Neighborhood Commission to hold special meeting on vicious dogs

LANCASTER – At the direction of Mayor R. Rex Parris, the Lancaster Neighborhood Vitalization Commission (LNVC) will host a special meeting next week regarding vicious dogs.

The purpose of the meeting is for the LNVC to hear public testimony concerning proposed additions to the City’s Municipal Code regarding liability for dog bites. The LNVC will then make a recommendation to the Lancaster City Council regarding the proposed ordinance.

Under current California law, a dog’s owner is liable for damages suffered by a person who is bitten by a dog. In addition, a tenant’s landlord can be held liable if they had prior knowledge that the dog was vicious in time to protect against the dangerous condition on their property. Under the proposed municipal code, the landlord can be held liable “regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or knowledge of such viciousness.”

“We welcome local residents to join us on August 21 and share their opinions regarding this important issue,” said LNVC Chairman Steven Derryberry. “Your participation will aid us in thoroughly accessing the impact of the proposed ordinance, so that we will be able to present the City Council with a well-informed recommendation.”

The Lancaster Neighborhood Vitalization Commission Special Meeting will be held at 6 p.m., Tuesday, August 21, in the Lancaster City Council Chambers (located at 44933 N. Fern Ave.)

(Information via press release from the City of Lancaster.)

  48 comments for “Neighborhood Commission to hold special meeting on vicious dogs

  1. ryenisha jackson
    August 25, 2012 at 2:51 am

    I dont know why he is so worried about the dogs attacking random people what about the parents who own vicious dogs to busy partying it up and showing there friends how cool there 200lb pit bull who was abused trained to fight has there two year old messing with the dog and when he goes to maul the baby… he was such a good dog he would have never done anything like that …………….. its not the dogs fault its the stupid people that own them there should be a law.. IF YOU ARE TO STUPID TO RAISE DOGS THEN YOU SHOULDNT RAISE KIDS just sayin lololololololo

  2. @@@
    August 24, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    Anyone else hear about the sheriff German Shepard K9 that attacked a pest control worker at the dog’s handler’s house yesterday? Does that mean Rex will have all Shepherds killed? Or do they get a free ride? Maybe the bitten worker can get Rex to sue the LASD for him?

    • Gerald
      August 24, 2012 at 11:04 pm

      LOL Wow! Oh the irony! Rex will try to make sure this doesn’t hit any news sources that his followers see. Unless it happened in Palmdale. Then he’ll probably take the case and sue Palmdale for millions. Hope the AV Times does a story. Would be interesting to see a statement from the Lancaster mayor. Doesn’t he own a Shepard?

  3. summer
    August 21, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    i was glad to see none of these people that spoke so highly about supporting this issue show up tonight at the meeting.

    • sacryinshame
      August 22, 2012 at 3:18 pm

      I agree. The people in attendance all agreed that the existing state law already covers a landlords responsibility. It is wrong for Rex to try to pass something that would superceed the existing law and make it the landlords responsibility even if they do not have knowledge of animals at their properties. Let’s face it, this was another way for Rex to go after people who own dogs. Maybe he thinks he is the only person who should be allowed to have a guard dog. Since he lives in Orange County, this law really wouldn’t affect him in any other way than possibly drum up some lawsuits for his law practice.

      • Theodore
        August 23, 2012 at 3:12 pm

        rex lives in the OC? Don’t you have to be a resident to be mayor? Didn’t he shut down a candidate for city council couple years back, when it was found out she lived a 1/2 mile outside of Lancaster’s border? AFTER the election?

        • August 23, 2012 at 4:49 pm

          Yes, you do have to be a resident of the City of Lancaster to run for mayor, according to city ordinance. Yes, a female candidate for city council was found to not live within the City of Lancaster boundaries a few years back. I don’t remember if it was after the election she ran in or not. I’d have to research it further. Working from memory here at the moment.

          There was also a Palmdale Water District (PWD) candidate who ran for a board seat some years ago, and was disqualified due to where her established residency was. . . in Green Valley, well outside PWD boundaries, if I recall correctly. Not the first time it’s happened locally of late.

      • Michelle Egberts
        August 23, 2012 at 3:26 pm

        @sacryinshame… Rex resides in Lancaster. It’s the City Attorney, David McEwen who is from Orange County. McEwen’s firm is in Newport Beach.

        • sacryinshame
          August 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm

          Thanks Michelle. I was told that bit of info recently and I should NOT have repeated it without verification. I apologize and stand corrected. I was told Rex uses his business address but had never been challenged. Thank you for setting me straight.

          • Michelle Egberts
            August 23, 2012 at 5:13 pm

            Your Welcome sacryinshame… if my memory is correct, I do believe that former Mayor Frank Roberts residency was in question over his home in Henderson, Nevada.

