AURORA | Voters will decide in November whether to allow banished pit bulls back into the city, in addition to measures that ask for a tax extension to fund transportation projects, a tax increase for public safety operations, and special taxes for retail marijuana. The ballot questions were approved by the Aurora city council at its regular meeting July 14.
The majority of council members approved all of the four ballot measures at a meeting Monday, with a tie vote from the mayor in two of the questions. Council members Bob LeGare and Barb Cleland were absent.
The council approved a transportation referendum that will ask voters for a $4.9 million tax extension for the next 15 years to fund nearly $500 million in transportation and infrastructure projects that have been needed since 2012. Council voted 7-1 to include the question on the November ballot with Councilwoman Marsha Berzins voting no.
Extending that tax, which is 1.685 mils, means that voters who own a $200,000 home would continue to pay $27 a year in property taxes. The measure also calls for the transportation projects to be determined by public meetings and citizen surveys. This time the money would also be set aside in a restricted fund for projects that would annually change.
“We’re falling behind on maintaining our streets,” said Councilman Bob Broom. “We try to do the best we can with what we’ve got, but it’s really important we allocate more money to the highway system.”
Council also agreed to move forward with a ballot measure that asks voters to say yes to a tax increase of $5.9 million per year to address what city staff and council see as growing public safety needs. Council voted 7-1 to move forward with the question. Berzins voted against it.
She said that according to a city survey, residents of Ward III which she serves would prefer to pay for public safety with a sales tax. Aurora Finance Director Jason Batchelor said to match the tax increase the city would need to increase its sales tax from 3.75 percent to 3.89 percent.
“This would put us as one of the highest sales tax communities in metro Denver. That’s going to hurt retail sales. I don’t think I would support using sales tax to pay this,” said Broom.
Councilwoman Renie Peterson said the city was falling behind in building fire stations, hiring firefighters and getting the necessary equipment. “Now 52 percent of our budget is taken up by public safety,” she said. “In the past, what we did in shortfall times was close libraries, swimming pools, take away recreation programs, things that give us quality of life.”
According to city documents, the public safety measure entails a property tax increase of 2 mills for Aurora residents to meet the operating needs of Aurora’s police, fire, and public safety communications departments, as well as its municipal court and detention center. That tax increase would mean voters who own a $200,000 home would pay $32 a year in property taxes.
Council gave unanimous approval to move forward with asking voters whether they want a 5 percent excise tax on retail marijuana cultivation in Aurora, and an additional sales and use tax of 2 percent on top of the city’s standard tax rate of 3.75 percent for retail stores.
Council also narrowly approved an amendment to the measure proposed by Peterson that would allow the city to increase that same sales and use tax up to 10 percent without voter approval. The tax would be the same as what Denver voters passed last year. The amendment passed 5-4 with council members Pierce, Broom, Roth, and Markert voting no. The mayor voted for the amendment to break the tie.
“My concern would be we lose the entire ballot initiative because of the unknown in the eyes of public of what that (tax) is going to end up being,” Roth said. He added that Aurora is unique in asking for an excise tax, something Denver doesn’t have, in order to make money from cultivation sales.
Peterson countered that the majority of her constituents do not want to see retail marijuana in her largely industrial ward, and that the flexibility to tax it would help the city ride out the unknowns of the industry.
The most controversial measure that council agreed to move to the ballot will ask voters whether they want to allow pit bulls back into Aurora. The city ordinance, which has been in place since 2005, bans residents from owning pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers that are not service dogs. The council approved the measure 5-4 with Broom, Mounier, Markert, and Roth voting no. The mayor moved the measure forward with a tie-breaking vote.
Roth and Broom cited a recent incident where a pit bull mauled a toddler in Commerce City and sent him to Children’s Hospital as a compelling reason not to allow pit bulls back in Aurora in November.
Council has until August 25 to formally adopt measures to put on the November ballot.
