City puts bite in 'no barking' ordinance

With cities like this.... who needs Home Owner Associations....
(For those of you how don't get it... Cities = Friends (normally) while HOA = Enemy)

An outright ban on owning a dog would probably not be accepted, but this round-about-way to ban it is! I wonder why? I guess it is kind of like the frog that get cooked because it cannot sense a slow rise in water temperature. People just don't sense these encroachments on our rights.

The Daily Commercial | City puts bite in 'no barking' ordinance


UPDATE
http://www.wftv.com/news/14100550/detail.html
It seems people are in an uproar over this... as they should be! Which proves my point that "city government" is large enough to have enough diversity (of opinion if nothing else) to protect people's rights. Small HOA simply do not. I'm sure a rule like this would pass easily in a bunch of HOA across the country. People think "I don't have a dog" or "My small dog's bark can't be heard outside the house" so why should I care about and protect other people's rights. It's only when you have enough people, so of which that think "wait a minute, I have a dog, and he barks more than 3 times a day." that people are moved to protect their own and other people's rights.

The best quote form the above link: "I'm a little perplexed myself at how much publicity this has generated," said police chief Randy Scoggins."

Could this guy be any more clueless?? What did he think would happen with a law that tickets a dog owner for having a dog that does ..well it does what dogs do -- BARK.

Also - Mt. Dora's chief of police said he got a telephone call all the way from London, England. A reporter for the BBC believes the city's plan to quiet barking dogs goes too far.