            I find it interesting that in order to be appointed to a commission /or committee in Lancaster that the individual MUST live within the city boundaries. So how does Criminal Justice Commissioner Gaupel meet that requirement when he lives in Bear Valley Springs? Hmmmm…

  4. William
    August 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Won’t the effect of the proposed ordinance be that landlords of apartments and houses simply won’t rent to dog owners?

  5. Lisa
    August 20, 2012 at 11:58 am

    I completely agree with this. I lost my dog to my neighbors pack of 3 pit bulls. All he got was a leash law ticket. 9 years later a another set of pit bulls attack my next dog, thank fully he made it after a 1700 bill. It doesn’t matter how enforced my fencing is. Vicious dogs will get to their pray.

    • Stinger
      August 23, 2012 at 6:10 pm

      If you truly do agree with this ill-conceived ordinance, ‘Lisa,’ then you clearly haven’t read and considered it.

    • Maria
      August 24, 2012 at 12:22 am

      If an owner is that irresponsible, then they clearly should NOT have any pets! Pit Bulls are wonderful dogs. Any dog can be wonderful or scary depending on how the owner decides to raise it. Just because Pits are bigger doesn’t make them terrible dogs.

      If a dog is left in the yard without human or other animal interaction, they will attack the next human or animal that comes along because they are afraid and are defending themselves.

  6. mike
    August 20, 2012 at 10:36 am

    If you take the proposed ordinance to its logical conclusion, a landlord could be held responsible for anything a tenant does because he rented to the tenant. We should retain personal responsibilty for one’s actions. If you have a vicious dog, it is your responsibilty to leash it. Don’t blame the world if he attacks someone.

    • Hector
      August 20, 2012 at 11:00 am

      I agree. Another niche for lawyers to exploit…And if there’s anything I dislike more than a pit bull, it’s a lawyer.

      • D. Fife
        August 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm

        I know what you mean, Hector. I was refused entrance to law school because my parents were married.

        • sacryinshame
          August 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm

          oh gee whiz, look who the lawyer is…..see you at the meeting.

    • Maria
      August 24, 2012 at 12:25 am

      A Pit Bull is not vicious because its a Pit Bull, but it can be vicious if the owners don’t train it or allow it to interact with others. Just like with ANY dog, if you just tie them up in the yard without no interaction they are bound to get defensive and hurt someone.

      I love dogs, hate irresponsible owners.

  7. Hector
    August 19, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    PS- Just look at the picture….nice looking dog, right?

    • sacryinshame
      August 21, 2012 at 3:56 pm

      looks ike a golden retriever or lab to me.

      • L.C.
        August 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm

        What ya been smokin?

    • Maria
      August 24, 2012 at 12:27 am

      Looks like a dog that has been TAUGHT TO FIGHT!
      Only an idiot would think that Pit Bulls are born vicious!
      Btw, if Goldens, Labs, etc are taught to fight, are used as bait dogs to practice on, or are left without any human or animal interaction they will be just as scared and will attack!

      • Hector
        August 24, 2012 at 12:37 pm

        I’d let my five year old play in the back yard unsupervised for a few minutes with our golden retriever. I wouldn’t dare let him do the same with a sweet, docile pitbull….I’d never take a chance with an unpredictable dog like that.

  8. sikntired
    August 17, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    This would not even be an issue if the owners would be responsible and TRAIN their dogs instead of leaving them in the back yard 24/7.Cesar calls certain breeds “gladiator” breeds, pits, boxers, rottweilers, German shepherds; they have the ability to rip you apart and if not trained properly or abused can kill.
    Landlords need to know what is going on on their property and be held accountable.

    • Stinger
      August 17, 2012 at 6:45 pm

      I can appreciate what you are saying. However, what Parris is proposing is an overreach. If it were targeting specific breeds that have a known history of violent behavior, there might be a case there. Or if he were targeting property owners who have direct knowledge of a tenant’s canine that has a history of violent behavior, there might be a case there. Or even if he were targeting property owners who reasonably should have knowledge of a dangerous breed being housed at their property, there might be a (tenuous) case there. But that is not what Parris is doing.

      With Parris’ ordnance, a tenant family, with no problem history of any type, could move into a house that they rent with a little daschund puppy (a breed that does not have a significant history of violent behavior) for their little daughter. They live there for, let’s say, 7 years without any incidents whatsoever. One day a stranger enters the house and approaches the girl in a way that the dog perceives as a valid threat. The dog protects the girl and bites the man, who runs out the door. Thanks to Parris, he can now sue not only the owner of the dog, but the owner of the house that they rent from – even though there was NO reason to expect any type of trouble from the dog by the thrid party owner. No history, no target breed, nothing.

