HomeMy WebLinkAbout 12/02/2015 Public hearing transcript on BILL#2604 PUBLIC HEARING
DECEMBER 2, 2015
A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to order by
Mel Rapozo, Chair, Committee of the Whole, on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, at
2:03 p.m., at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Historic County
Building, Lihu`e, and the presence of the following was noted:
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Gary L. Hooser
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro
Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Mel Rapozo
The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following:
"Bill No. 2604 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A
NEW ARTICLE IN THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED,
RELATING TO BARKING DOG NUISANCE,"
which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County
of Kaua`i on November 4, 2015, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on
November 10, 2015.
The following communications were received for the record:
1. Ryan, Mike, December 1, 2015
2. Zwiebel, John, December 1, 2015
The hearing proceeded as follows:
SCOTT K. SATO, Deputy County Clerk: We received two (2)
written comments and we have nine (9) registered speakers. The first speaker is
Alice Parker, followed by Lynn Aylward-Bingman.
Council Chair Rapozo: Ms. Parker.
ALICE PARKER: Alice Parker for the record. I think the
current version of the Bill that you have in front of you is very good, but I have a
little blip. I have a neighbor who has a Chihuahua Terrier mix who is fine, except I
have another neighbor who acts in a dummkopf manner and she trains the dog to
bark for treats. I have asked her not to, but she likes to do it. Now, the owner of
the dog does not have the backbone to speak to her. I think she should be cited, but
would the owner be cited because he is sitting there watching her make the dog
bark? It is really annoying. It goes on for half an hour. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
PUBLIC HEARING 2 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
Mr. Sato: The next speaker is Lynn Aylward-Bingman,
followed by Adolf Befurt.
LYNN AYLWARD-BINGMAN: Good afternoon. I would like to thank the
Council. This is certainly an improvement of the last Bill. I still have some issues
with it and some clarification points. In my opinion, this all should be part of a
noise abatement rule. It should not be separated out. But given that this is what is
before us, I think it is important to go over a couple of things. First of all
unfortunately there are people who are in neighbor disputes and who will lie even
under penalty of perjury to get their own way. I am out a substantial amount of
money even though the court dismissed my case. There is no way for me to get that
money back because the Prosecuting Attorney was free and because it had a
criminal element to it, which is still in this law, and I think that should be removed.
I also do not think the Prosecuting Attorney's Office should be handling this in any
way, shape, or form because it is a waste of resources. They need to be addressing
other things. They do not have enough staff to be addressing these things. So, that
is one of the problems I do have with it. It is a cost inefficient way to handle it. I
think it should be handled through some sort of a civil or administrative matter
whether it be mediation, arbitration, or something like that. That way, both parties
are going to be looking at incurring costs.
Secondly, if a false complaint is filed and loses, such as in my case, the case
was dismissed for lack of evidence. Then, the party making the false complaints
should be penalized to include all of the monetary damages expended by the party
they complained against. There should be some sort of recourse and there is not,
even in this law.
The other thing is you have again designated the Kauai Humane Society,
which I still feel has some problems. In order to be an Animal Control Officer, they
need to be trained. They need to have written guidelines, those things were
promised in the original hearings on the old law, and it never happened at all. They
need to be trained. You probably need two (2) to three (3) full-time Animal Control
Officers for the number of complaints on this island. You cannot hand over the
criminal authority to prosecute someone to civilians who are not trained and who
have no guidelines. That is frankly unconstitutional.
I do not think we should give the complainers the right to keep logs because
again, they will falsify those logs. If they are going to lie under penalty of perjury,
they do not care. Let us see. I have thirty (30) seconds. Again, administrative
claims and there should be one thing in the two (2) complaints. It should be by
two (2) unrelated neighbors. I do not think the word "unrelated" was in there.
There should be two (2) unrelated neighbors in that neighborhood, and it did
encompass the neighborhood area. Thank you.
Mr. Sato: Next speaker is Adolf Befurt, followed by Bill
Peterson.
Council Chair Rapozo: Adolf.
