Friday, March 17, 2017

TKC BREAKING AND EXCLUSIVE NEWS!!! KANSAS CITY PET PROJECT LEADER BARKS AT TAX FIGHTERS IN SUPPORT OF NEW ANIMAL SHELTER AND QUESTION #3!!!



This morning we report both sides of an issue worth MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and countless cute pet lives . . .

To wit . . .

KANSAS CITY ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS SEND EXCLUSIVE WORD TO TKC READERS CHALLENGING CRITICS OF QUESTION #3 AND THE NEW ANIMAL SHELTER UP FOR A VOTE IN THE APRIL 4TH ELECTION!!!

Background . . .

Remember that tax fighter and maybe one of the only guys in Kansas City looking to save you money, Dan Coffey recently asked:

Does Kansas City, MO need a totally new Animal Shelter???

Here is the retort . . .

Teresa Johnson is executive director of The KC Pet Project and she shares these comments and a bit of data in support of Question . . .

"It was brought to my attention that some inaccurate information about animal sheltering has been distributed by Dan Coffey at Citizens for Responsible Government. Inaccurate statements by Mr. Coffey are not new, as he regularly releases misinformation in an effort to attack virtually all measures related to improving Kansas City. While Mr Coffey may be earnest in his opposition to the bond plan to build a new shelter, he has spoken out of his wheel house when it comes to the state of animal sheltering in our Metro . . .

"It's completely unrealistic that any of them could provide free services to the city -- and even more unrealistic that any of them would be in a position to handle more than 10,000 animals per year for the city of Kansas City without significant financing by the city . . .

"Kansas City is a leader in the metropolitan area. KC Pet Project is a shining example of a positive public/private partnership in animal welfare. And animal health services are an economic engine for this city.The city's residents should expect Kansas City to be able to provide an adequate, modern facility for the care of the city's homeless pets. Voting YES on Question 3 will make that happen."

Read her comments in full after the jump . . . And you decide the fate of cute doggies on Kansas City streets in the upcoming April 4th Question #3 vote. Developing . . .


Teresa Johnson Of The KC Pet Project

It was brought to my attention that some inaccurate information about animal sheltering has been distributed by Dan Coffey at Citizens for Responsible Government. Inaccurate statements by Mr. Coffey are not new, as he regularly releases misinformation in an effort to attack virtually all measures related to improving Kansas City. While Mr Coffey may be earnest in his opposition to the bond plan to build a new shelter, he has spoken out of his wheel house when it comes to the state of animal sheltering in our Metro.

KC Pet Project is nationally recognized as a the THIRD largest, open-admission No Kill Shelter in the country - meaning no pet from Kansas City, MO is turned away. "No Kill" is often used for limited admission shelters that close admission when they are full, but commit to providing the animals in their care a live outcome. Also, the 4400 Raytown Rd is the only facility that accepts stray, lost or abused animals from Kansas City. And while other organizations could in theory accept owner relinquishments from KCMO residents, they are under no obligation to do so. KC Pet Projects other locations and staffing are paid for by donor dollars and cannot accept animal control intake or owner relinquishments.

In addition to his misunderstanding of the differences between open-admission and limited admissions shelters Mr Coffey inaccurately notes that the other shelters in the area "Get No Federal, State or City Funds." However, he is wrong in his claims as all of them receive some level of city or county funding.

The Animal Rescue League of Iowa, in Des Moines, receives more than $700,000 per year from the City of Des Moines for their contracted services for Animal Control Field Services and to operate their animal shelter.

Wayside Waifs has agreements with the cities of Riverside, Grandview and Belton for the animal sheltering services and receives payment from all three for the services they provide to those communities.

The Humane Society of Greater Kansas City has a contractual agreement with the Unified Government of Wyandotte County for veterinary care for the shelter animals in that community.

And the Great Plains SPCA also receives annual funding from the city of Independence and from Jackson County taxpayers.

Actually, Great Plains SPCA shelter in Independence is a great comparison as the services they provide the city of Independence most directly mirror the relationship KC Pet Project has with Kansas City. The animal shelter in Independence was built entirely with taxpayer dollars from Jackson County, and each year, the Great Plains SPCA receives $435,000 from the city of Independence and Jackson County contributes $130,000 to the cost of operation. http://fox4kc.com/2013/02/12/new-jackson-county-animal-shelter-to-open-in-april/

Question 3 on the April ballot would provide the same for Kansas City residents as it would provide a new facility for KCMO to replace aging, dilapidated building and then continue to contract the sheltering services to KC Pet Project.

I also want to clarify the reported numbers of pets "handled" in Mr. Coffey's note. Animal welfare organizations fill a variety of purposes, including intaking animals from the public and animal control, providing low cost veterinary services, or providing basic vaccinations and city licenses. While all are important functions, the cost difference between providing a round of vaccinations (which takes 15 minutes) is different that providing for the cost and care of rehoming an animal which may take weeks or even months. So several of the organizations have very large animals "Handled" numbers due to public veterinary services provided -- which KC Pet Project does not do in large part due to the inadequacies of the shelter facility in which they are currently using a double-wide trailer as a veterinary clinic.

Pointing out these contracts and differences isn't meant to to disparage any of these organizations who all do fine work in the capacities they serve.It is, however, unrealistic to believe that any not-for-profit group would be able to provide an important government service such as animal care and sheltering services without government spending for these services with the cost based on the size and scope of the relationship.

