North Kansas City spent some time re-looking at their dog ordinance this past week. Now, before you get the wrong idea, North KC was actually one of the few cities in the metro this year that was adamently against any type of breed-specific legislation -- noting that only two pit bulls have been deemed dangerous in the city in the past 15 years.
As a city, they have their heads on straight.
But their new idea is a bit hair-brained I think.
Their new proposal is to require an additional $100,000 in insurance for all dog owners (this will only be applied to newly licensed dogs, not owners of dogs currently licensed in the city). The article goes into a lot more detail on this.
My problem is that people already carry home-owners insurance -- in fact, everyone who has a mortgage is REQUIRED to have it. If one of my dogs were to bite someone, it is already covered under my current liability insurance...and I'm sure that I've already paid a bit of a premium by having dogs (just like I pay a higher fee because I live in a relatively high crime-risk area). This just seems like an extra fee that is being required of dog owners.
It seems like a slippery slope -- you don't want to make it too difficult for people to register their dogs (like providing proof of additional insurance) or they won't register their dogs...which will cause more problems in the long run. Plus, at what point does government give up on trying to remove risk from our lives? Are they going to require more insurance for me because I have two sets of stairs leading to my front porch that can be tripped on? Or does someone who owns a double lot need increased insurance because they have more sidewalk in the front of their house that could get icy that someone could slip on?
I support the government's desire to be sure that any dog attack victim would be adequately reimbursed by the dog owner's insurance...but this appears just to be creating more headaches for dog owners.
Comments