ADOLF BEFURT: My name is Adolf Befurt. I am a resident of
Kauai for about forty (40) years. I had my own business for twenty-five (25) years.
I am just astonished about our County government. It takes so long to solve
something really simple like the barking dog. It has been going on for years, for
PUBLIC HEARING 3 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
months now, and wasting a lot of time. I am from Germany originally and when I
left there in 1956, the problem was really easy. They used muzzles or a harness on
the dogs. They were adjustable with soft materials so it would not hurt the animal.
They could drink. They could eat. It is two-fold. They are quiet, they cannot bark,
and they cannot bite somebody. More people die of dog bites in this Country than
shark attacks. Now, the price for a harness like this should not be more than fifty
dollars ($50) or seventy dollars ($70). When you have dogs, you have
responsibilities. The same thing when you are parent. If you have children, you
have a responsibility that the kids behave and not be a nuisance to the neighbors.
Do we not have any common sense anymore? Why does it take so long to solve
something that simple? I ask any of you, do you have an answer for me? You can
use that suggestion. That has been used for years and years and years, and things
work. The dogs do not get hurt, the neighbors do not get disturbed, and kids are
safe from dog bites. Thank you.
Mr. Sato: Next speaker is Bill Peterson, followed by
Kathi Lee.
BILL PETERSON: Good afternoon.
Councilmember Hooser: Good afternoon.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
give testimony on this issue. It is very important, at least to me. It is an important
issue because it is well documented that noise pollution and barking dogs in
particular not only disturb our peace and well-being, but can present serious health
consequences as well. They can also cause disputes between neighbors, as we have
seen, and can escalate to expensive civil lawsuits and even violence. An effective
barking dog ordinance is essential. Previous experience shows us that owners of
barking dogs generally fall under one (1) of three (3) categories; those who do not
know that their dogs are barking during the day while they are at work or
whatever. Those people, if you inform them, are happy to take care of the problem.
They will either muzzle their dog or they will get the dog trained. They will try and
correct the problem and be a friendly neighbor. Those are good neighbors.
The second group tends to fall under those who either know their dogs are
barking or do not care, but are willing to correct the problem if they are forced to by
the law. That is where this law comes into play. It needs to speak to these people.
The third group are the ones that know their dogs are barking, do not care,
and get aggressive if you ask them about it. Those, we cannot handle. That has to
be done by law enforcement because danger lies in that direction. They can be very
aggressive and there are numerous cases throughout the Country where that has
resulted in shootings or some other form of violence.
But what we are talking about today is Bill No. 2604, which is based
substantially on the original ordinance which was passed a year ago and then
recently repealed. Among the differences is Section 22 part 3, which requires that
the complaints must be from at least two (2) people from two (2) different
households in the same real property area in order to issue a citation. Research
shows that in the past such multiple household laws have rarely been effective in
controlling barking dogs because it is hard enough these days for one (1) person, one
(1) household to come forward and complain about a neighbor's barking dog, let
PUBLIC HEARING 4 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
alone two (2). It also brings up several questions. If a burglar robs my house, do I
have to wait until he robs my neighbors as well before placing a complaint? We live
on a corner. We are frequently disturbed by barking dogs from several directions in
which our neighbors may not hear. Does that leave us with no recourse under this
new law? Hypothetically, is there anything in the law that would prevent someone
from buying property adjacent to yours, Councilmembers, installing a dog kennel
that is sound proofed on three (3) sides on your common property line, and housing
dogs that bark twenty-four (24) hours a day audible and disturbing to you?
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, sir. I have to stop you there.
That is your first three (3) minutes. After everyone has testified for the first time,
you can come back and wrap it up.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Sato: Next speaker is Kathi Lee, followed by Pam
Welch.
KATHI LEE: Hello. I am here to speak to the right to
have a quiet night's sleep. Sleep deprivation is a serious issue.
Councilmember Yukimura: Can you state your name again?
