Strip animals
Upset by panhandlers trying to draw sympathy by stationing their pets on Strip sidewalks, County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani would like to ban animals on the sidewalks and pedestrian bridges along the Strip, south of Sahara and north of Sunset and for a quarter-mile up the intersecting side streets.
The commission could act on the proposal as early as Tuesday. But it would probably be better to let this one die.
“To me it’s more about how the animals are being treated,” says the commissioner. “If they’re out there for 12 hours a day, and who knows where you got the kitty, where is its food and water?”
Allen Lichtenstein, attorney for the ACLU of Nevada, says the proposal faces a constitutional challenge: It’s “overbroad and unjustified,” he argues. “People may not like panhandlers … but the courts have spoken,” Mr. Lichtenstein says. “Panhandling is protected speech. If the dog with you will help, that’s not illegal, either.”
The proposal notes the animals tend to “promote loitering and unsanitary conditions.” But the county health code already deals with sanitation issues.
“Does the volcano promote loitering?” Mr. Lichtenstein asks. “Does the pirate ship promote loitering? Of course they do. … You have a right to stand there.”
There are other problems. As written, the proposal would exempt nearby residents with pets going to and from their homes, animals used for government purposes and animals authorized by a parade permit, a special use permit, or a business license. It also would exclude animals in pet friendly hotels and “service animals.”
Animals being walked close to home never create a sanitation problem? Animal rights activists will have no problem with panhandling monkeys in funny suits so long as their owners have a business license?
Meantime, street people appear to be a step ahead, widely claiming their pets are “service animals.” They’ve figured out that — get this — asking for proof of service animal status is illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Ms. Giunchigliani’s concern for the critters is admirable, but it appears unlikely this one-size-fits-all ordinance will be either effective or legally defensible.