Neighbors,
I know that it will come as no surprise to anyone on this list, but yet again, Patrick has demonstrated his extraordinary ignorance and intolerance for reason. If you bothered to read his e-mail, you may also wish to know the truth.First, his argument that I'm pursuing a "bizarre political agenda designed to harm, not help homeless pets" is preposterous. I've dedicated the last 4 years of my life to improving the outlook for Austin's lost and homeless pets. I've traveled to seminars across the State, spent thousands of dollars, read book after book, hired national experts, and spent thousands of hours working to help Austin's pets. And at the same time, I've saved stray dogs and cats throughout Austin, getting them healthy, spayed or neutered, and finding them loving homes. I'm leading FixAustin.org, I'm on the board of the Central Texas Animal Alliance, I'm leading Austin Pets Alive's legal team, and I've recently been contacted for advice from Emancipet. On top of that, I'm currently fostering two pit bulls that were scheduled to die at Town Lake Animal Center--- one who when I got him was so unsocialized that he would have been considered feral--- until they can find loving homes. So yeah, Patrick's right-- I'm clearly all about harming homeless pets.As to the remainder of his arguments, he's also wrong. Here's a list of corrections.
1. The voters of Austin did not vote to move the animal shelter. The bond approved by voters stated that the money would be allocated for "constructing, renovating, improving and equipping" the shelter. It said nothing of moving the shelter. And just to be safe, prior to voting for the bond, I asked Council Members Betty Dunkerley and Mike Martinez (along with shelter director Dorinda Pulliam), each of whom promised that the bond initiative did not set a new location. For those more interested in fact than Patrick, you can read the actual bond-ballot language here: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/bond_language.pdf2. The argument that the current shelter is in a floodplain was a scare tactic offered by city bureaucrats. The site is in the 500-year floodplain, just like Austin High School and City Hall, along with a substantial portion of downtown. Nothing prohibits building in the 500-year floodplain. Indeed, the City doesn't even restrict building in the 500-year floodplain. And, according to a leading Austin urban planner, getting the site out of the 500-year floodplain would be as simple as moving dirt from one part of the site to another part--- which he called an easy and inexpensive endeavor.3. The argument that the current shelter is a "broken down old building" is irrelevant. The same bond money spent on moving the shelter could be spent on rebuilding it. In fact, the City's own analysis concluded (prior to the public outcry) that rebuilding and relocating the shelter would cost roughly the same thing. $18.5 million to rebuild the shelter: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/ShelterRebuildBudget.pdf. $18.3 million to relocate it:
http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/ShelterRelocateBudget.pdf.
4. The anti-tethering ordinance was promoted almost entirely by a guy named Lyndon Poole of Chain Free Austin, who worked tirelessly with city staff (who was initially against it) and all city council members to get it passed. Jennifer Kim may have sponsored it, but she played virtually no role in the real work behind getting it passed. Lyndon deserves the credit for that.5. Jennifer Kim's assistant, Heidi Gerbrecht, did lead the effort (along with Mike Martinez's staff) to regulate the sale of unaltered pets in Austin very recently. As originally written, her proposed ordinance would have put most Austin pet-rescue groups out of business, perhaps costing hundreds of pet lives each year. The ordinance was re-written after an hour-long conversation that I had with Heidi outside of TLAC after an Animal Advisory Commission meeting. Funny--- I don't remember Patrick at that meeting. As you will also see if you read FixAustin's voter information guide, it gives Kim credit for leading this initiative.6. Allowing dogs at outdoor eating establishments has no correlation with saving lives at animal shelters. Things that Jennifer Kim has NOT supported-- like off-site adoptions and volunteer foster programs for medically or behaviorably treatable pets--- do save lives. Which is more important? Being alive or hanging out at a restaurant?7. Patrick asks who says that moving the shelter away from the center of town will lead to lost lives? Well, actually, the nation's preeminent expert on no-kill sheltering (along with every other national expert I spoke to), who is both the only person to lead a city to no-kill success and the only one to replicate that success in other cities. The expert, Nathan Winograd, has led San Francisco, CA; Ithaca, NY; Charlottesville, VA; Reno, NV; Orange County, VA; and Ivans County, UT, to no-kill success (meaning they kill less than 10% of animals taken in at the open-admission municipal pound). You can read Winograd's detailed report on how and why moving the shelter will lead to fewer adoptions here: http://www.fixaustin.org/pub/NathanWinogradShelter-RelocationReport.pdf.I also spoke with the nation's leading animal-shelter architectural firm (out of California and New York), who indicated that the further a shelter is located from a city's population center, the fewer people will visit it and the more animals will die. As it turns out (contrary to Patrick's assertion), the law of supply and demand applies equally to animal shelters. (Shocking!)8. The City has stated that it will not add additional kennels for animals at a relocated shelter. All new space will be dedicated to offices. As a result, a new shelter will not accommodate more animals.
