Fairfield residents concerned about possible $10K dog insurance

Sep. 26--A Fairfield couple told City Council it would be "punishing your law-abiding citizens" if a proposed insurance requirement for dogs is approved next month.

City Council is considering removing breed-specific language banning pit bulls within the city, after the state made a similar move and at least one Ohio appeals court ruled against such bans.

Under the city's proposed law, all dog owners within Fairfield would be required to have $10,000 liability insurance, though it would be treated as a secondary minor misdemeanor offense. It will only be enforced if a primary violation occurs and the lack of insurance is also discovered.

"You're just punishing your law-abiding citizens with these laws," said Ashley Hillis, of Sherry Lane.

Hillis' wife, Natalie, questioned how the liability insurance would impact older residents on fixed incomes and those living paycheck to paycheck.

"I don't think that the expectations would be for you guys to tell them that they can't have their fur babies anymore because they can't afford the $10,000 liability insurance they'd have to have," she said. "I hope you would really consider this and listen to the people because this isn't what we want."

The city is looking at several changes to its animal ordinance, including removing the catch-all term of pit bull, a generic category for four primary breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Among the changes, the proposed ordinance defines nuisance, dangerous and vicious dogs, and increases penalties for dog owners.

Jeff and Angela Black, of Spyglass Hill Court, said they have had a long relationship with the home and auto insurance company they use, and would likely have to shop for a new one because they won't insure larger dogs. Jeff Black said his neighbors would be in a similar situation.

"Walking around my neighborhood, I look at dogs. I look at boxers, I look at retrievers, I see a St. Bernard, I see Huskys. Calling my insurance, calling other insurances, none of those dogs would be insured," he said. "Dogs you would normally think about ... no insurance company would insure those dogs."

Fairfield Law Director Steve Wolterman said at the Sept. 12 council meeting, when the proposed changes were introduced, he only knew of one insurance company that would not insure dogs.

Angela Black said the insurance requirement "feels contradictory" as the city is opening a new dog park.

City Manager Mark Wendling said city staff is reviewing the proposed ordinance, "looking at all different aspects" as officials receive citizen feedback on the proposal.

"I don't have a recommendation at this point, but those are things we are looking at," said Wendling.

City Council is scheduled to have a third reading and vote on the ordinance at its Oct. 15 meeting. However, Wendling said if there would be any proposed changes, City Council could table the reading and vote "until we are ready to proceed."

___

(c)2019 the Journal-News (Hamilton, Ohio)

Visit the Journal-News (Hamilton, Ohio) at www.journal-news.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.