A4
T he C oast News
JAN. 31, 2020
Opinion & Editorial
Views expressed in Opinion & Editorial do not reflect the views of The Coast News
Commentary
Limiting density is not the answer to affordability crisis By Dan Brendel
New SDHS friendly feline ‘spay & dump’ program is inhumane By Pam Harris
Under a new policy implemented by the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS), shelters in their jurisdiction are spaying friendly, social cats and returning them to the streets without ever giving them a chance to be adopted. Since taking over the animal control contracts for the City of San Diego, Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Oceanside, Solana Beach, Vista, Escondido, Poway, San Marcos, Imperial Beach or Santee in July 2018, SDHS has basically become a government agency, funded in part by the taxpayers of these cities. The agency defends the new program, called SNR (Shelter/Neuter/Return) or RTF (Return to Field) by claiming that the release of most cats that are brought in as strays is the only way to curb cat overpopulation. This should not be confused with “Trap, Neuter, Return”, where a dedicated caregiver commits to the wellbeing of a group of altered feral cats, feeding and monitoring them. This new policy, which applies to single friendly cats brought in by individuals hoping to find them a better home, does not require anyone to provide food or water. After surgery, these cats are simply released where they were found. SDHS claims that they look at each cat as an individual and that they must establish that the cat has a history of living outdoors before becoming a candidate for the SNR program. However, records estimate that among the friendly, handleable cats that were brought in by individuals hoping to find the cat a new home, about 15% of them had only been seen in the neighborhood for less than two weeks, and many for less than 1 week. There were also records where individuals brought in cats who they told SDHS staff had been abandoned by a neighbor, but the cat was still released back to where it was found after being spayed/neutered. Moreover, during the first quarter of fiscal year 2019-2020, SDHS released 515 cats back to where they
were found in the City of San Diego alone. Records indicate that about 25- 30% of them were friendly and likely didn’t have to go back on the street to fend for themselves among cars, coyotes, and other dangers. SDHS claims that this practice is now recommended by all the major national animal welfare organizations. This statement is, at the very least, highly misleading. The position statements given by the three leading national organizations all say that unless the only other alternative is euthanasia, it is best to put single, friendly cats up for adoption. Position statement from Best Friends: “Whenever possible, friendly cats and kittens are placed into an adoption program; if, however, there is no opportunity for adoption, then these cats (assuming they are healthy) should be included in a shelter’s RTF program. Position statement from Maddie’s Fund: ““In some shelters, RTF is expanded to include any unidentified, healthy stray cat in good body condition and old enough to fend for itself, when the chances for a positive outcome in the shelter are dim.” Position statement from the ASPCA: "To be considered for an RTF program, the cat must be unowned, ineligible or unlikely to be successful in an adoption program (with very rare exceptions, social cats admitted to animal shelters should be routed into adoption programs that demonstrate a high placement rate rather than RTF programs), be able to be returned to the location where found, and appear to have been thriving in their previous environment without known threats. SDHS is trying to position itself as agreeing with these standards while simultaneously disregarding aspects of them that that it finds inconvenient. This decision will inevitably result in hundreds of cats being tossed back into the street instead of being given a chance to find a new home. An inside source said
that in lieu of a possible lawsuit for animal abandonment like the one in Orange County, legal advisors told SDHS to cut back on having their staff release the friendly cats but instead ask the finder of the cat, or a feral cat rescue to release the cat for them, even if that cat is adoptable. SDHS advises that when someone brings in a cat, they need to inform them if the cat was abandoned, that they live near a busy intersection, that there is a history of cats being snatched by coyotes in their neighborhood, etc., and that these factors will be taken into consideration when deciding the cat’s fate. Unfortunately, most people assume that a humane society is a safe place and that the cat they bring in to rescue from the dangers of the street will be kept safe and then found a new home if not claimed. They have no idea about this new policy, in which they have to make a case for the cat as to why they shouldn’t release the cat back to the streets, as that is now the default outcome. The role of a shelter is not to just sterilize every cat that comes in as a stray and then put it back to fend for itself. The primary goal of an animal shelter is to rescue animals from the dangers of the street, at least those who are friendly and would do well in an indoor home or show signs that they aren’t thriving outdoors. Taxpayers are paying money so that we have a shelter that provides a safe place where lost and homeless adoptable animals can get off the streets away from harm and then be given another chance to find a forever home. This new program deflects that responsibility, and if you think it should be modified so that the single, stray, friendly cats who could have a second chance at finding a home don’t get tossed back to the street with no one to care for them, then you need to let San Diego Humane Society and your city councilmembers know that. Pam Harris San Diego resident and animal rights advocate