Working with not-for-profits is beneficial for cities, as in each of these cases, the not-for-profits are providing services far beyond the value of their respective contracts. However, it's completely unrealistic that any of them could provide free services to the city -- and even more unrealistic that any of them would be in a position to handle more than 10,000 animals per year for the city of Kansas City without significant financing by the city.

Even if it were possible, it wouldn't negate the fact that all of these facilities are quite a distance from the majority of Kansas Citians. This long distance would drive up costs and inefficiencies for the animal control officers who bring in the majority of animals to the shelter and also be a disservice to KCMO residents who might need to visit the shelter looking for a lost pet. Many residents already struggle with this due to lack of transportation options to the current shelter, but putting the shelter in another city would make this incrementally challenging for the city's residents.

Kansas City is a leader in the metropolitan area. KC Pet Project is a shining example of a positive public/private partnership in animal welfare. And animal health services are an economic engine for this city.The city's residents should expect Kansas City to be able to provide an adequate, modern facility for the care of the city's homeless pets. Voting YES on Question 3 will make that happen.
##################

31 Comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm only voting for the weed ordinance on question 5 and then I'm smoking my ballot.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, lady. No blank check.

Anonymous said...

^^^ Absolutely agree. The cost is too much and they may not get anything with such vague ballot language.

If we need a need a new animal shelter, lets vote on it separately.

Golden Lover said...

You can vote on it separately. It's question 3.

Anonymous said...

They want a $24 million Taj Mahal animal shelter. Kansas City is broke. We just need a basic animal shelter. Vote NO on GO 1-2-3.

Anonymous said...

They ain't going to get a new shelter. Sly is lying to them just like he has to everyone else. That money will go to the streetcar before it goes to help dogs.

Anonymous said...

$14 million public funds which equates to a few dollars monthly to provide the service for tax payers pets is not the Taj Mahal.

Anonymous said...

Let pet licenses pay for it, if it is such a small amount.

Anonymous said...

She seems as concerned about slamming Coffey in general as she is about a Puppy Hyatt.

Anonymous said...

All of those Animal Shelter people are far left radicals, frankly I wouldn't give a dime to any of them. As soon as they take their ideology out of the shelter business, than I'll think otherwise. Also, they need some men involved in their operations instead of a bunch of hens running around.

Anonymous said...

City officials threw the pet thingy in there as a front for the millions of other dollars promised to developers and contractors----the usual few who soak up KC tax dollars on rigged bidding and on no bidding through EDC. Vote NO!!!!

Anonymous said...

Poor 10:43 hates women. I'm so sorry you couldn't get laid in high school, you stud, but get over it already!

Anonymous said...

Why do we need to house pitbull mixes, they should not be adopted out, but eradicated

Anonymous said...

Reminder. Each question can pass on it's own while the others fail. They are NOT all lumped together as you're stating.


You can vote YES to saving animal's lives and NO to the others.

Anonymous said...

How come the stars website is blank when you go to it.

Anonymous said...


10:57 What an ignorant and off topic statement.

Anonymous said...

Better dogs than nogs, right!!! Sure!!!

Anonymous said...

Mayor Sly James‏ @MayorSlyJames 22 hours ago

More transit oriented development on the way!



Jeez now he's bragging about throwing away your tax dollars into this shit!

Anonymous said...

When can we get rainbow pillars or flags on Broadway. KC could use a gayborhood!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Wow.. that's more sexist than his post... you are a pig.. oink oink oink..

Anonymous said...

Since KC Pet Project provides services to Johnson County...how much do Johnson County residents pay? Probably nothing just like nothing for the Kansas City City Zoo. Kansas City residents cannot shoulder tax burdens for the benefit of the entire metro area. How many Johnson County representatives sit on this board???

Anonymous said...

Hey you big dummy... That's what the tax Peeps are saying they will never ever spend the money for the pets the money will be redirected two other projects because there's no language saying they can't how long have you lived here they've been doing this forever that's why your sewers and infrastructure is so piss poor but downtown gets there

Anonymous said...

It's one of those bait and switch moments. While I would normally support an animal shelter, Sly shows this is nothing but a bait and switch!

Anonymous said...

The only possible output of a system lacking any discipline is self-destruction.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of lack of discipline here we go again.

Tax breaks approved for major Crossroads apartment, retail plan

Anonymous said...

Let Johnson County help support the KC Pet project since KC resident tax dollars would fund this thing. Why should KC shoulder the entire Tax burden?
Johnson County likes to flaunt how rich it is...then chip in some tax dollars for these services.

Anonymous said...

Why^^^^^ We don't raise inbred Pit Bulls. 100% guarantee that Wayside Waifs is funded by more JOCO money then KCMO.

Anonymous said...

Vote for Flood Control. Nothing else.

Anonymous said...

Just invest in some bullets. No one needs some thug's leftover pit bull.

Anonymous said...

FUCK THAT 8:45!!! They already wasted a BILLION dollars and NOTHING was done. That's why you pay huge water and sewer bills, the money for basic maintenance is gone. WHERE???? >>>>> Pensions and Union thief's. 10 guys and 4 trucks on a simple valve replacement job that a private company could do with half that. KCMO leadership is a pack of rabid thieves.

Anonymous said...

The Animal Shelter business is big business. They operate as a "non-profit" but that only means they have to spend all their money every year. The people at the top are being paid well. They charge you $150 for some garbage stray that isn't even worth anything when we pay fees to license animals every year.

If we are paying to license our dogs, paying for their animal saving to the tune of a cool $15 mil minimum...shouldn't they be giving out the dogs for less than $150.

It used to be $50 at nearly every shelter in the country before it became fashionable to adopt stray dogs.