Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??

[Lernermichelle]

Look at the reasoning used in the decisions you have where ordinances were struck down, and see if you can use that.    Also, if you can get one of your "expert" witnesses-- the vet or the animal services person who is writing you a letter-- to say in a letter or in testimony that different species and sized animals need different amounts of space and that, as far as they are concerned, the formula in the ordinance has no relation to the amount of space that any particular species of animal actually needs, and to give a different opinion of how to determine whether cats are too crowded or not, that should be more than enough.  At that point the burden should switch back to the city to prove that there is some rational basis to the formula that they use.   If you can, you might also want to contact animal control or the mayor's office in other cities in NM, like Santa Fe, and also nearby towns, like Corrales, to see if they have ordinances limited animal numbers and if so what the language is.  If they do not have limits on the numbers, or if the limits they have are more flexible or make more sense than the Albuquerque one, you might want to submit those as well to bolster your claim that when cities try to figure out limits on animals for health and safety they do not use the bizarre formula that Albuquerque does.  I am not sure if this will work or not. it sort of depends on what you find out. Just a thought.   Michelle   In a message dated 12/9/2005 8:40:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was also reading some stuff on the website from other cases.. that when it’s assumed that the ordinance does not make sense, it’s a burden of the challenger (which is me) to prove that it’s not -----and though it totally does not make how they calculate how many animals one can have.. how do I prove it it does not make sense scientifically???