Carlsbad Councilwoman Cori Schumacher's letter, “Addressing development concerns” (Jan. 24), exemplifies a common practice of public officials to speak out of both sides of their mouths. She laments that “we are losing … the affordability of our downtown area,” thanks to the “luxury condos that are dominating these projects.” But simultaneously wants to “limit density along the coast and along coastal transit corridors.” A local government’s single most decisive tool for generating housing affordability, and arguably also environmental friendliness, is density. Period. There may be sound reasons to balance those goods against other competing interests. But tradeoffs should be clearly articulated, not misrepresented as having our cake and eating it too. Limiting density is largely causing the affordability crisis in the first place. Basic economics: if demand goes up but supply doesn't, prices rise. Ms. Schumacher’s prescription of further constraining supply in a super high demand environment would be enormously counterproductive to her goal “affordable coastal living” for low- to middle-income demographics, including "young people" and "seniors." Cities with “elastic” housing stocks that keep pace with demand are
more affordable. Pundits often cite Tokyo, thanks to its construction-friendly laws. It's legitimate not to want your town to look like Tokyo — though a hyperbolic comparison, as our coastal downtowns barely include mid-rises, let alone sky-scrapers. But don’t be misled that drastically arresting densification wouldn't necessarily trade off affordability. Ms. Schumacher chides "developers who are only looking to make a profit" (not the homeowners who chose to sell?). Yet I doubt many developers could keep a project solvent, let alone lucrative, under her no-density-but-still-affordable vision. "Luxury condos" dominate new construction because politicians won’t allow builders sufficient density to satisfy that top tranche of demand, or to cross-subsidize negative cash flow "affordable" units within a project. Even a developer with a heart of gold may have little choice but to maximize rents from the tiny density she’s allowed, in order to cover her considerable upfront costs (land, parking, financing, compliance). If you severely limit a grocer’s shelf space, don’t be mystified that he taps out the steak-and-wine market before stocking rice and beans. If not through cash flow from more units, developers make affordable projects pencil out only by taking big subsidies to re-
duce costs. The lion's share invariably comes from the feds and state. Distant taxpayers might reasonably wonder why they should subsidize affordable living in coastal California, simply because coastal municipalities refuse to realize the enormous market potential of their existing assets. Like someone panhandling from a gilded chair. Even the addition of higher-end units helps the total regional “portfolio” of affordability. Many households who could afford to move into newer, higher-end digs would do so, opening up older construction to lower-income households. This process, aka “filtering,” is historically the main force behind most housing affordability nationwide. Ms. Schumacher’s ecological concerns — sea level rise, runoff, etc. — are dubious. Denser cities are much "greener" per capita than less dense cities, because people generally occupy less space more efficiently and drive less. Carlsbad is one of the most concentrated employment centers in North County. If people can't afford to live nearby, they'll simply settle farther inland, where longer commutes and hotter temperatures require higher energy consumption, thus displacing and exacerbating their carbon footprint — still with ramifications in Carlsbad.
Dan Brendel Oceanside
The CoasT News P.O. Box 232550, Encinitas, CA 92023-2550 • 760-436-9737 www.thecoastnews.com • Fax: 760-274-2353
PUBLISHER Jim Kydd ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER Chris Kydd MANAGING EDITOR Abraham Jewett ACCOUNTING Becky Roland COMMUNITY NEWS EDITOR Jean Gillette GRAPHIC ARTIST Phyllis Mitchell ADVERTISING SALES Sue Otto Chris Kydd CLASSIFIED SALES Ben Petrella
The Coast News is a legally adjudicated newspaper published weekly on Fridays by The Coast News Group. It is qualified to publish notices required by law to be published in a newspaper of general circulation (Case No. 677114). Subscriptions: 1 year/$45; 6 mos./$34; 3 mos./$27 Send check or money order to: The Coast News, P.O. Box 232550, Encinitas, CA 92023-2550. In addition to mail subscriptions, more than 30,000 copies are distributed to approximately 700 locations in the beach communities from Oceanside to Carmel Valley. The classified advertising deadlines are the Mondays before each Friday’s publication.
Contact the Editor editor@coastnewsgroup.com Calendar Submissions calendar@coastnewsgroup.com Community News community@coastnewsgroup.com Classified Ads advertising@coastnewsgroup.com Legals legals@coastnewsgroup.com Distribution distribution@coastnewsgroup.com
Op-Ed submissions: To submit letters and commentaries, please send all materials to editor@coastnewsgroup. com. Letters should be 250 to 300 words and commentaries limited to no more than 550 words. Please use “Letters,” or “Commentary” in the subject line. All submissions should be relevant and respectful. To submit items for calendars, press releases and community news, please send all materials to community@ coastnewsgroup.com or calendar@coastnewsgroup.com. Copy is needed at least 10 days prior to date of publication. Stories should be no more than 300 words. To submit story ideas, please send request and information to editor@coastnewsgroup.com.