I fully expected, but was disappointed to hear, Council Member Roth’s and Council Member Broom’s remarks regarding the incident in Commerce City.
Broom clearly has a problem looking at the whole picture. No reduction in bites, no recent data regarding severity bites (not since the 2008 data did not support their assumptions that pit bulls were responsible for a majority of severe incidents), reduction in pit bull intake is easily explained especially considering that after weeks spent in the doggy solitary 76% of the dogs are not pit bulls, afterall. General sweeping statements with only a little cherry picked data may win support by his merry band of followers but it doesn’t fool those of us that work in rescue, outreach, and public health and safety. Many of which live in his ward and he refuses to talk to.
CM Roth’s myopic observations concerning the incident in Commerce City, intentionally or unintentionally, veiled some truths that are essential to recognize to build a real plan for prevention. For instance, a pit bull ban was in place where the incident occurred and yet failed to protect the child. Breed of the dog in the incident is questionable. We can’t say if the dog is subject to our ordinance without a good ol’ DNA test (there is that pesky 76% again). Remember the incident in Evergreen that was reported to be a pit bull? Yah, American Bulldog, completely legal in Aurora. The dog in Commerce City is reported to be 90 lbs. He could be a pit, a really fat one or a pit mixed with a larger breed… or a different breed entirely(highest weight for standard is 70lbs). Then let’s take in to account recent peer reviewed studies on the subject, please. Roth received them but either ignored or seems to have forgotten. JAVMA printed a peer reviewed study on the preventable co-occurrent factors in dog bite related fatalites. The results expressly state that breed was not a factor, describe the breeds involved, and goes on to list the factors, and that in 80% of fatalities 4 or more of those factors were present. At least 2 of those factors were present on Sunday in Commerce City. So he isn’t concerned about other breeds, because you don’t hear about Dachsunds causing this severe of an injury? What? Since when were all other breeds under 20 pounds? FYI, Roth, the first ever face transplant recipient was a victim of an attack by Lab. Mastiffs have caused similar injury to the one Roth described in his council chamber portrayal. We can not depend on media coverage for our facts. We know this in other fields, why is it so hard to accept when it comes to dogs? It is a known fact incidents where the dog is not initially reported to be a pit bull does not receive the widespread coverage, Google the John Davidson article about Denver Post taking it’s lumps. Often the reported breed is wrong (Evergreen again).
This vote is an opportunity to tell the city we want to face the facts, use science, evolve and progress to make our city safer for everyone. No more manipulation or political grand standing. Just the facts, and real prevention.
Pit bulls are dangerous.
Ignorance is far more dangerous than 99% of any dogs.
Its true, ignorance is far more dangerous. Though I think these dogs are more likely to attack and kill, just like the gun debate, I do not blame the gun. I don’t have a problem with someone keeping a loaded gun under their pillow to protect them from intruders. A dog is meant to do the same thing, protect its owner. I personally do not mind a dog that can kill and maim as long as it is well taken care of, and guarded from accidental mauling and guards are in place to keep the dog from escaping. The problem is that pit bull owners did this to themselves. These dogs became ultra popular with the underbelly of society. In the 80’s dog fighting reared its head and the pit bull was the dog of choice. Drug dealers love these dogs. Criminals in general love these dogs. The fact that you can still find these dogs in Aurora proves the owners are not always going to follow the law. That leads to a danger to their neighbors.
There is no denying that dangerous people are attracted to dangerous dogs. These same people also have a higher likelihood of being irresponsible owners. Pit bulls are the dog of choice for criminals and are often used in drug and gang-related activities. Police officers are frequently forced to shoot pit bulls when serving search warrants as well. The combination of criminals and pit bulls exponentially increases the danger these dogs pose to communities.
I am not sure if you are aware, but Aurora has a bit of a gang and drug problem. These people tend to be the pit bull owners, not grandma with her limitless fence repair fund. If this passes the only positive I can see is an expansion of concealed carry permits.
