A Shelter in Every Borough? State Supreme Court Says So

Now THIS is an interesting story on a number of levels! I'll just recap briefly here and let the court papers and press releases speak for themselves with maybe a snarky comment from me here and there.

Brief recap: for some time, one of my favorite rescue groups in New York, Stray from the Heart (I love them all, but there are a few that stand out) has been petitioning the city to, in short, obey and implement it's own law. That law (ordinance, what have you) introduced almost ten years ago pretty much said that each of the city's five boroughs had to provide shelters for dogs and cats throughout the city. Currently there are only three: Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. Queens and the Bronx have 'intake shelters' where animals are pretty much dropped off but no full facility--including a place where people can meet and possibly adopt them--exists.
Long story short, Stray From the Heart (SFTH) took the city to task to obey it's own law in this regard. The city (and in this case it would be the Department of Health primarily, which oversees Animal Care and Control) balked with a number of excuses, from interpretation of the law to SFTH's standing as to bring such a point to court.
Well, guess what? As of late last week the New York State Supreme Court ruled that, yes, indeed, DoH, you have to obey the law and you have 60 days to come up with how you're planning to do it!

This story has many interesting, moving parts. Of course the main subject is in itself interesting, but consider these extra factoids as well:
1.) Here's the recent court order, which gives a pretty good recap of the issue. The document you really want to read is the one from September--that will get you up-to-speed one what's transpired since January of this year between SFTH and the DoH. Kudos to the Parke Avenue law firm of Kaye Scholer LLP, by the way, for taking on the city. No matter which way your opinion sways, that does take a pair of eggs.
2.) Note that on the court order you'll see Dr. Thomas R. Frieden named as a Defendant in the case. Interesting on two fronts: number one, Dr. Frieden was appointed by President Obama as head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention back in May 2009. So he's got other things to do. Secondly, however, now that I think about it--don't you think as part of the 'vetting process' when Obama makes an appointment that stuff like this comes out, ie, that you are a named defendant in a rather serious case that involves whether you are obeying the law? Sheeh, other potential members of the President's men (and women) have been torpedoed for less, no? Yet the mainstream press let that one slide.
3.) The job of new 'defendant' in this case falls to another Tom, Thomas Farley, who is now head of the NYC Department of Health 'and Mental Hygiene' (what, by the way, does that mean? Brain flossing?) Ironically, he started his career at the CDC, which Frieden now heads, and specializes in infectious diseases. My favorite job title for him that he'd held in the past was 'Epidemic Intelligence Officer.' I'm not kidding, look at the bio. This may come in handy if New York gets hit with the H1n1 flu ("swine flu") this season. Who knows what those nasty microbes are planning--maybe they are even hiding weapons of mass destruction.
4.) As you read here first, the head of the AC&C, Charlene Pedrolie, will no longer be the head of the AC&C come mid-October. If the city is supposed to come up with a plan for how it will obey it's own pet sheltering rule 60 days from the court order that brings us to, what, mid-November or so? (Maybe Charlene is getting out just in time; as I write this, there are a number of names being bandied about for her replacement.) In any event, there's going to be lots and lots of activity going on at the city's shelter system/s in the next two months, so stay tuned.

Give the links above a click and let me know what you think of all of this.

Wave of Dog Surrenders Possible In Wake of NYCHA Dog Breed/Weight Ban

Some city public housing residents are already finding themselves entangled in eviction proceedings since a rule banning Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Dobermans, and any dog over 25 pounds, was enacted May 1st.

"The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has commenced tenancy eviction termination proceedings against [some] residents, although we don't know how many at this point," Debora Bresch, legislative liaison in government relations for the ASPCA says. "We do know that NYCHA residents have relinquished a number of dogs since April '09, some explicitly because of the pet policy." Other residents may have relinquished their newly-banned dogs for the same reason without expressly stating so at the time of surrender, Ms. Bresch says. "Of course, the dogs belonging to residents against whom proceedings have been initiated are at risk - as is any dog in violation of the policy."

The percentage of dogs who may find themselves back in the shelter system after having found homes with families who live in public housing may quickly reach the double-digits if early numbers obtained by New York Tails staff are any indication. Six percent of all dogs available for adoption from Animal Care and Control were adopted by public housing residents between January and April of this year, according to the ASPCA's preliminary count, approximately 172 dogs in total. Under the NYCHA housing rule, 107 of these 172 dogs are not supposed to be there, making them at risk for being returned back into the shelter system. Additionally, the rule states only one dog or one cat is allowed per apartment.

