Santa Monica Councilmember States Phyllis Daugherty's Statement About Santa Monica's Pet Limits is Not True

From Kevin McKeown, Santa Monica Councilmember:


To Whom It May Concern:

In my capacity as a Santa Monica City Councilmember, I was shown a document
from the "Animal Issues Movement" claiming that the City of Santa Monica
limits possession of domestic animals.  The document said, specifically,

"SANTA MONICA -  Although they have no limit in their MC, their City
Attorney advises them they can implement the LA County limits automatically:
Three (3) dogs/three (3) cats.  (Santa Monica requires a kennel permit and
city business license for anyone having above the 'average' number of
pets.)"

I wish to correct the record, as I believe this "Animal Issues Movement"
document may have been submitted pursuant to an issue before your Council,
purporting to represent facts in the matter.  Insofar as the document
describes Santa Monica law and/or policy, it certainly does not appear to be
factual.

Our City Attorney's office is unaware of any limitation on the number of
dogs and cats allowed for a household in Santa Monica.  There has been no
discussion of this issue at the City Council level.  While we do have
business licenses for kennels, of course, there is no stipulation that
requires such a license for "anyone having above the 'average' number of
pets," nor do we or would we ever write laws or make policies based on such
language. 

Thank you for allowing this clarification.

Kevin McKeown
Santa Monica City Councilmember



     ___________________________________________________
     Kevin McKeown            |  Santa Monica, CA  (USA)
     email: kevin@mckeown.net  310 393-3639 /-3609 FAX
     http://www.mckeown.net   | "Choose to be conscious"
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11 comments:

Ed Muzika said...

Comments were left to this post, but I cannot publish them unless they are signed. I have been threatened with lawsuit for posting any negative info about Daugherty that I cannot prove. I certainly cannot prove what one commenter claimed she heard Phyllis say at a public meeting.

So please sign it, or state the public meeting in consideration, and maybe we can find the minutes of that meeting.

I have to go by the book.

Anonymous said...

The meeting was last year when Archie Quincey was still on the Board (I think either June or July), and her comment was during discussion of Stu, the Pit mix still being held by LAAS. Essentially her comment was meant to say "Even though Pit Bulls are terrible, dangerous dogs I think we shouldn't kill Stu."


I also hardly think she can sue simply because someone questions her credentials. Her only credential is the cryptic "Animal Issues Movement" whose one-page website gives zero background and zero info on who comprises the "movement." She represents herself as an authority on animal issues in Los Angeles but has yet to prove she has any qualifications. She can't stop people from questioning her qualifications if she produces none. She also can't stop people from pointing out her mistakes.

Ed Muzika said...

She can stop people because bloggers are legally responsible for negative anonymous comments. If a comment cannot be verified, then the blogger, by posting that comment, is stating he agrees with that message. So her argument goes. If you think she can't, why don't you post your name?has stopped you from making a comment because you would become exposed.

It is easy enough to leaf through those minutes if I have too, but if anyone else wants to comment, prove it, or just state an opinion without alleged facts which cannot be proven.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess PD could also sue Exxon if negative comments about her were being written on the bathroom walls of a local Mobil station but she probably wouldn't win the case.

Brad Jensen
Cypress, CA

Ed Muzika said...

If she could prove who anonymous is, she might. Unfortunately, as a blogger, with an address, who has been issued a cease and desist letter saying any negative comments I post reflect on me, I have to take that into consideation.

As I make a huge $0 off this blog, I am in no posiition to bring in a legal team to fight suits or gegin countersuits.

It would be all so much simpler if people sign their negative comments, but only about 20% have the courage to put their name on negative comments.

Anonymous said...

Its obvious by her actions that Daugherty isn't the least bit interested in our freedoms.

-brad

Karen said...

Ed, doesn't matter if the hate message is signed, the person who posts it is guilty of redisdributing. As far as pet limits go, don't know California couty line but do know this. The largest governmental body dictates the laws for the smaller. So if the couthty has a limit, the city located within the county is bound by the county limit... a no brainer.

Ed Muzika said...

Ed Muzika said...
A commenter left yet again an anonymous remark that P.D. has not proved her expertise with animals, therefore Council ought not to listen to her. The commenter said she heard P.D. say something patently untrue at a Commission meeting, and said, because she said P.D. said it, I ought to post it.

This is an allegation of fact which reflects negatively on P.D. It is hearsay even when someone signs it. It is not proof P.D. said it.

Either sign your comments saying you heard something, or cite the meeting. I don't want to search through the notes of a dozen Commission meetings to verify that fact. Or, you can search through those notes and include the URL in your comments.

If you believed she said it, stand up for that belief and say who you are. But you are not letting anyone know who you are.

I could have posted your comment as an anonymous comment if it was just your opinion of her, without the hearsay statement alleging fact.

Karen said...

Now you're getting it Ed; just don't forget the redistributing part. You still seem to think a signed comment won't come back to bite you on the butt, and it will. You are responsible for what you post, not the person who wrote it. Sort of like when you hit a parked car, always your fault. The decision to publish is on the blogger, BTW you said I was crotchety, do you know that to be true?

Zepharia Andres said...

I felt it shelter to speak to you.
See the link below for more info.

#shelter
www.ufgop.org

Shea Kang said...

You are not a product of your circumstances. You are a product of your decisions.
imarksweb.net
imarksweb.net