Commission under fire for failure to pass vicious dog law
- Charlene Sims, Journal staff
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
By Charlene Sims, Journal staff
MOUND CITY – During the public comment portion of the Linn County Commission meeting on Monday, July 27, Linn County property owner Dean Norton's presentation brought up several issues that the commission has not been able to resolve: a missing commissioner, no vicious dog law enforcement, and people living in campers.
Commission Chair Alison Hamilton told Norton that the proposed vicious dog law was not passed but put on hold until Commissioner Jason Hightower attended a meeting because Commissioner Jim Johnson was against any vicious dog law. She implied that a conversation could not be productive with only herself and Johnson involved.
“Last week I watched the meeting and saw you tabling a proposed vicious dog ordinance,” Norton said. “I was appalled that one commissioner changed their position when the other stated they didn’t want to pursue it. You stated you would look at this again when you have more answers. Where are those answers to come from if it is tabled?
“With that being said, I’ll continue. Under the guise of helping the poor, the county has instead allowed conditions that trap families in long-term hardship.
“Permitting permanent residents in campers without enforcing existing housing codes may seem compassionate, but in reality it often leaves vulnerable people living in unsafe conditions with little opportunity to improve their circumstances. When the county chooses not to enforce existing codes because there are few affordable alternatives, innocent residents bear the consequences.
“In this county alone, two children have lost their lives in tragedies that stronger enforcement of existing safety codes might have helped prevent. Likewise, adopting a policy addressing vicious animals may have helped prevent another child’s death.
“These are not abstract policy debates. They are real tragedies that have devastated families
and left lasting scars on our community.
“Saying that a resolution or policy cannot be created because it is difficult or costly is not an acceptable answer. When public safety is at stake, the cost of inaction is measured in lives, fear and preventable suffering.
“Property owners of all the county cities, unincorporated towns, lake communities pay the same Linn County mill levy as rural property owners.Yet services do not seem to be applied equally beyond law enforcement.
“All county property owners and residents deserve the same equal commitment to public safety and quality of life. How can the county justify having no policy to address vicious animals after a child has already died?
“To say the county has bigger problems to address is outrageous when it ignores the most important responsibility of government, and that is protecting human life. If even one child can be saved and families can live without fear that is a return on investment that cannot be measured in dollars. I also heard the argument from this board of commissioners that if someone cannot afford to feed their dogs, they cannot afford to pay a fine. That misses the point entirely.
“The purpose of a fine is not simply to collect money. It is to deter dangerous behavior, encourage responsible ownership, and provide accountability before someone is seriously injured or killed. Conditions in rural farming areas are very different from those in towns and lake communities where homes are much closer together and residents and non-resident property owners share streets, sidewalks and common areas.
“In these communities, dangerous animals pose a much greater risk. Today, some residents are afraid to walk through their neighborhood, let their children play outside, or even sit on their own porches because of that risk.
“The county has both the authority and the responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents. It is time to enforce the codes already on the books and adopt policies that address known public safety hazards before another preventable tragedy occurs.
“Due to the hard work and concern of your codes compliance officer and your county sheriff, you have a unique opportunity to adopt a meaning, full, and possibly lifesaving policy. I respectfully request the commission add to the agenda revisiting then policy proposal by your codes compliance officer and sheriff.
“Please don’t wait until another family loses a child before deciding action is worth taking. Thank you.”
Hamilton replied, “Thank you. I know I don’t have to say anything, but I would like to address whenever you said that we tabled it and that is accurate in how we had a discussion because there’s only two of us. So, if he is not on the same page as me, it’s never going to pass.
“So, I could make a motion and it ’s just going to die for lack of a second. So I wanted to wait until Jason came back so we could have another discussion with all three commissioners. Right now, that’s not going to happen and that’s just where I’m at. It’s tabled because we have a disagreement.”
Norton said that as he understood it after watching the meeting several times, it was tabled indefinitely. There was no mention that it was going to be put on the agenda.
Hamilton answered, "Because I don’t know when Jason’s going to come back at this point.”
Norton replied, “Right, however, you could have disagreed and the motion would not have been tabled. You can’t have a unanimous decision when the vote is 1 to 1.”
Hamilton agreed.
Norton continued, “So that would not have been tabled if you would have held your position and said you wanted to leave it to the agenda in two weeks with the sheriff and the codes compliance officer with their revised proposal.”
Hamilton said, “This is the revised.”
Norton said, “No you were asking…”
Hamilton answered, “I asked for a few other things. You asked for some revision. If those revisions were made would he agree? It was a ‘no.’ So it’s tabled until someone else can come back and we can have a conversation.”
“OK, that was not specified,” Norton said.
Hamilton said, “Well that’s where I am. For sure this is my to-do (pointing at a pile of papers), I haven’t forgot about. So this is still in there.
“Then the other thing, you know, on campers, I totally agree with you. But people are living all over this county in campers, nice, rundown”
Norton replied “You have codes. I see a lot of the issues and a lot of the dangers.”
Hamilton asked, “I think your concern is in the lake communities, right?”
“My concern is with the whole county,” stated Norton.
“I think that’s another thing that is in planning and zoning,” said Hamilton.
“If you have anymore questions?” Norton asked.
Hamilton answered, “I don’t have anything.. I don’t plan on not addressing vicious dogs again, That’s just not the right time.”
Comments