HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3AFrom:Dianne Nezgoda
To:City Clerk
Subject:7/25/2024 City Council Agenda Item 3A
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 2:50:56 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Hello,
Please submit my public comment on today's agenda item #3A.
I think 4-5 days is not long enough to hold a pet before making it available for adoption. And
the emphasis on the emotional bond between the new owner who adopts a pet after that
time frame negates the emotional bond the original owner had with the pet should they
materialize after that time frame. Those of us who monitor the lost and found pet posts here
can attest to the confusion surrounding efforts to reunite owners with their pets and
although constant suggestions are posted to ppl who lose a pet to contact the shelters,
some may not be savvy in that regard without those suggestions. Also, some ppl who find
pets hang on to them having an aversion to turning them into a shelter and the owner may
be contacting the shelter and maybe not so much when their pet isn't showing up there. I
would like to see a blanket PR campaign re chipping. If the pet is chipped and their owner
notified and they don't come for it, then I would be OK with a shorter-than-30-day retrieval
time period.
Thank you,
Dianne Nezgoda
284 Cheryl Drive
Palm Springs
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 3A
From:Brad Anderson
To:City Clerk
Subject:Public Comment - Agenda Item: 3.A. for the Palm Springs City Council meeting of July 25, 2024 (5:30PM)
Date:Thursday, July 25, 2024 12:30:20 PM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
July 25, 2024
City of Palm Springs
City Council / City Hall
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262
Attn: Clerk of the Board
Re: Written letter to be entered in the Public record and made available for public Inspection
for the July 25, 2024 (5:30PM) Palm Springs City Council meeting - Agenda Item: 3.A.
(deleting rights of Pet owners to claim Impound animals)
Dear current City Council members,
This letter is in strong opposition to constructing an ordinance removing the common sense
approached to having animals collected by City of Palm Springs organization(s) returned to
their legal and proper owners (Caregivers) in a reasonable amount of time (30 Days).
The action of removing common sense language of having a legal animal owner (Caregiver)
able to retrieve their animal and pay all costs associated with keeping said animal safe and
cared for while that animal is in the care of city of palm springs animal organization(s) is
counter productive to protecting pet's in the Palm Springs region (Greater Coachella Valley,
Riverside County California.
It's reasonable to consider that allowing Palm Springs impounded Animals to be "lost forever"
to the original owner (Caregiver) after seven (7) calender day have expired is a method for
certain people and organization(s) to financially profit from the potential "resale" of those
Impounded Animals.
Giving City organization(s) a legal (by City ordinance) avenue to "take" private property
(animals) from residents in a unreasonable amount of time (seven (7) days) to adopted out and
or release to selected recure groups or destroy those animals is clearly unprofessional and
grossly unethical behavior.
People that love animals would seek every avenue to reclaim their lost or mistakenly lose
animal in a reasonable matter (Thirty (30) days was and still remains a reasonable amount ot
time to seek out and reclaim those animals). Don't jointed Riverside County, California in
their goal to eliminate (destroy) animals rather than reuniting lost animals with their owners
(Caregivers) while collecting fees and penalties from animal owners that will never reclaim
their Impounded Animal(s).
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 3A
Keep the current city code language of Section 10.20.060 "Owner's right to redeem animal
from purchaser" in place.
Stealing peoples animals will place the City of Palm Springs in the category of one of the most
progressive and morality corrupted Citys in California. Consider not being lowered to that
type of animals for profit schemes.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson | Rancho Mirage, CA. | ba4612442@gmail.com
Cc:
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 3A
From:Brad Anderson
To:City Clerk; Alyssa Chavez; Grace Garner; Jeffrey Bernstein; Ron deHarte; Christy Holstege; Lisa Middleton; Scott
Stiles; Teresa Gallavan; Brenda Pree; Evelyn Beltran
Subject:Fwd: Public Comment - Agenda Item: 3.A. for the Palm Springs City Council meeting of July 25, 2024 (5:30PM) /
Rebuttal to Council decision
Date:Friday, July 26, 2024 10:30:20 AM
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
July 26, 2024
City of Palm Springs
City Council / City Hall
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262
(760) 323-8204
Atnn: City Clerk/Council/Manager, other officials
Re: rebuttal to recent City Council decision
Dear current City of Palm Springs officials,
Please be advised that yesterday (July 25, 2024) Palm Springs City Councils decision to
uphold staffs recommendations in regards to Agenda Item: 3.A. (rescinding the 30 day right of
Animal owners to claim their Impounded Animal from the Palm Springs shelter system). Had
denied citizens the opportunity to be fully apprised of all related information on that topic
(Agenda Item: 3.A) prior to being forced to provide Public testimony (If desired) on that
agenda Item, prior to the council being presented that Item for their consideration and being
extremely restricted with allotted available speaking time for that and other agenda Items.