Replace DOG with GUN on all your perceptions and you can see how you are blaming the actions of some people on others who choose to raise dogs the right way.
Drug Dealers love guns.
Underbelly of society has given guns a bad name.
Guns are often used in gang related activities.
Criminals in general love guns.
I was born and raised in Aurora and decided to raise my family. It has no more of a gang or drug problem than the rest of America.
I really understand what you are saying, but I disagree based on the viewpoint that I refuse to blame all for the actions of some.
I completely agree with the premise. 🙂 I also agree with you to an extent. If we were at a point where we could truly treat a pit bull for what it is, a lethal weapon. I don’t think this would be an issue. These are lethal weapons. If you own one of these dogs and say it “CAN’T” kill, you are lying. They are vary capable of killing, even with the best of training. Some people think a disciplined dog is the same as removing their teeth. Though they might not or should not, they can still kill. Also though seemingly untrue due to some media outlets. Guns are in fact somewhat regulated. In order for a second time criminal, a person convicted of a felony, to get a gun; someone has to commit a crime. Falsify federal documents(some forms of straw buyers) or directly commit the crime by stealing a gun. With pit bulls there is no other safeguard to society other than this ban.
If I leave my gun in a park, I can be charged with “leaving or storing a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child”, “endangering safety through use of dangerous weapon.” If I let my dog out I get a dog at large ticket. If my pit bull attacks someone, most people really do not blame the person they blame the dog. Our societies laws do not properly deal with this issue and a ban is the only safeguard.
On that note in a perfect world much like some of the specific gun type laws, National Firearms Act of 1934, made tommy guns illegal unless you agreed to pay yearly license fees were not a felon. We have laws against specific guns, why not against certain breeds of dogs. We have more regulation on a chicken coop in Aurora than we do on dogs that have proven to be lethal.
If I could write the law, I would allow people to own pitbulls, and in most cases I would classify them as a lethal weapon. If a pitbull gets out, much different than a chihuahua, the person should get a steep misdemeanor not an infraction. On the third offence a person should get a felony. There should be a city code for keeping the lethal weapon enclosed in your own yard. The dog owner should have to pay for yearly inspections of their living environment. Until we really start to think of these dogs as lethal weapons, a full fledged ban is the only thing that protects criminals from using these innocent dogs for nefarious purposes.
Thank you for the honest conversation. As the current owner a Staffordshire Terrier and a Great Dane, and the former owner of a Collie and German Sheppard I can say all of those dogs could kill in theory. We are both, as with most, responsible gun owners. I am a responsible dog owner and I have never had an incident in which any of my dogs bit or intended to bite another person. Out of all of my dogs, the Great Dane has been the most aggressive, but he has been that way since we rescued him. The Dane and Staffy have a great relationship but as the Dane has aged he has attacked my Staffy twice. The Dane has survived. My “Pit Bull” is just a dog. Just like all the other dogs I have owned and all my friends and family have owned. We also have a tiny dog that looks like a mini Staffy and people are afraid of her because of the hype and fear that has been circulated in the media and by people who honestly hate dogs like mine. Their fears may be based on true experiences and honest feelings, but they are not based on an accurate perception of reality. They are based on the actions of some dog owners who choose to get a dog and for whatever reason, neglect or intent, have a dog that scares people. These tend to be short haired large dogs that people classify as “Pit Bulls”. To classify a dog as aggressive based on its breeds is counter to the current accepted theory. Dogs are obedient, to a fault sometimes, but no breed is exempt from the aggressive, mistrained or for whatever reason bad dog. There are lots of breeds of large dogs and they do come from wolves. Despite being great parents some people do have bad kids, and some dogs are just not fit for urban society. It happens, but none of the breeds Aurora has banned, or any breed of domesticated dogs has a genetic tendency towards human aggression.
