Sun-Times
May 7, 2007
BY MAUDLYNE IHEJIRIKA Staff Reporter/mihejirika@suntimes.com
"It really stemmed from they had an abandoned vehicle on the property, and a number of stray cats," said their attorney, Enrico J. Mirabelli. "Before we got to court, we made major strides, removed the car and got rid of almost all the cats. But the city wanted them all gone. We agreed to all but their daughter's pet cat, Felix, she's had for 15 years."
In the ensuing court order, the judge inserted a clause protecting the fat, gray and black tabby. It read: "Animal Care & Control is authorized to enter the subject property, all areas, on the same day of the Dept. of Building's inspection, to remove and take into custody all unauthorized animals (excluding the 1, 16-year-old cat Felix)."
"It can't be much clearer than that," said Mirabelli.
"The couple still live in the house they built 52 years ago in the Southwest Side Clearing neighborhood, and they own a couple of adjacent lots."
************************
Naturally this story got my attention for two reasons, it involved cats and the City's storm troopers from the department of buildings. Some information is missing though. Did the couple go to a hearing for 'voluntary compliance'? From this story, the City bypassed that step and went straight to let's inspect and go to housing court. Granted 30 some cats in one home is too many even for someone not 70 or 89, but for one's space to be invaded by two departments at once? For these so-called inspectors to arrive without the court order? Granted, I haven't seen the property in question, but do note the couple owns 'a couple of adjacent lots', the couple is elderly, and what's in it for the city?
The City has a tendency to 'see what it wants to see' and ignore what it needs to see. What ward is this and who's the alderman and what development plans, if any, are in the pipeline?
IF the City inspectors would purchase a CTA card, get on the any of the elevated trains they would see more than many alderpersons would like. They'd see slanting porches, peeling paint, rusted metal around bay windows and porches, huge cracks in the brick walls to name a few.
Apparently, it's easier to sit by the phone and wait for someone to complain, and do their routine inspections dependent on the size of the building. When they receive a complaint, they spend $3.00+ a gallon for gas to drive from Point A to Point B and back after zeroing in on ONE building. Their blinders are on for the total drive. That's counterproductive and a big gas burner for tax payers.
There's no monetary amount that would replace a feline member of anyone's family. Shame on the person(s) who killed Felix.
May 7, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is an ugly, sad story, very depressing.
Note that the city singled out a single family living in a SF home on an immense lot, where they could not possibly have been bothering anyone. They singled out a poor family that was not dependent or bothersome in any way, while overlooking literally hundreds of deeply blighted and unsafe low-income rentals owned by Rezko, Johnson, and dozens of other rich, well-connected slumlords.
I feel a sense of overwhelming futility when I read of this crap.
It only takes one person to dial 311! Or one alderman and the city to say someone dialed 311. At any rate, someone's little calculator is probably clicking away, "let's see, three lots, get the house condemned, harass the old folks and maybe they'll sell cheap."
That's the whiff I got and it isn't cat boxes.
That is just disgusting. I am so sorry about what happened to these people and their cat.
Cats ARE irreplaceable; no amount of money can make up for a life taken away.
What happened to the "unauthorized" cats is tragic too. This is the result of people not being responsible with their pets: not spaying and neutering, and abandoning unwanted animals. Population control and educated pet care is the only solution to this terrible situation.
Post a Comment