More Services ... Not More Buildings

Signatures 899 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 18 › »

1. 1
   Name: Tessa Keller on Jan 17, 2008

   Comments: I live on Avon Court in Lexington County and have been fighting the problems associated with stray dogs and cats for 12 years. People in my neighborhood are not going to drive to Harbison Blvd. to have their animals spayed and they certainly won't be traveling 25 miles to learn how to be better pet owners. They think they are doing a good job now. Forget the building. Go for the Spay/Neuter fund PETS, Inc . has proposed.

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Sonja Murphy on Jan 17, 2008

   Comments: Please consider this proposal to help our community to be an example and a leader in making an impact on the pet population. Let Columbia , SC be an example for the rest of the state or even nationally in taking this opportunity and tax payer funds to make a true difference. It is time to make a common sense decision and truely have the best interest of these suffering animals in our community be the main focus. Let us stop the killing in our shelters and so make an immediate impact. Anyone who owns and loves animals would side with this proposal. As an animal lover myself I ask you to vote for this Pets, Inc. proposal.

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: David Murphy on Jan 17, 2008

   Comments: Consider the proposal it is the right thing to do.

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Adele Scaccia on Jan 18, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Becky Groth on Jan 18, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Gerry Rose on Jan 18, 2008

   Comments: I can only agree that pets must be neutered to stop the over population of animals. More shelters are not the answer.

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Debra L Keough on Jan 18, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Sharon Graham on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Cathy Crawford on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: I am very much against building a new facility when the money can be used more effectively in our neighborhoods spaying and neutering pets and strays. Our county government would do better to help subsidize organizations like Pets Inc that reduce the number of pets animal control has to deal with.

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Cathy Crawford on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: I am very much against building a new facility when the money can be used more effectively in our neighborhoods spaying and neutering pets and strays. Our county government would do better to help subsidize organizations like Pets Inc that reduce the number of pets animal control has to deal with.

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Donna Brown on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: James Sisco on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Rachel on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: Please make the right choice: help Columbia spay and neuter its pets! Support the Pets Inc. Proposal

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Evelyn Downey on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Ashley A. McMahan on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: What good would a facility be on Bower Parkway, that has no room to allow animals to exercise Stop the problem without a new shelter. Spay and neuter animals first so that a facility isn't needed.

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Denise Birchmore on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Jim & Pat Paschal on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: Lets spend this money in a careful & intelligent manner ...Spay/neuter is the smart way to go....We don't need another building, we need to stop the reproduction cycle....And the Harbison area certainly dosen't need another building!!!

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Meredith Heath on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: Please help the over population of animals. Let's get the population down to where each and every dog and cat can have a loving and safe home.

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Shannon Wicker on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Cindy Sommers on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Catherine Hough on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Richard Sidebottom on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: I would prefer to see that this money is spent supporting facilities that already exist in our community to care for animals. An additional facilities will sap the pool of resources available for existing facilities, create an additional facility for the community to maintain, and will create the sense that there is "plenty of space" for unwanted animals.

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Tawney Wade on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Amy Wilson on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Mark Gillespie on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Tina F. Dantzler on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Tina F. Dantzler on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Tracy Weldon on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Katherine Daniel on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Mildred Krause on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: It would be more practical to prevent overpopulation of animals than to try to find homes for them. For once, please do something with our money that will show real results. Fund the spay/neutering program.

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: Why would you council members (some of you respectable) sign for such an expensive building, when you could actually use the tax money towards a real solution. I smell special interests here... which one of you has connections in project pet Your running of this city for the most part has been questionable at best. Its time you make a good decision.

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Jan Hendrick on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Scott Hendrix on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: I agree with Pets Inc. on this issue. Scott Hendrix

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Ina Fort on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: absolutely I do not want my tax money spent in Harbison. Its our money , not yours. Do not waste it -spent it on humane spay and nuter programs in depressed economic areas.

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Jami Hawkins on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Reggie Fanning on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: I respectfully request that the money be allocated for spay & neutering.

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Julie Ellis on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: Lexington County just upgraded their shelter a few years ago. What we need now is get to the people who let their animals produce litter after litter. This isn't happening in the shopping district! It's happening in the rural areas. What is this $1 million requirement to bid Who else but the Mungos & Project Pet can do that It makes me wonder if this grant is really about the animals

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Anonymous on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Jan Shaw, M.S., L.M.T. on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: Project Pet is a private business wishing to build a building for a wonderful cause. Taxpayer dollars are not given to private businesses to erect their facilities. Why would you give Project Pet my tax dollars to build a building whose price, first of all, is padded beyond normal building costs, who's owners can pay for the building, and who's owners have not demonstrated dedication to their business over the 14 years that I've known about Project Pet. The business has not grown. Pets Incorporated has built 3 buildings that I know of in that time frame, from private and personal funds, without tax dollars hand outs. They've placed thousands of animals and I've fostered over a dozen until they were successfully placed by Pets Inc. There are many worthy animal organizations in the Midlands who could all benefit from a neutral spay/neuter clinic. This would prevent dogs and cats from being born like the few pittiful cases that I have personally fostered and helped nurse back to health. In addition, I have personally built my business by the usual private business manner of bank loans and operating a second business to support both myself and the primary business. You didn't offer me an easier road. Tax dollars are not to be distributed to the wealthy for private business development. ---Jan Shaw

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: TRACY KUERTI on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: Jane & Pat at Pets, Inc. should be listened to carefully. These ladies have given their own money and so much of their full time to homeless animals for many, many years now. We very much need more spaying and neutering of animals to curb the overpopulation and have less and less unwanted and homeless animals. Thank you

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Lilly Shealy on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: It is the responsibility of all council members to see that this money is spent wisely, and where the pets will benefit the most. Project Pet is a risky and expensive venture . I suspect some "good old boy politics" going on here, and it usually is, when things just don't make sense. Sounds like another "no-bid contract" to me, and I would support an independent assessment. I will be watching and listening for your involvement. I have witnessed many years of true dedication to the animal cause from PETS, Inc. Unbelievable what they have accomplished. My zip code is 29205...and my council members have counted on me to support them. Now I count on them to fairly support the animal population and the efforts of PETS, Inc.

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Nancy Pitts on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Todd Coey on Jan 18, 2008

    Comments: The spay /neuter program is a more common sense approach.

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 18 › »