[yorkietalkjilly]

Our mayor said in his newsletter that statistics show that for every 3 dogs per household, there are x-number of complaints and incidents, with a certain number involving 911, police/ambulance/fire(our fire dept. goes along to facilitate entry into some homes) and that taxation and funding were real consideration in setting the number of dogs at 3. Said that 4 dogs per household escalates the complaints/incidents and city's involvement, including use of the courts, and would cost too much in response ability, particularly with police. Since our city uses extra funds to fix up the homes of the poor so that there are no shacks, unpainted or unsightly homes here due to this program, which is particulary helpful to poorer families or old folks still living in their homes, they elected to use the extra funds on that program rather than responding to and handling the additional incidence of complaints and 911 calls they would have to handle with the addition of the 4th dog in an estimated number of households who would have 4th dogs. It seemed to me like a well-reasoned and practical approach for an urban area facing so many issues in need of tax-dollars. I guess people in our area that want more dogs will need to choose to live in a more rural area.