Bylaw is proactive when it comes to dog licensing

Editor:

Re your editorial comments on bylaws and the lack of effective bylaw enforcement in Clearview.

There is bylaw enforcement in Clearview, it just happens to be selective in operation!

Fail to register a dog that has passed away and within days of the final date to register the animal you’ll be getting a visit from as many as two bylaw officers to find out why you are not registering a pet that has passed on.

It’s happened to my family on the three occasions when our pets passed on, with one bylaw officer even leaving his business card with a message on it asking why we had not registered our (dead) dog!

We are told that bylaw enforcement in Clearview is “reactive”, in other words the bylaw officers will only act when a formal complaint is received from a resident.

In the case of the dog registration process in Clearview, who is reporting dog owners to the bylaw officers? It can only be someone on staff at the township. It’s just another “tax grab” by this council, since it does not involve court costs, just a payment, a really “easy meal” for the township.

“Reactive” bylaw enforcement is inappropriate for a municipality that has real concerns over the content of its bylaws. Bylaws that are not being enforced uniformly across the municipality without a complaint from a resident should be removed from the listing of bylaws.

I’ve lived and paid taxes in Clearview for nearly 20 years and everywhere I look I see a degeneration in the way our communities are being maintained by both residents and staff primarily through the lack of concern by successive councils to have staff enforce our bylaws.

Council, let’s stop harassing pet owners and get our 1.5 bylaw officers out on the streets issuing “soft warnings” for residents to clean up our communities and put an end to forcing neighbours to turn in their neighbours to fulfil the requirements of an outmoded system of enforcement.

Peter Lomath,

Creemore.