      This is an overly broad law that will not stand a legal challenge. As an ‘attorney,’ Parris should know better than this.

      • William
        August 20, 2012 at 8:34 am

        “… Parris should know better than this” is a funny statement.

        Doesn’t it seem that ever since Parris was elected mayor, there has been one ‘crisis’ after another after another? One lawsuit after another after another.

        Sure, every city has problems, but they are usually handled fairly quickly but not with Parris. Every issue becomes a big deal almost as though he is creating them out of thin air just to have something or someone to fight with.

        Palmdale has problems but it seems like they are handled fairly quickly without all the sturm and drang that Parris brings to every single issue.

        Mayor Ledford faced opposition with the new medical center, the Palmdale station selection for the High Speed Rail and the new power plant, for examples, and was successful with each one. Then, there’s ‘Parris when it sizzles’ over skateboards and dogs. Front page news plus his pistol-packin’ wife.

        The contrast couldn’t be more stark. And, he’ll keep doing it like a spoiled child.

      • William
        August 20, 2012 at 8:44 am

        Have you ever seen Parris on TWC Channel 28 when he’s speaking to a group other than at council meeting? He waves his hands with the little fingers like he’s warming up to play ‘patty cakes’ with Ron Smith. What a clown.

    August 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Good thing these soldiers had a Pitt Bu7ll with them instead of a coward like you!

    America’s first war dog, Stubby, served 18 months ‘over there’ and participated in seventeen battles on the Western Front. He saved his regiment from surprise mustard gas attacks, located and comforted the wounded, and even once caught a German spy by the seat of his pants. Back home his exploits were front page news of every major newspaper.
    Stubby’s breed was unknown, as no one ever discovered where he hailed from originally. One day he appeared at Yale Field in New Haven, Connecticut; while a group of soldiers were training, stopping to make friends with soldiers as they drilled. One soldier, Corporal Robert Conroy, developed a fondness for the dog. When it became time for the outfit to ship out, Conroy hid Stubby on board the troop ship.
    Cesar Millan, the dog whisperer, has an article about this dog on his website, titled “Famous Pit Bulls.”

  10. Hector
    August 17, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Outlaw the breed! And if it’s a pit bull mix, and it’s ugly enough, it should be outlawed too. I can’t stand these dogs. They’re just a gangland status symbol. There’s nothing good about them…..I’m sure some Korean BBQ places in L.A. could use the carcasses.

    • Quigley
      August 17, 2012 at 10:48 am

      Ignorant Antelopian! I wonder if ur as “UGLY” as you sound?

      • William
        August 20, 2012 at 8:35 am

        Be nice to Hector. He has delicate sensibilities.

        • Hector
          August 20, 2012 at 10:14 am

          Thanks for your support, William.

    • Utz
      August 17, 2012 at 3:44 pm

      It is not the dog or the breeds fault, it is their owners and breeders fault.

      You can breed a large amount of aggression out of animals (domestication,) and you can also train it to control it’s aggression. Chances are an overly aggressive animal is owned by an overly aggressive person.

      Dog’s tend to act like their owners, or in ways acceptable to their owners.

      To blame the dog is ignorant, if the owner knows it is aggressive the owner needs to train the animal, if the animal cannot be trained (most can be), it needs to be isolated and restrained, or put down.

    • Googler
      August 20, 2012 at 11:37 am

      Agreed! I hate pit bulls too! They are a status symbol for ghetto trash, barrio trash and trailer park tweakers! They are as disgusting as their owners!

      You will know how immensely I hate this breed when you watch one of them attack your helpless small dog as I did mine. The whole ordeal was nauseating and expensive and very hurtful to my family!

      Kill them all for all I care!

      • Hector
        August 20, 2012 at 12:06 pm

        Finally another voice of reason and common sense.

      • Summer
        August 21, 2012 at 3:19 pm

        You must be so right about everyone owning one being a gang member or white trash. Actually you sound completely ignorant. I own two of these so called “vicious” dogs and they couldn’t be any more sweeter then they already are. They love kids, people, and other dogs. Yes my pitbulls love other dogs. I raised them correctly. I also find it funny that I have never been associated with any type of gang and although I am white I am not trash. At 26 I am a homeowner with a full time job. Oh and I don’t do drugs either.

        I do apologize for your dog and the pain you went through with that ordeal. Just because you ran into a misbehaving dog due to being raised incorrectly does not mean all of these dogs are terrible. One day you will meet one of the “vicious” dogs and realize they are not all terrible and you will change your mind.

