Sunday, August 3, 2014

Would That It Were True

Yesterday, a conversation on Facebook inspired me to take a look at the section of the city code that pertains to dogs. To my delight and puzzlement, this is what I found in the online version of the code:

Notice the Editor's Note under item (10), which reads: "Subsection A (11) prohibiting dogs' presence at Riverfront Park, added 10-15-2002 by LL No. 6-2002, which immediately followed this subsection, was repealed 3-18-2014 by LL No. 3-2014." Gloriosky! This is just what we wanted to happen. Of course, we know that it didn't happen. So why is this here?

It will be remembered at Local Law No. 3-2014, as it was proposed, did two things: it amended the city's requirements for licensing service dogs, and it repealed the ban on dogs in riverfront park. Alderman Bart Delaney (Fifth Ward), who led the charge against repealing the ban, wanted the law bifurcated, separating the amendments that brought Hudson's requirements for licensing service dogs into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act from the amendment that lifted the ban on dogs in riverfront park. This was done, but in the end, the wrong law--the law as it read before the issues were separated--was sent to the Department of State. As a consequence, the impact of the law as it was originally proposed was entered into the city code. The mistake has been attributed to the confusion that reigned around the time that Cheryl Roberts resigned as city attorney.


  1. Confusion that reigned from the time Cheryl Roberts resigned?!

    The single phrase I associate with Roberts' entire Hudson misadventure is "simply a misunderstanding."

    If I had a dollar for every time I heard her offer those words! You'd hear them in public, in documents, and in private conversations as a recurring theme, her leitmotif.

    Of course there were two circumstances in which she'd employ the now-infamous phrase: those occasions when actual misunderstandings had occurred and those in which they hadn't.

  2. It turns out that the correct Local Law was sent to the Department of State by the City Clerk, with both the required signatures of the Clerk and the Corporation Council. The mistake, acknowledged this morning, was made by Code Publishers, which they will quickly issue a correction. Thanks to Gossips for alerting us to the error.