Memos informing tenants of their rights and ways they might be able to keep their pets are available at city shelters in the hopes they might prevent some surrenders. However, in an effort to reach people before they've brought an animal to the surrender point, the ASPCA and others are working with grass-roots organizations and local community groups to distribute the memos throughout public housing residences. Efforts are underway to translate the memos into Spanish, Chinese, and Russian and to publish them in respective foreign language newspapers. A copy of the memo can be found here: http://www.aspca.org/aspca-nyc/nycha-tenants-rights.html. "The purpose of the memo is to help guide residents through these adversarial proceedings," Ms. Bresch says.


Please check back often as New York Tails Magazine continues our in-depth coverage of this story.

First NYCHA 'Casualties' Begin to Show Up At City Shelters--New York Tails Magazine Investigation Underway

Meet Alee (skinny puppy) and Bustah (older dog.) Both were turned in, according to official owner surrender paperwork, because of the "NYCHA ban." They arrived at the shelter this past weekend. This information is just some of the facts that have been coming to us here at New York Tails Magazine during the course of our extensive investigation into the NYCHA rule and the reasoning behind it. No relying on other people's reports, blogs, or twits here. Lead reporter Courtney Kistler has been in the projects, talking to the residents, getting to know the people and the animals there, and digging up the good, the bad, and the ugly truth from all sides of the debate.

If you haven't ordered your subscription to New York Tails yet, you might want to do so now so you don't miss our Summer 2009issue, where this exclusive investigative story will be featured.

A Flood or a Flicker?
Asked if there has been a notable increase in the number of dogs like Alee and Bustah arriving on the shelter steps since the NYCHA ban, AC&C spokesman Richard Gentles said no. Mr. Gentles said he'd spoken to each of the shelter supervisors recently (there are AC&C facilities in each of the five boroughs, although Queens and the Bronx only receive animals.) "For NYCHA pet owners that come to the shelter, we give them a flyer explaining the process for them to keep their pets," Mr. Gentles said. "This seems to be working because they leave the shelter with their pet."

A memo is now supposed to be posted in, and distributed from, each AC&C shelter and other places where animals are likely to be surrendered telling NYCHA residents that they may have a right to keep their pet, hopefully averting a surrender. This is the memo:
NYCHA Resident’s Rights
http://www.animalalliancenyc.org/press/memo2009-06-08.pdf

Right before (or concurrently with, it's unclear to me) this memo was issued, the ASPCA issued press release to the media titled "Revised Pet Policy Threatens Dogs Belonging to NYCHA Residents ASPCA Letter Outlines NYCHA Tenants’ Rights.". The rather strongly worded release went on to describe how the "NYCHA Dog Policy Bites" (direct quote). Both Laura Maloney, ASPCA Senior Vice President of Anti-Cruelty, and Jane Hoffman, president of the Mayor's Alliance for NYC's Animals, were quoted in the release stating their strong disagreement with NYCHA's policy.

While well-intentioned, I'm not sure any of this is going to work. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Here's why.

Many of the people who live in the PJ's (projects, ie, NYCHA housing) are loathe to 'rock the boat' when it comes to their apartments. Having a low-cost, relatively livable apartment anywhere in this city (I include all five boroughs in this) is as good as hitting the lottery. Couple that with the highest unemployment rates in decades and fear of losing one's job (if it hasn't been lost already) and even people who absolutely love their pets are apt to make the hard choice of giving up their pet. Many of us who are more fortunate are quick to condemn people who make this choice--an apartment over a pet--but we have options. Lots of people in NYCHA are a paycheck or disability check away from homelessness. Guess what they're going to choose.

Secondly, there are a fair number of people in the PJs for whom English is a second language, Spanish and Chinese are currently two of the most common. Once again, someone who is afraid of losing their apartment and has a shaky grasp of English is probably not going to be up for a fight if they even have a remote fear of losing their apartment.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. Part of the reason we're in this predicament is because the previous law a few years back banned dogs over 40 lbs. This provision, however, was apparently not enforced too vigorously. There may be the same lax attitude toward enforcement this time around as well toward the over-25 lbs dogs.

We shall see.