    • Maria
      August 24, 2012 at 12:32 am

      People like you are the problem, not the animals who did absolutely nothing!
      These animals are NOT naturally vicious. The dogs reflect their owners. If you don’t want a vicious dog, then I suggest get rid of its human first. Like I’ve said, if you leave a dog without human or animal interaction it will be scared and attack the next thing that comes along for self defense!

      Please teach yourself a little bit about dogs and their behavior before you start supporting something that makes absolutely no sense.

  11. Stinger
    August 17, 2012 at 7:39 am

    This proposed ordnance will not be able to hold up in court as it would be considered too broad in its scope.

    In doing this, Mayor Parris is literally attacking ALL people who rent that own ANY TYPE of dog, whether traditionally aggressive, or not. He is also attempting to create a liability against property owners that is not reasonable in its expectations.

    • sacryinshame
      August 19, 2012 at 10:30 pm

      Hector, you sound like a total moron. I hope you get bit by a dog! Why is our Mayor trying to get the city council to approve such a thing when there are so many other problems that should be talked about in their meeting?

      • Hector
        August 19, 2012 at 10:45 pm

        Because Shameful, pit bulls are ugly AND unpredictable. I wouldn’t own one just because they are so ugly….and the unpredictability is just icing on the cake. They are thug dogs. Why wouldn’t you want a beautiful German Shepherd or Doberman over one of those ugly creatures????? Because you are a thug??? If I do get bitten, I bet it would be by an ugly a$$ pit. I’d sue the owner, but he’d probably be a ghetto thug with no money so it wouldn’t matter.

        • Hector
          August 19, 2012 at 10:57 pm

          PS- Where have you been? This story is old. Get with the program.

        • Stinger
          August 19, 2012 at 11:40 pm

          Unfortunately, Hector, Parris’ proposed ordinance would effectively make you unable to have that beautiful german shepherd – or ANY OTHER BREED – if you rent anywhere in the city.

          Again, if it were just pit bulls (or any other well documented breed of abuse), this might have some legal standing – but it doesn’t stop there. It effectively makes ALL dogs a liability risk for any owner to allow on their rental property, even little teacup poodles.

          Do you support that?

          • Hector
            August 20, 2012 at 8:31 am

            Stinger- No, I wouldn’t support that. I was only expressing my view on pit bulls only. It was a little off-topic because I wasn’t referring to the ordinance. Although I feel that a dog owner should be liable for his dog’s actions, no matter what the breed, it sounds pretty ridiculous to expose a landlord to the same liability. I know that I’m spouting off, off topic, but all I’m saying is that I don’t understand the attraction to such an ugly and unpredictable dog. I understand the want or need for a loyal dog, capable of tearing an intruder limb from limb….but why not a dog with better looks, brains and temperament?

          • Summer
            August 21, 2012 at 3:24 pm

            You really are a joke. I bet you don’t even own a home. I personally think chihuahuas are vicious and ugly too. More vicious then my beautiful pitbulls. I however don’t speak ignorance like you and believe they should all be killed and/or banned.

          • L.C.
            August 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm

            Personally I think they’re ugly, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Chihuahuas are a close second. At least a chihuahua can’t get to my throat….

          • sacryinshame
            August 25, 2012 at 1:26 am

            Hector, my pits are very predictable.
            They get out of bed at the same time every morning. Go outside to pee, come back in, and hop in their beds till 5:30AM, when I take them for a 3-5 mile walk. Outside to pee when we get home, and back in the house to their beds. Hang out all day, going in and out of the house with my wife. Sometimes they go swimming in the pool,or play ball. My wife spends about 10-15 minutes daily, with each dog, working on training and hand signal commands. They go for another walk in the afternoon with my wife and again in the evening after the sun goes down. They have never gone running through the neighborhood and we always walk them on leash even though they have both had plenty of training and are well behaved. They eat at 8PM, go outside to do their business about an hour later and get in their beds for the night. Neither dog gets out of bed after their little blankets are put on them. They are very predictable and very happy. They love structure. Our dogs do not bark outside unless someone is at the gate and do not bark inside unless a stranger is on the patio or at the front door. They do not charge the front door or stalk people when we have company. They get in their beds at the snap of a finger and a point in the direction of the bed. They only occassionally sneak up on the couches. They have never chewed up shoes or anything else. They still have the little stuffed animals we got for them when they were young.
            I bet your dogs don’t behave as good as our pitbulls.

    • sacryinshame
      August 25, 2012 at 12:58 am

      Stinger, can you just imagine how many landlords would give notice to their tenants with dogs, and all those tenants take those dogs to the shelter? There would be thousands of dogs dropped off at the shelter and if the tenant couldn’t do that, they would dump their dogs off in a neighborhood in hope that someone would rescue it.

Comments are closed.