Ms. Lee: Kathi Lee. A sleepless night really messes
up a person's ability to put in a good days work. It is stressful and it can make you
feel sick. This is not a minor annoyance that we are talking about there today. I
have heard it said that a person should check out the neighborhood before they
move there if they do not like barking dogs. We did. It was a quiet neighborhood
for the first several years. It is a farm community with lots of dogs, but everyone
was a responsible dog owner and kept their dogs in at night. The new arrival to the
neighborhood has brought the barking dogs. I have heard it said that pig hunting
dogs are part of the culture. In our particular neighborhood, it is a new comer to
the island from the mainland with his pair of pit bulls, not hunting dogs. Some say
it is important to have dogs running loose at night to keep away intruders. We have
never had intruders, but it was sounding like there were intruders all night long
with the barking that went on and on. How would you know if there was an
intruder when the barking is continuous? Our case has been resolved, but only
after a neighborhood cat was killed by these two (2) dogs at 2:00 a.m. under our
house. Since the recent cat killing, the dogs have been kept inside at night and the
barking has stopped, at least for now. Having just experienced several weeks of lost
nights sleep, I have sympathy for those who have this as an ongoing problem. The
ability to have a good night sleep definitely has an impact on a person's quality of
life. If one cannot get peace at night in one's own house in their own bed, something
is really wrong. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING 5 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
Mr. Sato: Next speaker is Pam Welch, followed by Lisa
Kerman.
PAM WELCH: Aloha. My name is Pam Welch. I have
mixed feelings regarding the passage of proposed Bill No. 2604. During the public
hearing to repeal the previous baring dog law, many people including myself
believed that having a law on the books served as a deterrence to nuisance barking.
So, if passing an ordinance full of double speak loop holes and Catch-22s will
accomplish that, then pass away. That is my emotional feelings. I do have a huge
problem with Section 22-4. I am going to read it out loud so everyone can hear, to
use Councilmember Hooser's words, "silly" it sounds, if I can get it on my computer.
"Sec. 22-_.4 Affirmative Defense. A dog shall not be deemed a barking dog for
purposes of this section if, at the time the dog is barking or making any other noise,
a person is trespassing upon or traveling past private property in or upon which the
dog is situated or for any other reasonable or apparent cause for the dog's barking."
Since dogs always have a reason for barking whether it be something the see, hear,
or feel under Section 22-4 as it is currently written, there is no circumstance under
which a dog would ever be deemed a nuisance barker. Working with that truth, all
of the other Sections of the document become meaningless because they would never
come into play. So, it does not matter who is going to enforce it or how many people
it takes. It does not matter because there will never be any barking dogs. My
logical side says, please stop wasting everyone's time and energy on useless
legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Sato: Next speaker is Lisa Kerman, followed by
Robert Cremer, Jr.
LISA KERMAN: Hello Councilmembers. I am back again and
I do have good news. The barking dogs that have been a nuisance for over a year
have at least temporarily stopped because I put out a threat that I was going to call
the County because these people are living illegally on the land. They bring more
people and they bring more dogs all the time. I do believe it is temporary and I do
believe that the only recourse that we can actually have that will speak to these
people is a sound ordinance. I do believe it should be part of a total sound
ordinance. One of the problems I do have with Bill No. 2604 is that I foresee some
problems with finding two (2) people in the neighborhood to testify about barking
dogs. I made some calls when I was having all of these problems and a lot of the
neighbors do not want to make waves. One of the suggestions I have that I believe
has been made in the past is that we have two (2) people not necessarily from the
neighborhood that live in the neighborhood, but two (2) people maybe myself who
lives in the neighborhood and someone comes over as another person that can
testify because they are not worried about any recourse being taken against them. I
am not worried about that, but a lot of people are. If they live in the same hui, they
are very nervous about it. They do not want a neighbor upset with them because
they made a complaint about their barking dogs. So, one of my thoughts is that if
we need two (2) people to complain, what about having one (1) person from outside
of the neighborhood? Would that be an option possibly?
