[FEL-L] (no subject)

[Jungletouch]

Here is a copy of the letter that is automatically sent.
 
Gary


  _____  

July 14, 2009
460 Bohemian Hwy
Freestone, CA 95472

California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: California SB 250 (Florez) -- IN OPPOSITION

Dear Assembly Committee on Appropriations Member:

I am writing to ask you to oppose SB 250 (Florez), mandatory spay/neuter for
dogs and cats. A law that is
very similar to SB 250 and was pushed by SB 250 supporters went into effect
in Los Angeles in 2008. This
caused the killing in LAAS shelters to increase by 30% in just one year.
This is much worse than elsewhere
in California.

When laws like SB 250 have been implemented at the local level in California
and elsewhere, they have led
to increased costs, increased animal deaths, and decreased animal licensing
income. California should not
create a state law out of a policy that has backfired every time it has been
tried in order to "do something"
about an issue. SB 250 would make the problem much worse.

The California Department of Finance opposes SB 250 because it would
increase costs to California's state
and local governments. Their analysis determined that SB 250 would result in
even larger costs for the
existing mandated reimbursement resulting from the 1998 Hayden Act, which at
more than $20 million per
year is already one of the largest reimbursements that the state must pay to
local governments. The
Department of Finance also anticipated increased costs to local governments
beyond this reimbursement,
and potential new mandated reimbursements.

Supporters of SB 250 point to Santa Cruz County as their "model for the
state." Since Santa Cruz County
passed a very similar measure, animal control costs have doubled. Santa Cruz
County per capita animal
control costs are 74% higher than for California as a whole. If this
"success" became state law through SB
250, the $249 million that California governments pay each year for animal
control would soar to $433 million.
Local governments are likely to sue for a new mandated reimbursement with
cost increases of this
magnitude.

Please vote NO vote on SB 250. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary Fulgham


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.breuckman.com/pipermail/felines-l/attachments/20090714/7bbd06d0/attachment.html