sleep. They're too stupid to have pets.
No, it doesn't surprise me that there is fraud. And you would be hard-pressed to point to a place in our society where there isn't evidence of fraud. Nevertheless, iPods and nice clothing aren't evidence of fraud.
I live within 5 minutes of at least four projects (granted one of them is a Mitchell-Lama middle income project.) I don't see what you see - I see a lot of wrecked looking poor people.
Mitchell-Lama buildings are not projects. SMH! Yes, some people who live in Mitchell-Lama buildings are receiving Sect. 8 benefits (as is the case with some privately owned buildings), but most are not. They have paid shares into the cooperative. And as for your previous comment about being eligible to live in the projects if you make $43,000 a year, that's simply ridiculous. There is no maximum income to live in the system. It is based on a percentage of the average income of the area in which the project is located. Your $43,000 figure may apply to the projects in Chelsea, but certainly not too many buildings in East New York that would fall into that category.
There aren't too many truly poor people in NYC. The fact that people here have access to clean water and electricity makes them more fortunate than about 80% of the world's population. There are, however, a hell of a lot of people with really backwards priorities. When you pay $100-$200 a month for rent, there's no way your car payment should be quadruple that! Please, stop making excuses for lazy people who wish to make no effort to get off of welfare (yes, projects are welfare). I have NO PROBLEM paying taxes to help people who are trying to get on their feet and work towards a better quality of life, but this generational living in the projects is not right. I have always thought that 95% of the residents of projects should be immigrants, since they're the ones who most often are living off of very little money and are trying to get stabilized. However, we both know that new immigrants are a minority in these places. Instead, they are filled with lazy, often aggressive, ignoramuses with an inflated sense of entitlement.
Whatever. One of them is a Mitchell Lama building that any sane person would identify as a project. And ML is a mix of coops and rentals, so wrong again. Also, the income limits are posted on the NYCHA site, so wrong again! http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/assistance/income.shtml
I am no longer taking anything you say seriously. Thanks.