Anyway, right now my particular situation is a little quite, but I do believe it
is temporary because as soon as these people get lazy, the dogs will start barking
again. I actually was going to buy three (3) barking collars for their three (3) dogs,
PUBLIC HEARING 6 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
but more dogs keep showing up and it is not my responsibility to pay for barking
dog collars. I do think we need a bill. It is just a matter of what that bill is going to
say and who is going to enforce it. I do see problems with the law enforcing it. I
think it would be great, but everybody is related here. So, what would stop
somebody from calling and say, "Hey we are going to come by and give you a ticket,
put your dog in the house and get it quite right away." I do not know. I do not
know what the answer is. Obviously it has not worked the way it has been. But I
do like the woman's idea about having a full-time person with the Kaua`i Humane
Society. I do not know if that would work or not, but I do think we need somebody
set aside specifically for this job. Thank you very much.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Sato: Next speaker is Robert Cremer, Jr., followed
by Faith Harding.
ROBERT CREMER, JR.: For the record, my name is Robert
Cremer, Jr. Again, I am going to go back to say why we are always rush in making
laws and trying to put things into place without even doing investigations and
knowing the ins and outs of everything that we are going to do that is going to affect
people in the community. You folks are bound to make laws that are not going to
affect people in the wrong way. This law is so absurd and crazy. We come back
with a law that we repealed that is coming back that is almost identical. There is
not too much difference to this law. First of all, I am going to talk about
agriculture. A lot of these people come from away and move in an agricultural
subdivision and do not want dogs to bark, chickens to crow, or cows to moo. Come
on. That is the reason why people buy agricultural properties, to raise animals and
to provide substance to feed their families. Again, the burden of proof is on the
person that owns the dog again. The expense is going to be on him with this law.
We talked about this the last time we testified. That is why we repealed it. Again,
the burden of proof is on the owner of the dog. He is going to have to spend the cost.
I thought that was one of the main reasons why we repealed this thing. The Kauai
Humane Society should have never been involved in enforcing this law, never,
without training or having any kind of law enforcement training. How can it be a
noise violation when the Kauai Humane Society is going to take of it? Humane.
What does humane mean? Care. Go look it up. What does humane mean? Taking
care of. Well-being. It is not noise. Noise is a noise ordinance issue. It is not
anything to do with the Kauai Humane Society. If there was a problem with a
humane problem like the dog is barking because there is no water, then it comes
under their jurisdiction. It is not about dogs barking in a noise ordinance. So if a
person is screaming down the road, are we going to call the doctor to come check on
him? He is making noise or playing his music too loud. It is not the doctor's
problem. It is the police.
The biggest problem, I think, is you folks should make an ordinance about a
disclosure policy for the realtors because ninety-nine percent (99%) of all the cases
is from people move from away coming into a neighborhood that is al hunky-dory
with the realtor. I know of many times the realtor pays the person two hundred
dollars ($200) to move the chicken across the street or to somebody's house until he
is pau sell the property and the property is sold and closed. Straight up. There
should be a disclosure bill that you folks should be working on. I do not know what
pushed you to do this, KipuKai, but this is crazy. Straight up. This is crazy. I am
PUBLIC HEARING 7 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
not trying to get personal or anything. This is crazy. I think the testimony of the
last lady...
Council Chair Rapozo: Robert.
Mr. Cremer: Oh, I am sorry.
Council Chair Rapozo: No. It is just that your time is up.
Mr. Cremer: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: You can come back. Next speaker.
JADE K. FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: The next speaker
is Faith Harding.
FAITH HARDING: Good afternoon Councilmembers. Imagine if
you will, a neighborhood, one that is more suburban than rural. Houses for some
reason are built rather close, nearly on top of one another. It is almost like whoever
created these plots of land to build on had a cruel joke in mind. Let us put human
beings in living quarters as close as we can with no insulation and no air
condition (AC) so they have to live with their windows open. Then you have people
bring all of their things when they move to these homes. Sometimes they bring lots
of pets. Two (2) or more is lots to me. My home is nestled literally between four (4)
homes on a cul-de-sac in the Kapa`a/Kapahi neighborhood. Now I am all for
working it out and being a respectful neighbor. I work from home. So therefore, I
am home during the day. The house to the left of me in the front has two (2) dogs.
