July 04, 2007 06:35 PM UTC

Defending Monty's Honor: Denver's Example of the Difference Between Legislating and Overlegislating

• 3 Comments
• by: davidsirota

Today’s story in the Denver Post is a pretty solid example of the difference between legislating and overlegislating. Apparently, Denver is experiencing a citywide law enforcement crackdown on the supposed frightening emergency that is a wave of people daring to have their dogs with them when they sit in the outdoor patio sections of public restaurants. The horror, I know.

Obviously, there are certain basic laws governing  the economy that are really important – like laws protecting the environment, which we as a society have no choice but to rely on to sustain human life. The same thing goes for the food service industry in particular. Take, for instance, Colorado’s restaurant smoking ban. This is a necessary health protection to make sure the thousands of people who work in restaurants aren’t forced to breathe in second-hand smoke that they physically would not be otherwise able to avoid in doing their job. Similarly, no one should have any problem whatsoever with the basic laws that prevent pets from being inside restaurants, so as to prevent their fur or whatever other unsanitary detritus from floating into food being prepared. All of that is just solid legislating – and in our deregulated economy, we need more of those kinds of commonsense protections, not less.

But laws preventing dogs from being on outdoor sidewalk sections of coffee shops? Seriously, is that some sort of bad joke?

I guess I’ll leave open the possibility that there is some utterly compelling case to be made that someone having their dog on the sidewalk outside a coffee shop (as opposed to a food-preparing restaurant) is some sort of massive public health emergency. But it seems to me that this is just overlegislating, especially when you consider that the justification for the law is, according to the Post, to appease “patrons who prefer a dog-free patio” and “complain about the four-legged visitors.” I mean, out of all the public health issues in a state whose budget has been handcuffed by TABOR, aren’t there just a few more pressing priorities for our public health officials to be spending precious resources on than making sure dog haters can drink their lattes without – gasp! – having to look at the Fidos they so despise?

This isn’t in any way to say that we need a Dog Bill of Rights, forcing coffee shops to automatically allow dogs, or preventing them from banning dogs on their property. And this isn’t to say that patrons at eating establishments have to like dogs on patios. But this is really the kind of thing that should be left up the free market – and I say that as someone who is, to say the least, not a free market fundamentalist.

If you don’t like people bringing their pets with them to the outdoor sections of a given coffee shop, then go get your cup of Joe somewhere else. In the words of Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross: “If you don’t like it, leave.” Unlike other necessities where regulation really is necessary (think health care, energy, etc.), you don’t NEED to go to a specific coffee shop if you don’t like its pet policy.

Similarly, if a coffee shop doesn’t like dogs or has a marketing plan to specifically cater to dog-haters, that proprietor should be allowed to simply ban pets on its patio. But the idea that the city government needs to issue a blanket ban to specifically appease a group of “patrons who prefer a dog-free patio” and “complain about the four-legged visitors” – well, you don’t need to be a card carrying libertarian or someone with an overly extreme sense of the Great American West’s ethos of individualism to know that’s just absolutely ludicrous.

POINT OF DISCLOSURE: If this post seems like a bit of a rant, I apologize up front, but I am the proud owner of a dog named Monty (whom the Rocky Mountain News made fun of), and really have little tolerance for “patrons who prefer a dog-free patio” and who “complain about the four-legged visitors” – and thus who expect a law to be passed to fit the personal fancies/animosities they apparently require as a setting for their coffee-drinking experiences.