Palm Springs verbalize staff report combined with other verbal testimony from Animal shelter
officials along with Council questions/comments were not listed in the written statement of the
Palm Springs City agenda packet prior to public testimony on non-public hearing agenda
Items ONLY for that meeting. Public speakers were denied that information before they were
required to speak.
The Palm Springs City Council accepted verbal testimony from Animal shelter officials that
potentially accommodated a false narrative of having original animal owners (Caregivers)
being able to locate and potentially cause a civil action (Court case) to retrieve their legally
adopted pet if desired. Common sense should dictate that Animal shelter staff wouldn't
release any new animal owners information to any requestors for that Information under the
new restrictions passed by the city council on July 25, 2024.
It was also stated by Animal shelter officials that "they" shouldn't be caught in the middle of
the original owner attempt to regain their pet from a new legal owner of animals that were
released from Palm Springs Animal shelter under the 30 day retention code.
It's reasonable to consider that Palm Springs Animal shelter officials would be responsible for
their actions of selling (adopting out) someone's impounded Animal. It appears that Palm
Springs Animal shelter officials had implied that Animal owners puposely delayed attempts to
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 3A
regain their Impounded Animal(s).
It's clear that residents / concern citizens (speakers) were not allow to provide Public
testimony at the time the City Council was presented that Item for consideration. It's been
demonstrated that speakers were not presented "ALL" the related information prior to being
required to provide Public testimony. Also - City collected Information from Palm Springs
Animal shelter officials wasn't accurate and citizens were unable to question those
missleading/Inaccurate verbal comments.
It's been repeatedly demonstrated that the current City Council has restricted the public's
ability to provide Public testimony at City Council meetings. Limitations of two (2) minutes
of speaking time for all non-public hearing items is unreasonable and potentially illegal. For
the July 25, 2024 Palm Springs City Council meeting agenda - If a person wished to provide
Public testimony on every agenda item (which is their right to do if they desire) they would
have under four (4) seconds per/agenda Item of available speaking time. It's not reasonable to
limit Public participation (speakers) to four (4) seconds of speaking time per agenda Item.
Because of the Palm Springs City Council long established methods of chilling public discord
with mass group unrecorded pubic testimony combined with extreme restrictions on allowed
speaking time allotments - the Palm Springs City Council has been able to subvert the publics
ability to be confronted by their residents.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson | Rancho Mirage, CA. | ba4612442@gmail.com
Cc:
Local media
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brad Anderson <ba4612442@gmail.com>
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 3A
Date: Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 12:30 PM
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item: 3.A. for the Palm Springs City Council meeting of
July 25, 2024 (5:30PM)
To: City Clerk <cityclerk@palmspringsca.gov>
July 25, 2024
City of Palm Springs
City Council / City Hall
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262
Attn: Clerk of the Board
Re: Written letter to be entered in the Public record and made available for public Inspection
for the July 25, 2024 (5:30PM) Palm Springs City Council meeting - Agenda Item: 3.A.
(deleting rights of Pet owners to claim Impound animals)
Dear current City Council members,
This letter is in strong opposition to constructing an ordinance removing the common sense
approached to having animals collected by City of Palm Springs organization(s) returned to
their legal and proper owners (Caregivers) in a reasonable amount of time (30 Days).
The action of removing common sense language of having a legal animal owner (Caregiver)
able to retrieve their animal and pay all costs associated with keeping said animal safe and
cared for while that animal is in the care of city of palm springs animal organization(s) is
counter productive to protecting pet's in the Palm Springs region (Greater Coachella Valley,
Riverside County California.
It's reasonable to consider that allowing Palm Springs impounded Animals to be "lost forever"
to the original owner (Caregiver) after seven (7) calender day have expired is a method for
certain people and organization(s) to financially profit from the potential "resale" of those
Impounded Animals.
Giving City organization(s) a legal (by City ordinance) avenue to "take" private property
(animals) from residents in a unreasonable amount of time (seven (7) days) to adopted out and
or release to selected recure groups or destroy those animals is clearly unprofessional and
grossly unethical behavior.
People that love animals would seek every avenue to reclaim their lost or mistakenly lose
animal in a reasonable matter (Thirty (30) days was and still remains a reasonable amount ot
time to seek out and reclaim those animals). Don't jointed Riverside County, California in
their goal to eliminate (destroy) animals rather than reuniting lost animals with their owners
(Caregivers) while collecting fees and penalties from animal owners that will never reclaim
their Impounded Animal(s).
Keep the current city code language of Section 10.20.060 "Owner's right to redeem animal
from purchaser" in place.
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 3A
Stealing peoples animals will place the City of Palm Springs in the category of one of the most
progressive and morality corrupted Citys in California. Consider not being lowered to that
type of animals for profit schemes.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson | Rancho Mirage, CA. | ba4612442@gmail.com
Cc:
07/25/2024
Public Comment
Item 3A