The house behind to the left of me has two (2) dogs. The house in back of me has
had animals come and go, and then the house to the right of me has two (2) dogs.
Now as a cat owner, I am responsible for the well-being of my cat as I take the
responsibility when I become that cat's caregiver. Cats are different than dogs.
Dogs need much attention. Dogs bark. It is what they do. They mostly bark when
the owner is not home. They bark because something is wrong or they have some
issue that needs attending to. When the owner is not home, they do not know
because they are not home. Again, I work from home. It is deafening when the
barking is incessant. I have politely confronted my neighbors on more than one (1)
occasion when the ordinance was in effect. I actually printed out the ordinance and
went and gave it to them. I now have their phone numbers so I text when the dogs
barking is relentless. For the most part, the neighbors have been rather
accommodating. I guess the question should be, the dog ordinance does not
repealing or retooling despite the fact that I am here to day testifying on that very
subject. The question should be, the Council should be dealing with more pressing
matters like infrastructure, overdevelopment, homelessness, joblessness, a living
minimum wage, and perhaps some term limits. Mahalo.
Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. That is it. Anyone else
wishing to speak for the first time?
BRUCE HART: For the record, my name is Bruce Hart.
There has been some really interesting testimony up until this point. I hope mine
helps as much as the rest of the testifiers. I am going to read something I put
together. It is suggestions for the Bill in order to address the problems of the
original. County Council, Barking Dog Ordinance (BDO) public hearings,
PUBLIC HEARING 8 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
December 2, 2015. There are two (2) changes and one (1) addition to be made to the
original BDO. First change is to add one (1) more witness, total of two (2), to the log
entries. The second change is the provision of need of proof of provoking
provocation. Third, is the suggestion of a clause statement located in the log at the
end just above the signature lines by both witnesses, a clause which reads in the
standard legal language for fraud. Further, all completed and returned logs to the
enforcement agency are to be filed for their use if the case goes to court. The
educational package is to include instruction to the complainant and their witness
that there may arise a challenge to the log and both may be required to testify
under oath in court. If the logs are not completed and signed by both witnesses, the
case is not admissible. The second witness can be any credible witness. Credibility
is, as in all legal actions, if in fact the credibility is challenged up to the opposing
attorneys, the Judge, and/or the jury to determine. Still to be decided is the number
of times log entries must be made. The rest of this is some of my opinion as to all of
this. There was a need to add an additional witness so the case did not hinge upon
one (1) witness against another. This will help assure no fraud and the case will
prevail in court. If as was the stated case it was not good law for there to be only
one (1) complainant witness to prove an infraction, incessant barking, then it is also
true and fair that there need be proof of provoking on the part of the dog owner, not
just the statement of one (1) witness. This will then eliminate the second bad law
issue of the original possible cause of the law not prevailing in court due to an
inability on the part of the Judge to be able to determine if there was indeed
provoking based upon testimony of only one (1) witness. The provision that the
original also being too broad, the change in the new one should be narrowed. Thank
you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hart: Any questions?
Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: I would like you to repeat or rephrase your
statement about the need for provocation.
Mr. Hart: Okay. Well, I have more than one (1),
Councilmember Yukimura. Claim of provocation provoking without proof is not
conclusive. Then, if as was the stated case it was not good law for there to be only
one (1) complainant witness to prove an infraction, incessant barking, then it is also
true and fair that there need be proof of provoking on the part of the dog owner, not
just the statement of one (1) witness, that being the dog owner.
Councilmember Yukimura: In court, there always has to be proof.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you.
Mr. Hart: Okay.
Council Chair Rapozo: Anyone else wishing to speak for the first
time? First time. Second time?
Ms. Parker: Alice Parker. I mentioned my neighbor who
was provoking the dog to bark. I went up to her and stood about a foot away and
PUBLIC HEARING 9 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
barked loudly in her ear, and she backed up. She is still getting the dog to bark.