Aurora removed several dogs from their banned list and initiated DNA testing and as a many dog owners have a much better chance of saving their family pet if someone claims they have a “Pit Bull”. It is unfortunate that the Shelter still isolates in quarantine for two weeks any dog that has been tainted with the pit label thus altering the dogs demeanor, in my opinion, cruel towards animals based on their appearance alone. There is no uniform definition of pit bull and when laws just randomly select breeds to single out is does not improve the situation. It harbors ill will and mistrust. Our shelter is in need of a serious upgrade and the leadership needs to get out of the 80’s.
I agree some people should not own dogs and Aurora should focus efforts on finding and preventing those people from endangering the rest of us. But if you choose a breed or “look” of dog to single out and ban, those who want to scare will find other dogs, or be more likely to get that dog because it scares more. Most of these dogs are just mixed breed short haired mutts with some boxer or staffy or lab or whatever and some people see them as ugly. If rats had fuzzy tails they would be squirrels. Just like with guns, what do criminals care if their dog is illegal. If there is a serious dog fighting problem in Aurora, which I doubt, why are the Police and City not addressing that?
I fear that the so called gangster pit bull problem is more based on peoples fears of seeing a black man with a “Pit Bull”!! But I also try to avoid places where I think people may have a dog that wants to kill me.
If I leave my dog at the park, I should not be able to own dogs. If I refuse to secure my dog at my house in a humane and healthy way I should not be able to own a dog. Dogs are not guns though. They are living beings and are divine in their own right. Guns are more like hammers or saws. Dogs are companions and more like family or friends and there is a reason they are so prevalent through out America, Colorado and Aurora.
I hope the citizens of Aurora truly listen to the facts regarding dogs, breeds and the results of a family environment versus the unfounded but honest fear of ugly short haired dogs. I hope they take a more profound step for the future of all dogs in Aurora and replace the leadership with people that enjoy working with dogs and have in interest in moving the city out of our current position as the states most inefficient and scoffed at City Dog Shelter. I hope as a city we invest in the City Animal Shelter because the current facility and staff are not modern enough and prepared for the growth of our city.
Too bad this ballot measure has come in election that will not have a high turnout. The youth, who are more aware of the true nature of the pit bull myth will be missed.
600 people a year die by falling off the bed. Can a bed kill? Apparently yes. Every single human being can kill. Your argument is downright invalid.
Better way to cut through all give and take. Follow the money. Dog owners say a bad dog has bad owners. So any dog that bites, mangles, chews on a human of any age is an extension of owner, so that owner must be held liable for all medical expenses. And if death occurs, then charged with assault resulting in death.
If that is harsh, it appears that is what will be needed. My own experience of stray, or loose dogs on streets of Aurora can be expected to stray or be loose many times. Just past week saw two dogs chasing women into house, and chasing a pedestrian, with very aggressive actions, barking, with teeth and jaws working. Not pit bulls, but the two dogs were reinforcing each other, even when dog wardens arrived. It is up to owner to ensure their dog does not leave owner’s property unless fully leashed and under control of someone who can control that dog or dogs.
I will be voting no on all these initiatives. I refuse to support a tax increase of any kind as long as even one cent of taxpayer money is used to support illegals in any way. I will also vote no on the pit initiative, not so much because of the dogs, but because of all the owners. They all remind me of the tiny guy who drives the huge truck. Compensating for something much. Go on any blog where owners spew their BS about their pit that wouldn’t hurt a flea. Yea right. Have a great day!
So you are a bigot?
No a racist on both accounts according to etbmf. Never seen the race card thrown in this arena.
Do you feel better by throwing out that word? You could have said the same thing in a civil manner, without the harsh, not needed word.
Truth can often be painful. When you judge and look down on people for not being like you, you are a bigot. I was not aware of a softer version of the word. If it hurts, than don’t be one. What is the P.C word for bigot…..self centric world view?
