 |
|
| Owners: Pamala Sutton | Piggy: Miss Piggy |
| Date they won: Oct 24, 2004 | |
| Here's their story: Woman gets to keep pig at home City code board allows woman to keep Miss Piggy 25 Oct 2004 By Brian McBride News-Gazette Staff Writer And this little pig ran all the way home. In a 4-3 vote Thursday, the Kissimmee Code Enforcement Board found “Miss Piggy” owner Pamala Sutton not guilty of violating city code. After more than four hours of testimony, Sutton wept after hearing the ruling, realizing she would be allowed to keep her Vietnamese potbellied pig. She was facing a $500 initial fine. City officials had also proposed giving her five days to remove the pig from her Paradise Circle home or face $100 in fines per day. “The system works,” said Sutton. Sutton had been fighting city officials since April when the Kissimmee City Commission declined to amend an ordinance to allow the animal in a residentially zoned area. But some code board members sided with Sutton, saying that the ordinance was too vague. According to city code, farm animals are classified as horses, cattle, swine, poultry, sheep and goats. “It seems to me that the city ordinance should be rewritten,” said Jack Eney, board member. “We have to bring ourselves up to today.” They were also swayed by her argument that a potbelly pig was a domesticated pet. “I don’t believe the pig is a farm animal,” said board member Bernice Staton. But City Attorney Don Smallwood argued relentlessly that the city commission already ruled that Sutton was in violation and that the potbelly pig fell under the definition of a swine. “We have defined it as a farm animal,” Smallwood said. “A farm animal is a swine and it’s not allowed.” Sutton was given a notice to appear in front of the code board after defying the commission’s order. But Sutton, who argued that city law didn’t specifically prohibit potbelly pigs in residential area, said Smallwood previously advised the commission to amend the ordinance to mention the animals. The city commission, however, refused, saying the law was already clear “If there is no law, there is no violation,” Sutton said. The potbellied pig was a pet, Sutton explained, and a different gender and species from a farm pig. But other board members said the city shouldn’t be expected to include every species of animal outlawed. “To list everything under the sun under prohibition is unreasonable,” said George Jackow, board chairman. To find Sutton not guilty would be creating loopholes in the law, said board member Sid Spafford, allowing residents to keep animals such as miniature horses in their homes. “I’m afraid we’re opening up an awful mess,” Spafford said. And board member David Reimel said the code enforcement board was designed to rule on whether there was a violation, not to interpret the law. “The city says we shouldn’t have a potbelly pig,” Reimel said. “She has a potbelly pig and that’s not allowed. It’s as simple as that.” Andy Parker, Carlos Irizarry , Jack Eney and Bernice Staton voted not guilty. George Jackow, David Reimel ) and Sid Spafford were opposed. Smallwood said he would return to the commission and again ask for direction on whether to amend the ordinance. If the City Commission were to act to specifically prohibit potbellied pigs it would continue to apply to those who may have had animals before the city took action,said Smallwood. So the good news is, we won. The bad news is, the city attorney is on a mission (personal vendetta?) to get rid of Ms. Piggy. What makes this win so unbelievable is this: during the four and a half hour fiasco, I was not allowed to finish more than about ten full sentences without interruption or objection! And all of my evidence was first NOT accepted, then finally accepted (I think), but ultimately NEVER EVEN SEEN by the code board members! And they still "got it" - that there is no law and that Ms. Piggy is not a farm animal! The three votes against me were the "hard-liners" who had already made up their minds that if the city said theres a law, then theres a law, and if the city said I was in violation, then I was in violation, and if the city said a pig is a pig is a pig, then that was the end of it! THEY DID NOT EVEN WANT TO HEAR ME - AND THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO STIFLE ME, RATTLE ME, AND TREAT ME LIKE I HADNT MOWED MY YARD OR SOMETHING EQUALLY OBVIOUS! Believe me when I tell you that the four who voted for me showed great courage in the face of outright harrassment and nagging by the other three. But they stuck to their guns. My heart goes out to Carlos Irizarry - he feels like he committed "political suicide" by initiating the motion to find me not guilty. I hope that is not the case. He just could not see the taxpayers of this city paying to defend an appeal that he could see very well that the city could not win! I have to take a little break, catch my breath, and prepare for the next round - silly me - I thought for a minute that I was going to finally get my life back! |
|
|
|
