Wednesday, March 4, 2009

MAYOR RESPONDS TO DOG RESCUE - I TEND TO BELIEVE HIS VERSION OF THE STORY - WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE HERALD?

The story on Mark Sossi was just so misleading it blew me away that it was cleared for publication. The story on the fee for using the Sports Park was so incomplete and misleading I cannot believe it was cleared for publication. For the record, I support the city charging any sports group which charges their members. Why should the taxpayers be solely responsible for maintenance of the sports park? It is one thing to charge the public, which I would oppose, yet another to charge private sports clubs, which I support.

For the record, any political figure is welcome to use BV to set the record straight. Life is not about agreeing on everything. But we should at least be able to agree we want the people to have the facts.

You can find the original of the Mayor's response here.

http://www.bebo.com/mayorpat

To the Editor:

Your story titled "Mayor Responds to Dane in Distress" was so inaccurate and pathetic, no wonder people do not want to get involved with pets or humans that are in need of assistance.

Your reporter should have taken the time to speak with witnesses and the Channel 5 crew (not channel 23 as I mistakenly reported), Rita Garcia and cameraman Ricky Rodriguez, who called me to help with what appeared to be an injured dog with the owner not available to help by all accounts at the scene of a very frantic situation. We all believed the dog had a broken leg, because he was frantically trying to get up, but could not and appeared to be in a lot of pain. When I got there, I concurred with Channel 5 and the bystanders' assessment of the need to contact public safety to help rescue the pet that by all accounts could not get up because his whole hind leg was hanging down from the balcony and jammed between the iron balcony railing and the walkway.Your article states I climbed the balcony, which I did not, but was given access to the apartment by the owner who invited me in and explained the situation that, unbeknownst to anyone watching the dog in distress, the dog was 14 years old, arthritic and on pain medication. It also became obvious that the owner of the dog was home but was totally unaware of the situation that his dog was lying in his feces and was trapped between the iron balcony and the walkway or his dog's frantic efforts to withdraw his entire leg that was trapped and hanging from the balcony. Once I got to meet the owner, I accepted his assurance that the dog was fine and his invitation to show his paintings, along with a tour of his apartment. Then I went down to explain the situation to the rescue personnel and citizens that had gathered to express sympathy and concern for the dog's safety and welfare. The Herald report also mentions other incidents, which really have nothing to do with the current incident and are also reported inaccurately by leaving out important information. Would the Herald reporter rather citizens not get involved and ignore situations to help someone in need? No wonder our society is so dysfunctional and some so inhumane towards animals that they act out by being abusive towards pets and people. In this March 4, 2009, news article, two unrelated incidents are referred to, which leaves an inaccurate perception when I adopted an injured blue heeler from the animal shelter and was later accused of stealing, but when the trial drew near I was asked to produce proof of ownership and did. The D.A. dismissed the overzealous charge against me by a now-former Health Director who acted inhumanely towards this pet by denying it medical treatment for 10 days and refusing to allow me to provide it. Then the Herald’s referenced the November 7, 2007, incident where a dog had actually been hit by a car and I was called to rescue it. The owner of said dog refused to respond to all efforts for help when I left phone messages or my card with a written note to claim their dog. Because I could not ignore the dog’s need for medical attention, I had him hospitalized for a week. Once released the dog was placed in foster care, but again the person previously believed to be the owner did not respond to our requests to claim his dog and abandoned the home, along with the dog, to avoid paying his rent. The dog was slowly nurtured to health and three months later the previous owner suddenly wanted to reclaim the dog but made no attempt to reimburse us for the hospitalization nor care and maintenance for three months, but convinced the police they had a right to the dog when, by law, after 30 days of abandonment they had lost the right to reclaim the dog. Knowing this, we fought for the dog and the inhumane owner did not show up in court, because they had no le

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you about the user fees. Leagues were being charged, not a couple of kids. When will Brownsville get out of the "let's have everything for free" mindset. Parks and Recreation does not charge leagues or teams to practice on their fields.

Anonymous said...

If you want to read the Mayor's response in its entirety on his webpage, please be sure to click on the title.

Anonymous said...

Dang, and here I thought that the mayor was up to his shenanigans again. Shame on the Herald's reporter and editor who did not verify the veracity of the story. Guess it's true, the mayor has many enemies and the Herald is counted amongt them. What do they gain by painting him in a bad light? Are these these stories about the mayor just political favors for the powers that be?

BobbyWC said...

Look we have to separate out our personal agendas from the cast of characters. I believe the mayor on this one. If enough of us consider real facts meaningful we can get to better results.

But throwing temper tantrums because someone does not agree with you never helps your argument.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

I must admit that I, too, was ready to believe the worst. I made the mistake of failing to consider the source.
Mescalero

Anonymous said...

The city has not charged leagues for the use of any fields: games, practices, etc. The people who complained were not part of a sports organization. BOYSA has enough practice fields at Oliveira Park and are not charged to use them. Neither are the rest of the leagues. This fee does NOT go to maintenance, it is simply a user fee. You will pay to take a public place and use it for your private use. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. It does not matter if you are a taxpayer or not. You rent the Events Center, rent the pools, rent the gyms......so you pay to rent a field. It's pretty simple. Google it and see that over 95% of the rest of the country charges for use of fields. There are ample maintenance crews and the city fields are some of the best in the state. It's kind of funny that all of the league boards are not against the fee. Maybe the Herald should report about the thousands and thousands of dollars that are made off of the concession stands that the city DOES NOT lease to the leagues. They get the stands for free! This "for the kids" crap is a joke. The leagues are making cash and pocketing it, just look into that a little.

BobbyWC said...

I love angry posts the most - I clearly stated "For the record, I support the city charging any sports group which charges their members."

You would not know I said this based on the above post.

Bobby WC