Debate over dog poop dominates Charleston City Council discussion 

The Aug. 3 Charleston City Council meeting began on a high note, celebrating George Washington High School’s baseball team for capturing its first-ever state championship. Mayor Amy Goodwin and council members recognized the team for its hard work, setting an example for the next generation. 

The celebration was short lived and quickly gave way to lengthy debate over an ordinance that has been on the books for more than 20 years. That ordinance requires pet owners to clean up after their animal and imposes fines when they fail to do so. 

Although the ordinance itself is routine, the debate over how to proceed with enforcing it caused frustration. 

“The people that are pooping on Capitol Street, in doorways and while I am eating dinner in the middle of the street … And we are worrying about a dog when we have that going on?” council member Pat Jones asked. 

The proposed ordinance amendments would increase fines and eliminate several existing exemptions. 

“I have a constituent who is blind, and he has two dogs. One is a dog who is retired. One is a seeing eye dog, and I am wondering why we are removing these exemptions,” said council member Chelsea Steelhammer.

Supporters of the changes argued that removing exemptions would create a level playing field for everyone and prevent selective enforcement. They also said the ordinance is intended to protect the health and safety of all Charleston residents. 

But Council member Shannon Snodgrass questioned whether the issue deserved so much of the council’s attention. 

“To sit here and spend our time on whether a neighbor’s dog defecates in another neighbor’s yard or public spot … This should be a neighbor-to-neighbor dispute or HOA issue.” Snodgrass said. “From my understanding, there have been only 21 complaints in 20 years or so. We have transparency and term limit bills waiting to be heard. This is what this body is going to consider?” 

Council member Steelhammer introduced an amendment that would give the municipal judge discretion to adjust fines based on individual circumstances in an effort to avoid potential discrimination. Her amendment passed and the bill was referred back to committee. 

Following the debate over the pet waste ordinance, the council shifted its focus to an animal cruelty measure that was proposed after a local shelter employee identified a loophole involving the ownership of animals seized in cruelty cases. 

According to the shelter employee, current law can allow owners accused of animal cruelty to retain legal ownership of seized animals while their cases remain pending, leaving many animals in limbo for months.

Council member Steelhammer said the ordinance would create a legal pathway for those animals to be surrendered and adopted into permanent homes instead of remaining tied up in lengthy court proceedings. The measure received majority support and moved forward.

The council also considered an amendment addressing aggressive dogs running at large that pose a threat to people or other animals. Officials said it has become a recurring issue in which aggressive dogs are repeatedly released after being picked up. Under the proposed amendment, a humane officer would be authorized to impound a dog after it has been captured twice. The measure also received majority support from the council and moved forward.

The council also approved the purchase of safety cylinders and valves for $57,000, paving of a section of Oakwood Road, renewal of the Charleston Police Department’s software for $88,000, and the purchase of a new truck for the Charleston Fire Department for $1.7 million. 

Mayor Goodwin concluded the meeting with congratulations to the most recent graduating team of police officers. She gave their praises and mentioned the continued teamwork of the Charleston Police Department and the CARE team. 

Council member Snodgrass then renewed her request for a public report on the $5 million the city received through a consolidated agreement with the county. She said the report should outline how much has been spent, what funds remain and exactly how the money has been allocated.

“There are more than 20 bills that have not been heard in committee. They’ve been cross-referred between multiple committees, and I would like to see them move forward and finally be heard. Some of them have been waiting for several years,” she said.

Council member Snodgrass also requested updates from several city departments and again urged the council to prioritize hearing the backlog of pending legislation. She concluded her remarks by criticizing how much time had been devoted to debating the pet waste ordinance, compared to other issues she believes deserve greater attention.

“I find it very interesting that this council spent fifty minutes on dog excrement. Fifty minutes. Months ago, we spent two minutes because a council member shut down debate on a raise for our legacy members—twenty-five cents. Just a point of order,” Snodgrass said.

As the session drew to a close, the dialogue had expanded significantly past pet-related measures, exposing friction over government transparency, the backlog of pending bills and the proper allocation of the body’s limited time.