I will stand on definition found in Google: Search- bigot. Someone with strong opinions, freely expressed would not be considered a bigot, and could so be referred to. Also I will buy that cars, guns, knives, poison, and many other activities are dangerous. But I doubt we could ban all of them. Has been some time since I read of those who lived in enclosed glass rooms to avoid all contact with dangers of world. Think they use drugs now. There are some words like bigot, racist, liar, for example that are freely tossed out, that would have produced immediate physical contact in past years, before internet.
“not so much because of the dogs, but because of all the owners. They all remind me of the tiny guy who drives the huge truck. Compensating for something much.” – Grouping people together and drawing negative conclusions based on their actions that are different than yours is bigoted.
Kinda like looking down on people based on the amount of pigment in their skin is racist, and telling lies makes one a liar.
Someone with strong opinions, freely expressed would not be considered a bigot……unless those ideas are bigoted.
Now we are on same page again. I am 5 ft 10 inches tall, and only people I look down on are shorter than that. I have German, English, Dutch, Welsh, Indian, Black in my bloodstream, and Scottish-English from mothers side of family. Also Ex-daughter in law is 1/4 Mexican, present daughter in law in California half Japanese, 3 grandchildren who are half Phillipino, so I have all-American Family. All came to this country under laws-rules-shipping of the times, with Grandfather Biser age 21, walking from Palantine, Germany to Holland, working until he came ovr on ship “Neptune” in 1870 to what is now Philadelphia, indentured himself for 7 years to pay passage.
Then walked to what is now Cumberland Md, bought some land, and became wealthy (for those days) as landowner -trader. One document transferring property sold, he spelled his name 4 different ways in hand-written deed . There are 9 different spellings of Biser, all used by his family. I have opinions, and express them, but only as opinions. I do not set myself up as expert (I hate that word- would rather be referred to as professional) since expert definition in military is “ex spurt” or has-been drip under pressure. And Consultant is” someone with briefcase who will travel”. After 26 years, and 84 years, I know everyone has better knowledge of what I am doing, than I do. Have a good day, and rest of summer.
I couldn’t give a crap what you or anyone else thinks of me or my opinion. You sound like a arrogant ass for even thinking I might. NO ON ALL INITIATIVES AND ANYTHING THAT HELPS ILLEGAL ALIENS IN ANY WAY!! I do feel sorry for the pits, not their owners, the dogs. Have a geat day!
Good for you. Keep on posting your opinions for the world to see, then spout you don’t care what anyone thinks. Who cares for facts and science anyways. I fail to see how I sound arrogant for coming to the obvious conclusion you are a bigot based on the words you decided to share. Much the same way I can now see you are xenophobic based on your newest comment. It is human nature to divide the world around you into bite sized categories so you can cope with it, but it is divine to realize these categories are illusions of our own making and are not the true nature of the world. I hope someday you will see we are all one and should approach the world as such.
I’d prefer being called a bigot to having a pit bull chewing on my leg.
I guess that is where we differ. My morals and ethics are far more important to me than the possible threat of physical pain. Yes, we will all succumb to torture at some point, but a possible threat based non-realistic views of an animal based on what it looks like despite the contract views of the professionals in the field is no reason for me to abandon my ethics. Judging a dog and its owner based on it looks is unjust, plain and simple. I would rather be beaten, tortured and killed that to be known as a bigot, a racist, a sexist, etc., etc…..
LET’S STOP CANINE RACIAL PROFILING!!! Did you know that there is NO such breed as “pit
bull”? There is no breed of dog that is recognized, or registered as
“pit bull”. The term used to mean any dog whose owner used it for pit
fighting. It has become corrupted into an umbrella for banning numerous
pure-bred registered breeds of dogs, and any mixed breed that even remotely
resembles them. The American Kennel Club recognizes a breed known as the
American Staffordshire Terrier and the United Kennel Club recognizes a breed
known as the American Pit Bull Terrier. Neither of these breeds was EVER bred
or intended to attack humans. They were used in pit fights against bulls in the
1800s and any dog that bit a handler would have been put down immediately. A
dog that bit a human was not considered reliable enough for the pit. This
attack training is something that has only come about in the past few decades
and is done by bad owners NOT bad dogs. As it now stands there are at least
seventy-five recognized breeds of pure-bred dogs that are prohibited from ownership,
or restricted from ownership, and any mixed breed of dog that looks like a
banned breed of dogs is fair game under these regulatory takings of privately
owned animals. That is fully 1/5 all recognized breeds. The United States of
America is on the fast track to taking away our most ancient property, animals,
and the destruction of one of our most ancient occupations, that of animal
husbandry.
