cats

Regulation of the Day 188: Cat Licenses

by Ryan Young on July 27, 2011 · 1 comment

in Features, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

Post image for Regulation of the Day 188: Cat Licenses

San Diego’s city government is going through tough financial times. But legislators have found a lucrative possible revenue source: the city’s 373,000 cats. The city government could raise a lot of money by requiring cat owners to purchase a license for their little friends at $25 each.

Compliance rates for pet licenses tend to be low. Two-thirds of Los Angeles’ dog owners don’t bother licensing their dogs, even though they’re required to by law. With cats, compliance would probably be even lower. Many cats are indoor-only, and are thus easy to hide from regulators. They don’t need to be walked in public daily like dogs do.

The city seems to be fine with that. It just wants some money, according to NBC’s San Diego affiliate in an article cleverly titled “Cat Owners Hiss at Licensing Proposal“:

If just 5 percent had been registered at $25 a head, the auditor’s office says the city could have saved $536,000 over the past three fiscal years.

Curiously worded. For the city government to save money, it would have to spend less. Here the city auditor is saying the city government would save money by taxing more. For that statement to be true, residents’ money couldn’t actually be theirs. It would be the government’s. They’re just nice enough to let the citizens have some of it. That ugly philosophical presumption alone is enough to discredit this proposal.

[click to continue…]

Regulation of the Day 69: Owning More than Three Cats

by Ryan Young on November 4, 2009

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Regulation of the Day

A new ordinance in Dudley, Massachusetts makes it illegal to own more than three cats without government consent. (Hat tip: Drudge)

Having solved all of the community’s other problems, regulators now have the time to turn their attention to what is apparently a spat between neighbors. One resident is upset that the 15 cats (!) owned by a neighboring woman have been sullying his yard.

I might suggest that Coaseian bargaining might be a better solution than a law.

A fiat decision in favor of one party will leave at least one disputant dissatisfied. In this case, the cat lady is looking to move to a different town. Why not treat both parties as equals with rights to need to be respected? That approach is far more likely to generate an outcome everyone is happy with.

Presumably the offended neighbor is willing to pay some amount to keep the cats off of his yard. The cat lady is also willing to pay some price to keep her cats. Let them bargain, then. Maybe they can split the cost of building a fence. Whatever they agree on. The point is that there is a missing market here.

Allowing the parties to bargain creates that missing market. It allows the neighbors to come to a peaceful, mutually agreeable solution. Passing a law favoring one over the other is simply unfair.