Im feeling a great deal of frustration right now, I think I may need to go do some house work. Yes, its that bad ;) I feel like I have explained myself until I am blue in the face and some of the people who are pro-pot bellied pigs (no, not people like you Ashley Dawn Fegan ) just cant hear what I am saying. Or they dont want to believe me, I really dont know which it is. I do know that I am starting to sound a bit brittle and snippy when I respond to them and that is so not how I want to appear to people. To those who are wondering about the ad in the Sherwood Park News, following is my response, if you have questions, please dont hesitate to ask me. I understand that not everyone is going to agree about this issue and that is ok. Im just not going to argue about it today :) ************************************************************ Jo-Anne, you received a response from Council. I have answered the questions and comments in your ad several times on the closed group page. But I will answer them one more time. This will be the last time I answer them because frankly I feel like I am bashing my head against a brick wall. I say the same things over and over again and over and over again the same questions come back up. 1. In court of Nov. 17, 2014 the evidence and testimony presented proved that Michelle called bylaw and sought approval to have Eli and was told that NO bylaw prohibited her from having him in their home, so she proceeded accordingly I believe that evidence was ruled as inadmissible and therefore it was not proved. In addition, it was ruled that even if she did have proof, it wouldnt matter because the bylaw supersedes what someone told her. The person answering the phone was able to say it is ok, and that now overrides the bylaw? Then why even make laws? Just let the person answering the phone decide. 2. “There are numerous federal and provincial sources that can be cited that state that a pot-bellied pig is an exotic pet and not livestock. Why is that being ignored so blatantly?” Section 2.14 of the Animal control bylaw refers to livestock as including swine. That means that the bylaw specifically identifies swine as not being allowed, it doesn’t matter that a pot-bellied pig is considered by some to be an exotic pet – the bylaw does not allow them! 3. Regarding the very serious LEGAL allegation that Council has contravened the MGA by making decisions in camera, I have made it very clear on several occasions that decisions cannot be made in camera, they must be made by a resolution of council in a public meeting. No decision was EVER made in-camera. If you have “proof” otherwise, I would suggest you make that public or file a complaint with MA. There was not “decision” to make – the decision was made in 2011 when the bylaw was reviewed and approved. As for some councilors saying it occurred and others saying it didn’t – you can’t take two answered to two separate questions and then say they contradict each other. There were two separate questions asked and two separate answers given. There is a difference between asking if there was an in camera meeting and asking if a decision was made. What is discussed in camera is not something that a Councillor can LEGALLY discuss. They could be thrown off the bench for telling anyone what as discussed. That is the law under the MGA. So to be clear: There was no decision made in an in camera meeting regarding Eli the Pig. 4. “…hundreds of emails and phone calls sent, before Michelle had ever received a ticket or a court date, were blatantly ignored” Really? Huh. I’m afraid you have been mistaken in your numbers. I did NOT receive hundreds of emails, in fact, I don’t think I received 5 regarding this issue before the ticketing. Any of my residents who contacted me with questions or concerns regarding this issue received a response. It is easy to throw numbers around and accuse people, but I would appreciate it being factual. 5. “Some Councillors have recently expressed that there is no process in place to deal with this issue….” I don’t know of one Councillor who has expressed that there is no process in place to deal with this issue. In fact, on the other, closed FB page for Eli, I outlined exactly the process that needs to be followed. No one has done that, including Michelle. 6. “Over limit permit” – How can we give an over limit permit on an animal that is prohibited??? That doesn’t even make sense. For example, the over limit is if you have more dogs or cats than allowed – permitted animals. As an aside, I am curious, if Michelle feels this is a legitimate option, has she applied for one? 7. “Other councilors have communicated that they should or cannot comment or discuss bylaws yet this summer Councillor Fiona Beland Quest publicly spearheaded a campaign to amend trailer bylaws and this “published” article was full of commentary” For starters, Councillor Beland Quest is following the proper process. A group of citizens approached her with concerns, she did some research and put forward a notice of motion to Council “to look at neighboring municipalities policy and restrictions surrounding Vehicle and Trailer or Recreational Vehicle parking within an urban setting and report back to Council by the end of the first quarter of 2015” – Oct. 7, 2014, Agenda Item 9.2 As you can see, it is a notice of motion, Council passed the motion. That means that administration will now start looking into fulfilling our request. The report will take some time. It won’t be available until the end of April probably. This is not a wholesale review of a bylaw, she has requested information. I have no idea who would have told you that they cannot comment or discuss any bylaws. It is our job to do just that. Perhaps you are confusing some things? For example, when it is before the courts, we can’t discuss the court case. Maybe that is what has you confused? 8. “where in the bylaws is there direction for the County to apply for an injunction order to seize a pet or livestock using force if necessary? If there is no precedent then, is this not a New Process and thus in contradiction to the message the county is giving?” Bylaws are enforceable. The law has been broken and she has been proven guilty in a court of law. She has not ceased breaking the law and she shows no sign of adhering to the law. The County has the authority to seek an injunction to remove the pig and force her to comply with the law. These have always been the facts and is no precedent or “new process” 9. “Voting Publics Wishes” – The Animal Control Bylaw is being reviewed in 2015. All residents will be asked to provide input. At that time, we will hear ALL sides. Including those who are emailing me and thanking me for standing up for all residents, not just a very vocal few. 10. “is the county going to…. misuse the taxpayer’s money on continued court battles” Personal responsibility. I am not responsible for the actions of another. It is something I learned early in life. The actions of Michelle Kropp have caused taxpayers money to be wasted. The actions of Michelle Kropp have caused her fiancé’s children pain. She is responsible for the consequences of her actions, just as I am responsible for the consequences of mine. 11. “Catering to one complaint” – I’m curious, if we shouldn’t “cater to one complaint” and enforce a bylaw that is being broken, which bylaws SHOULD we enforce? If you call us because your neighbours dog won’t stop barking, should we ignore it because it is just one complaint and the people who own the dog are really nice and their kids love that dog? If someone complains that their neighbours sidewalks haven’t been shoveled, should we say don’t worry, they are nice people and should be allowed an exception? An RV has been parked on your street for a week, but we may decide not to issue a ticket because, after all, that is Gramma and Gramps coming to visit the grandbabies and it would be terrible to make them move. Do we cater to one complaint? Yes, we do. That is the way bylaws work.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:04:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015