When I was a child growing up every dog attack was
attributed to a German Shepherd. In fact there were more dog bites from
Labrador Retrievers last year than from “pit bulls” because there are
far more Labs than the “alleged pit bulls”. Blaming an entire breed
for the stupidity and greed of a few human beings is nothing more than discrimination.
Many law makers are not animal oriented. Passing or
proposing any legislation aimed at specific breeds of canines is very much like
human racial profiling. Our laws should identify illegal activities and define
the penalties associated with breaches of the law. Domesticated canines are
considered personal property and present problems in society only when owned or
tossed out by irresponsible people. Our laws should address irresponsible
canine ownership and should never refer to specific breeds. Breed specific
legislation is an intolerable form of discrimination that has many undesirable
far reaching consequences, including economic ones. Breed specific legislation
is expensive and difficult to enforce. It impacts people who both live in and
visit jurisdictions (ie., tourists); impacts vets, breeders, dog food
manufacturers, and, in many cases, canine divisions of various law enforcement
agencies. To make matters worse, canine racial profiling (breed specific
legislation) is a total waste of time and money, as it will NOT turn
irresponsible dog owners into responsible dog owners. Irresponsible canine
ownership can only be prevented by addressing the problem directly: define the
problem, define the penalty or penalties, and ENFORCE the laws. Most urban
jurisdictions have laws on the books now that, if enforced, would eliminate
most dog aggression disasters. The dog, regardless of breed, is in violation of
leash laws if running loose and the owner should be penalized – end of story.
The problem is at the other end of the leash and any laws should be addressed
to that end.
Here is a link to a site with an identify the
“pitbull” game – 90% of people INCLUDING dog professionals cannot
identify the pitbull
https://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html
With all of that, what is your point? Type pit bull into google or any other search engine, and you get pages of info, photos, and other stuff. If we called them a bumble bee, they would still be dangerous.
Search gun shot or car accident on google and one may come to the conclusion that they are dangerous and should be banned form our society.
THE CURRENT OPINION OF UN-NAMED EXPERTS IS THAT UNICORNS ARE REAL!
Wow, all caps really sells any argument!
Yep. You totally won.
Now back to coloring.
Pit bull lovers always do the same thing– remind us it’s all how they’re raised while pointing out labs are terrible dogs.
And haters keep on hating. Good luck with that.
You lost me at racial profiling.
We see the usual non-residents are out in prime form once again on these forums. We’re thankfully that it will be the residents of Aurora who get to decide this issue and hope that both the forum trolls and hysteria website followers will have the respect to allow for a thoughtful discussion among Coloradans. We also hope the Sentinel does not lower itself to the usual pseudo-journalism when it comes to this subject, and instead looks for accurate and unbiased reporting rather than internet hits.
Lets take Pit Bulls out of the equation, and you are left with more taxes. If I was to guess, I imagine some of those taxes are to reimburse the city for the museum expansion that they already paid for. We aren’t getting more transparency, just more taxes. The City has to start using OUR money more wisely and be more open about it. I don’t want to give without getting. Just use the taxes from the marijuana sales to pay for transportation and infrastructure or do they have something else in mind like a big fat raise or bonus for bloated salary employees. My thinking would see the City with a “Budget Team” would’ve seen this coming and put it in the Budget last year, oops I guess the Budget isn’t balanced after all.