What will it take?

Frontiersman editorial board

The voters of Houston are walking on a dangerous precipice by casting a blind eye on the issue of animal control.

For years, the city has refused to deal with stray dogs and cats and any other animal problem that has come up.

Houston voters, when they decided to incorporate, agreed to take on animal control powers -- and even set up animal-control codes -- but they have never seen fit to allocate money to enforce those codes.

It's surprising there haven't been more serious consequences to this "if we don't fund it, it will go away" method of dealing with the issue. There have been repercussions, to which Evelyn Rohr, a Houston resident whose dear Scottish terrier, Tabitha, was recently disemboweled by a pack of roaming dogs, will attest.

Rohr's situation is not unique, although most victims of Houston's lack of enforcement generally accept their fate quietly.

But what if the unthinkable were to happen -- if a toddler playing in a yard became the target of a pack of dogs? Would that be enough to spark the voters to pry open their pocketbooks?

It's doubtful. If nothing else, recent history shows Houston residents object to paying taxes and are skeptical of any ballot proposal that will cost them money. In 2000, Houston voters refused to pass a ballot proposition that continued road service tax collection. Not passing the proposal would have left their streets with no plowing or maintenance.

To the surprise of city staff, Houston voters said they'd rather keep their money. When the council discovered voters thought the proposal would have doubled their taxes, they held another election.

And the second time around when 100 voters cast their ballots on a snowy December day, nearly a third of them still said they didn't want to be taxed.

What is it going to take for these residents to understand the government's role in the overall picture and stop hog-tying the process?