So, as you can see, Patrick has once again spoken before bothering to learn the facts. I urge each of you to read the linked documents for yourself if you happen to think that Patrick knows more about animal welfare than someone who has spent the last 4 years of his life dedicated to improving the outlook for Austin's lost and homeless pets.Best regards,
Ryan
PS-- Please remember to vote today or on May 10th. It matters!On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Patrick Goetz < [at] > wrote:
-
To respond privately, use the "Reply" command.
To post to the list "Forward" to [at]
-
Ryan Clinton wrote:
For those of you who care about the fate of Austin's lost and homeless pets, here is FixAustin.org's Voter Information Guide for the upcoming City Council elections. Please note that early voting ends TODAY (May 6th), and that election day is May 10th.
I think you mean voter disinformation.
Hopefully list readers can figure out for themselves that the only criterion used by this organization seems to be whether or not a candidate approves or disapproves of relocating the animal shelter from a broken down old building in the flood plain to a larger, new facility on Airport. Of course what Clinton fails to mention is that Austin voters VOTED for this move in the last bond election, and that NOT moving the shelter would amount doing the opposite of what Austin voters told the city to do. Of course this didn't stop Clinton's organization from suing the city; an act which cost me and you and the other citizens of Austin hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. Money that could have been used to rescue pets. Thanks, Ryan!
I normally would ignore this kind of drivel, but I take particular umbrage at Jennifer Kim and Lee Leffingwell being given a 3-star rating on the issue of pet friendliness compared to candidates like Laura Morrison and, in particular, Randi Shade, whose track record amounts to a lot of talk and no actual actions of any kind. Talk, as they say, is cheap. Allow me to set the record straight for the people who actually care about animal welfare and are not just hell bent on pushing some kind of bizarre political agenda designed to harm, not help homeless pets (see below). Jennifer Kim was the sponsor and biggest supporter of a city ordinance banning the chaining of dogs (http://network.bestfriends.org/texas/news/15663.html
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/2007/council_06072007.htm). Furthermore, Kim and Leffingwell are both strong supporters of an ordinance regulating the sale of pets that have not been fixed, an important step in controlling the population of homeless pets. Jennifer Kim has also worked on an ordinance which would allow pet owners to have their pets with them at outdoor eating establishments. As far as I can tell, Jennifer Kim is the best friend Austin dogs have ever had on city council, which is perhaps why she's quoted in DogTown USA: http://www.dogchannel.com/media/dog-magazines/dogfancy/dog-town-usa-2007-winners_2.aspx.pdf
in a competition for the dog-friendliest city in the country. Saying that Jennifer Kim is not pet friendly is perverse. period.
Now, a brief word on moving the animal shelter. The central thesis of Clinton's organization is that moving the animal shelter from Town Lake to Airport Blvd. will mean fewer adoptions. Sez who? People don't adopt pets from the animal shelter because they happened to see the building peeping up out of drainage ditch on the north side of Cesar Chavez, they adopt pets because they want a pet and know that this is the responsible thing to do. And for most people in Austin, getting to a location on Airport Blvd. is a LOT easier than trying to navigate the the labyrinthian path to the current animal shelter. Furthermore, let me introduce you to a new-fangled thing called "the internet". Believe it or not, nowadays people can search for animal shelter pets online, and many do, including myself, making the actual location of the shelter even LESS important. Finally, the new location will be larger, which means more animals can be accommodated which means LESS killing. Perhaps this is why the city staff who actually work at the animal shelter were, as far as I know, universally in favor of moving the shelter to the new location. But all that logic and common sense, not the mention the will of Austin voters who understood all of the preceding and voted for it, didn't prevent your organization from suing the city, a move which did nothing other than transfer our precious civic resources into the pockets of lawyers. Thanks again, Ryan -- for nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post new comment