Denver instituted its breed ban against pit bulls over thirty years ago, and despite a vote by Denver City Council's February 10 passage of Councilman Chris Herndon's compromise that would replace the ban with a breed-licensing proposal, Mayor Michael Hancock vetoed the measure late Friday, February 14.
It was Hancock's first veto since he took office over eight years ago. Does council have the votes to override the veto? Nine members will have to go against Hancock; because of Presidents' Day, they'll take up the issue on Tuesday, February 18.
In the meantime, readers have been yapping over the mayor's decision. Says Zach:
I'm so glad the mayor actually listened to reason and wasn't swayed by some stupid picture of a dog wearing a flower crown or some other nonsense.
Terrible. Discrimination by breed is a poor policy Mayor. You’re prejudging, and in many cases sentencing to death animals that have done nothing wrong.
This is a disgrace, Michael B. Hancock. We will put it to a vote if we have to. You have chosen to ignore every study and statistic and given into a false narrative perpetuated by the media who thrives off of sensationalism over reality.
I'm okay with this. If you look at the new ordinance, it was flawed beyond repair. Council should try again if it's such a big deal.
People who think the animals are the problem instead of the crappy people who raise them to be bad animals are part of the problem. It's the exact same mechanic that tells people to sweep things that exist under the rug and hope it works out, giving them a fake sense of accomplishment.
OR they are just so distraught that they refuse to think it can be anything but what they think it is.
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to Westword's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Denver's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
And Tom concludes:
For such a progressive state, we're still way behind on basic things.
In the letter to council announcing the veto, Hancock said, "At the end of the day, I must ask whether passage of this ordinance would make our homes and neighborhoods safer or pose an increased risk to public safety? I have concluded that it would pose an increased risk. I encourage members of City Council to reconsider their approach to this ordinance, which has been in the municipal code for over three decades. If we were to make this change now, and harm comes to someone as a result, then we have done a disservice to the people of this great city."
What do you think of Hancock's move? Post a comment or email firstname.lastname@example.org.