The other thing is there was a dog owner, kennel owner, who was good about
keeping his dogs quiet and the Koloa area. He had a water system. Until he got
into a fight with his neighbors, he would not repair the water system. But when
that was on, it worked. As I have testified before when my dog, who is a good watch
dog, but if she gets carried away I have a bottle. I guess it is for ketchup and I put
water in it. I just squirt it at her and she backs up and shuts up. So, water is a
good solution and humane. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Sir.
Mr. Peterson: Back again. Just to introduce myself since I
did not the first time, my name is Bill Peterson. I am a resident of Kapa`a. I found
some very interesting speakers today. I can agree with a lot of what they said. I
think one of the biggest problems with the law that is currently proposed aside from
the multiple complaints required, which is difficult to come up with, is the
affirmative defense is way too broad. The "traveling by" is a reasonable cause for
the dog to bark. Well, that is difficult to define, document, or prove and it brings
the viability of the entire law into question. I think the gentleman that just spoke
had a very good point that if it takes two (2) people to require the law to prosecute
an event, then it takes two (2) people to prove this affirmative defense as well. That
brings me to Section 22 part 8, the Severability. That has been crossed out of this
ordinance, which means if any part of the ordinance is found to be unenforceable,
the entire ordinance is gone. That brings, to me, the question of is this really a
proposal or is this basically just a made to fail ordinance, a straw dog made to make
the Councilmembers looks like they are doing something useful without actually
passing an enforceable ordinance. I am not saying that is the case. I am just saying
the severability issue brings it into question. It is interesting to me that Hawaii,
Oahu, and Maui Counties have had existing barking dog ordinances on the books
for years as part of their larger noise abatement programs. Their barking dog fines
start at one hundred dollars ($100). Do we know if their laws are working? I mean,
the laws have been on the books for quite some time. I have the brochures. I am
happy to share them with the Councilmembers if they are interested. It seems
impossible that we could have missed that much.
Anyway, I know it is a difficult procedure and it is a difficult issue to solve,
but I am sure there is enough brain power on the Council to come up with a solution
that works for everyone; dog owners and the poor people who have to suffer through
it. We live in a neighborhood that is basically urban rather than rural. We are
surrounded by houses. My family bought that house close to forty (40) years ago. It
is not like we just moved in here from the mainland and we are saying, "Hey,
suddenly there are dogs barking around us. There were not any dogs around us in
the 1980s." Now there are. Now there are dogs across the canyon, dogs up the hill,
and dogs behind us. At 6:00 p.m. every night somebody is feeding their dogs and
they are barking like crazy. We need to fix it.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have to stop you there.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else for the second time?
PUBLIC HEARING 10 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
Ms. Aylward-Bingman: First of all, I will note that that I am the only
one who has suggested a penalty for a false complaint. I think as the
Councilmembers may recall, I mentioned that before I ever had dogs it came from
the mainland, these people came over and said they did not believe dogs should
bark and my dogs had better not bark. That was their welcome to me. They did not
know how many, they did not know what breed, and they did not know how old.
They knew nothing about them except that I had dogs. This is someone, and there
are people out here like that, that simply want to achieve some purpose and are
using the dogs as a problem. As far as provoking, twice that I was home, she has
sprayed Roundup into my dog pen. She did not know I was home either of those
times and the last time was after the case was dismissed. I heard the dogs barking
because I am retired. I do volunteer work with the Veterans on almost a full-time
basis. I heard the dogs barking. It was a Sunday morning. I went down and I
figured well, it is almost 10:00 a.m. and I would let them out of their dog pen, which
is huge. I let them out and as I step into the dog pen, I smell the Roundup and
simultaneously my dogs start barking down near the fence. I look down there and
there she is spraying her Roundup on my property as well as her own. She kills my
plants too. She then tells her husband to call the police and tell them that I have
sent the dogs out to attack her. Now the dogs never got near her. They were up at
the edge of the hillside. So they were a good thirty (30) feet or forty (40) feet away
from her. They were barking. They bark at these people all the time whenever
they are out because they have been hit by electronic signals, they have been hit by
sounds of different types, and they have been hit by Roundup probably more than
the two (2) times. One of my dogs died of a tumor and now I am wondering if that
was not the reason. I have a situation. How am I supposed to prove provoking? It
would boil down to credibility, and I will put my credibility against theirs any day of
the week. Something has to be done in terms of penalizing people like this for
making these false complaints and using it as a weapon. Again, this is not
something that should be in a criminal system. It is the wrong use of our
Prosecuting Attorney whether or not you think it should be part of noise abatement
or disagree with me on that. I can even understand some rules for this. But my
dogs — I am a widow. I live alone. My dogs bark when there is a reason, and I am
not talking about a frivolous reason. They bark if somebody is harassing them, they
bark if there is danger on the property, or if there is a stranger. My pool person
comes, they will bark about two (3) or three (3) times, and then they stop because
they know it is Danny. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much.
