In your last week's Sept. 22 Arkansas Newsroom newsletter, Mr. Chad Gardner talked about the Pit Bull issue in his "Council Report". During his report, he talked about how the Ordinance to reinstate the ban on dangerous dogs was voted down 5-3 by "tabling the ordinance indefinitely" and then saying that the ordinance wouldn't be able to be brought back up again "unless five or more council members vote to bring it back from the table".
Following this, I made a motion to table the motion indefinitely, meaning this ordinance can not be brought up again unless five or more council members vote to bring it back from the table. There were a few minutes of back-and-forth debate on this, but the majority opinion of the council was that there was no need to revisit this issue when it comes to banning certain dog breeds. My motion to table the ordinance passed 5-3.
Chad Gardner
I've had a couple of constituents who took his comments incorrectly as meaning that "tabling indefinitely" would prevent a dangerous dog ban from being introduced again. I'd like to clarify this by saying there is nothing to prevent another ban ordinance with the same wording from being introduced at any time.
Thank you for the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding. Because Mr. Gardner and the 4 other Council Members lifted the ban on dangerous dogs without allowing the residents to first vote on such an important safety issue through a referendum, the issue is not settled "once and for all". As such, it is likely that the ban will be introduced again.
Letters: From Council Member Steve Mosley
Letters: From Council Member Steve Mosley
Letters: From Council Member Steve Mosley
In your last week's Sept. 22 Arkansas Newsroom newsletter, Mr. Chad Gardner talked about the Pit Bull issue in his "Council Report". During his report, he talked about how the Ordinance to reinstate the ban on dangerous dogs was voted down 5-3 by "tabling the ordinance indefinitely" and then saying that the ordinance wouldn't be able to be brought back up again "unless five or more council members vote to bring it back from the table".
I've had a couple of constituents who took his comments incorrectly as meaning that "tabling indefinitely" would prevent a dangerous dog ban from being introduced again. I'd like to clarify this by saying there is nothing to prevent another ban ordinance with the same wording from being introduced at any time.
Thank you for the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding. Because Mr. Gardner and the 4 other Council Members lifted the ban on dangerous dogs without allowing the residents to first vote on such an important safety issue through a referendum, the issue is not settled "once and for all". As such, it is likely that the ban will be introduced again.
Steve Mosley
City Council Member, Ward 1, Position 1