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.
##################

Comments

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better dogs than nogs, right!!! Sure!!!

      Delete
  2. Sorry, lady. No blank check.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ^^^ 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.

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

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. $14 million public funds which equates to a few dollars monthly to provide the service for tax payers pets is not the Taj Mahal.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  10. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 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!!!!

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  14. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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

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

    ReplyDelete

  16. 10:57 What an ignorant and off topic statement.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 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!

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

    ReplyDelete
  19. 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???

    ReplyDelete
  20. 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!

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

    ReplyDelete
  22. Speaking of lack of discipline here we go again.

    Tax breaks approved for major Crossroads apartment, retail plan

    ReplyDelete
  23. 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.

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

    ReplyDelete
  25. Vote for Flood Control. Nothing else.

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

    ReplyDelete
  27. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  29. KC Pet Project does not provide any service to Johnson County and serves only the animals and residents of KCMO -- thus, KCMO is where the funding needs to come from.

    The average cost per animal that comes into the shelter is roughly $340. That includes feeding, care, vaccinations, medical care, spay or neuter, etc. Thus, $150 for an adoption fee doesn't even cover half of the cost for keeping a pet in the shelter -- no one is making big $$ in animal sheltering.

    ReplyDelete
  30. if $150 adoption is painful to a person wanting to adopt, maybe they shouldn't be adopting.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The use of park lands for an animal control facility may be illegal, and could cause the city to lose title to the land on which they plan to build since it was likely conveyed to the city to be specifically a park.
    As a retired licensed professional land surveyor, my past experience leads me to think that this issue has either not been considered or is being ignored.
    To non-pet owners the proposed facility is for the purpose of controlling stray animals that are considered a public nuisance. That is not a park activity.
    Our park lands are precious, and once they're disturbed, they're disturbed forever. To see evidence of this look to the grounds behind the off leash dog park on Gregory blvd where the city used to have a tree nursery.
    In addition, private enterprise using park lands may also be a misuse. It's certainly an advantage to operate a business on land that pays no property tax especially if the facility you aspire to build will be supported by public money derived from property taxes. It may well be that these bounds have already been crossed. Every time a locked gate, or door is installed, the question of restricting the rights of the public to access public land should be examined.
    KC Pet Project seems to be the beneficiary of "representation without taxation"
    I plan to pursue this issue starting with examining the document that conveyed this park land to the city in hopes of causing a new site to be selected.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

TKC COMMENT POLICY:

Be percipient, be nice. Don't be a spammer. BE WELL!!!

- The Management