Editor,
Historically, Eureka Springs has been viewed as divergent and tolerant, but things have changed. Some elected officers are now singling out homes that have household pets they don’t like and are condemning them.
People elected to office are supposed to represent the people – not act based on their own prejudices or feelings. Even if one hates something because of religious beliefs this does not justify pushing his or her belief on others.
Recent action was based on a 1952 law that banned hogs in the city limits. Its justification was based on three ideals: 1) peace 2) health and 3) safety. Thus, for the recent action to be justified, and to stand, it must be determined that at least one of these is applicable. This, however, is not the case.
In 1952, hogs were raised for food. They were not trained to be kind, they were not kept clean, and they could be dangerous. Furthermore, there were no pot-bellied pigs kept as wonderful pets to be considered for exclusion, as there are today.
The banning seems to be based solely on a couple of complaints that were not from neighbors (other than board members) and were not valid complaints. The issue came up several months ago, and after an investigation it was determined that the pigs could stay because they caused no health issues, no smell, and no complaints from next close neighbors.
The complaint noted a tourist issue but nothing was provided to indicate these pets posed any kind of threat to tourism. In fact, it was reported that a tourist trolley, when passing by, stopped and allowed the passengers to admire the adorable well-trained animals – which, by the way, stay in their own yard, don’t bark, and mind their own business.
Another complaint by one on the council was the size issue. But for that to be valid and to avoid being discriminatory, large dogs, and maybe even large cats, would need to be considered for banning from the city.
Judges have ruled against homeowners’ associations that banned pet pigs once it was determined the pigs were not livestock and posed no real problems to neighbors or anyone at all. Perhaps a judge will be needed to settle this case –or maybe civil court, with a lawsuit against the city and/or the council members personally. This is the kind of case lawyers love – a slam dunk, especially when the pets are registered as “support animals.”
Unlike the town council, it seems that the people who elected them are “rooting” for Mrs. Sloas to be able to keep her pigs. The council needs to listen to the voice of the people.
Robert Waters