Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Cats may be gone, but drama drags on

It's unclear what happened to the colony of almost 50 that lived in a New Port Richey neighborhood. But those involved haven't let the issue die.

By PHIL DAVIS
Published October 3, 2005

NEW PORT RICHEY - The fate of the Foley Square felines is uncertain.

The people involved either don't know or won't say what became of the cat colony - one estimate put the kitty count at 47 - that used to lounge around the Burns Point neighborhood on the Pithlachascotee River.

The furry little strays might be gone, but they left behind an impressive paper trail, including:

--A police complaint accusing New Port Richey Public Works Director Tom O'Neill of catching neighborhood cats and abandoning them at the city mulch yard. No charges were filed.

--Two liens totaling $10,530 on an expensive riverfront home for cat-related code violations. The enforcement file is as thick as three phone books.

--A cat-specific legal memo, written by the same assistant city attorney who aggressively pursued the code enforcement case, noting the city's animal code is contrary to state law.

--A lawsuit accusing the city of overstepping its authority in prosecuting the cat case. The suit seeks damages of more than $15,000.

City Attorney Tom Morrison said the cats cost taxpayers "a few thousand dollars" in legal fees as the city pursued code violations against Dr. James DeGrace, a chiropractor whose riverfront home, 5431 Foley Square, was identified as the epicenter of the cat colony.

Through his attorney, DeGrace declined to comment last week. But his tale of cat care gone awry is well-documented in code enforcement transcripts.

* * *

Local animal shelters were full after the no-name storm of 1993. DeGrace agreed to help and quickly got a reputation as the go-to guy for cats. He told code enforcement officials in 2001 that he'd spent $20,000 on cat care, including spaying 75.

In official records, DeGrace never denied caring for the cats. But he was careful not to take ownership of the whole horde. He described many of the cats as feral.

"I don't go out collecting cats," DeGrace said, according to a code enforcement transcript. "I live in a quarter-of-a-million dollar house. To insinuate that I would let my house get devastated by fleas and (something) on my lawn is ludicrous and ridiculous."

DeGrace's home sits on some of the most attractive property in the city. Comparable houses now are selling for about $400,000, tax records show.

A former girlfriend who lived in the house in 2003 found the cat situation chaotic.

"He has 47 cats living in his home, and that's a code violation," Lauri Ann Block told lawyers in an unrelated lawsuit in August 2004. "He takes them to the vet, he takes care of them and makes sure they have all their rabies shots ... this started out as a project between him and the city but it ended up - he became a collector of the cats."

The first code complaint came in 1999. Complaints centered on the number of cats and "the noise, the smell and the dirt." The last complaint log, which ended Feb. 20, 2004, simply says "VIOLATION STILL EXISTS" 10 times. City photos taken in 2004 show cats sitting in DeGrace's driveway, sleeping in a curled up hose or hanging out on awnings.

DeGrace was cited for keeping too many pets, letting animals run loose and allowing his property to be used for junk collection.

* * *

Code enforcement fines kept piling up at a rate of $100 a day. To collect, the city filed a $2,565 lien against DeGrace's house in February 2002. Two years later, it filed another lien for $7,965.

DeGrace succeeded in appealing two of the three code enforcement charges in circuit court, but the enforcement board chose to leave the fines intact.

On Sept. 19, DeGrace sued. His attorney is attacking the authority of the code enforcement board to take on animal cases. A state law says those issues should be heard in county court.

Among the evidence submitted by DeGrace's attorney, Edward Cole, is a city legal memo that says of the animal code: "Current city code provisions are, quite frankly, inadequate and do not comply with Florida statutes."

"That's the smoking gun," Cole said. "I think its very, very clear."

Morrison, the city attorney, said DeGrace appealed and lost.

"Our argument is you don't get two bites of the apple," Morrison said Friday. "It was already appealed, and the prosecution was upheld. And, to me, that's the end of the story."

* * *

While the legal drama dragged on, O'Neill, the city's public works director who lived around the corner from DeGrace on Jasmine Drive, started removing the cats.

"They were doing their business in my yard, getting up on my truck, my boat, and scratching it, and generally making a mess," O'Neill said Friday, adding that he was acting as a resident, not a city official. "I trapped them and relocated them."

DeGrace complained to police. According to a Jan. 25 police report, O'Neill caught at least two stray cats in a city trap and released them near the city's mulch pile on Pine Hill Road. Cole demanded a criminal investigation. But the officer who looked into it just advised O'Neill to call police or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals instead of taking action on his own. Police records show he turned in three more cats in February.

When asked why he released the nuisance cats in another neighborhood, O'Neill said, "I don't really know. I wanted them out of my yard. They were causing damage, and I just got tired of it."

[Last modified October 3, 2005, 01:15:16]