Ms. Aylward-Bingman: I appreciate it.
Mr. Cremer: Again, I am going to say this is an absurd
draft of a bill. It goes right back to the same place we were three (3) or four (4)
months ago when we tried to repeal it and we got it repealed. Two (2) people can
always conspire and say the dogs are barking. Again, the burden of proof falls right
back on the owner. The expense falls right back on the owner. When you folks can
stop cats, chickens, and other types of feral animals from being loose to stop dogs
from barking, then I see you folks being able to enforce this law the fullest as a
noise ordinance. But until then, there is no way you folks are going to be able to
prove that my dogs are not barking at a chicken, a cat, a rat, a toad, or any type of
other animal. Straight up. How are you folks or anybody going to prove that?
PUBLIC HEARING 11 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
Again, it is going to fall back on I have to prove that my dog was barking at that. I
am going to have to hire the lawyer. When the two (2) people is making the
complainant that could be conspiring against me because they do not want me to
have any dogs in the neighborhood because they have a Bed & Breakfast or they
have their little hideaway that they just want to have peace and quiet and have no
one around them, they want to live in an agricultural subdivision and just have
their swimming pool and swim around and have their glory time, and have their
little wine parties. Sorry. I am going to be straight up. It should not be a type of
law right now as far as our community is or how it goes on this island of Kauai.
You folks have to figure out a way to make an ordinance that is realistic. This is so
unrealistic. It is a shame. It is like I am going to the toilet again, sitting down,
taking a crap, and there is no toilet paper in the holder. Straight up. I hate to
sound like that and say this, but it is the truth. It is a shame that we can even
bring this to the table without conspiring or even coming forward and asking the
hunting community, the dog community, and the people who have a problem with
dogs. I am not saying there is no barking dog problems. There is definitely, but we
have to be realistic and put all of our heads together and figure out a realistic law
and bill that will work. This is crazy honestly. Think about it. I think a fifteen (15)
year old kid can see that this is crazy. Thank you.
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify
for the second time?
Mr. Hart: Again for the record, Bruce Hart. I would
like to commend all of you. This has been going on a long time, and for some
Councilmembers this is not the first time or the first time you have been on Council
that this issue has come up. It can go back many years. So, I want to commend all
of you. Now Council Chair, I would like to ask something. Councilmember
Yukimura made a comment in regards to provoking and had me reread it. Then,
she made a comment in regards to in court...I think what she said was...
Council Chair Rapozo: The comment was inappropriate.
Mr. Hart: Can I clarify? If there is something that is a
legal issue that prevents what I suggested from working, I do not understand it.
She said only one (1) witness and then it was cut off. I do not know what she is
talking about. But my suggestion, I believe, is fair. I believe it is fair and that it
addresses the issue of provoking. I am going to have to agree that if we cannot
overcome this hurdle of provoking, then this law is not going to work. It will just
stall. I am willing to work with any Councilmember, I think many of the members
of the audience are willing to work with any Councilmember, and I think there is a
genuine concern on everybody's part in here, both sides, to resolve this issue. I am
really hoping and offer to help any way I can to get a law in place that will work.
Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING 12 DECEMBER 2, 2015
BILL NO. 2604
Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wising to testify?
There being no further testimony, the public hearing adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
JA . FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA
Coun y Clerk
:aa