On the final night of its four-year term, Stamford’s 31st Board of Representatives did something extraordinary. By a vote of 35 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention, it passed Ordinance 1321, which finally aligned our city with the growing national movement to end the retail sale of dogs and cats sourced from the abusive conditions of large-scale commercial breeding facilities.
This ordinance was the product of years of work, committee discussion, public testimony, statutory review and legal analysis. It reflected the will of residents who understand that a humane city does not allow itself to be a conduit in the puppy-mill pipeline. It was, by every measure, an act of moral leadership.
And then came the veto.
The Mayor’s message cites “state preemption,” “legal risk,” and the claim that municipalities “cannot ban the sale of dogs and cats by licensed pet shops.” It is a familiar argument — one that has been repeated for years by the Department of Agriculture and by the pet-shop lobbying apparatus that depends on municipal inaction to survive.
But it is an argument that does not withstand scrutiny.
What the Law Actually Says — and What It Does Not Say
Connecticut is not a pure Dillon’s Rule state. Municipalities act under broad grants of authority unless the state expressly removes that authority. When the Board of Representative’s Legislative & Rules Committee reviewed this issue, members used a well-established combination of statutory powers under §7-148, including:
- Prevention of cruelty to animals (§7-148(c)(7)(D)(i))
- Regulation of the keeping of domestic animals (§7-148(c)(7)(D)(ii))
- Regulation of businesses that may be prejudicial to public health or conducive to fraud (§7-148(c)(7)(H)(ii))
- General authority to adopt ordinances in furtherance of these powers (§7-148(c)(10)(A))
These provisions form the backbone of local business regulation in Connecticut. Stamford has used them — without controversy — to enact:
- A stronger plastic-bag ban than the state’s
- Pesticide restrictions
- Environmental protections
- Numerous consumer-protection ordinances
- Regulations affecting land use, housing, and quality of life
If the Mayor’s theory were correct, nearly every major municipal ordinance in Stamford would be vulnerable to claims of “state preemption.” Yet we enforce them all — because state law does not strip cities of their power to act unless the legislature says so explicitly.
And here, the legislature has said nothing of the sort.
There is no statute in Title 22, Title 7, or Title 8 that prohibits a municipality from regulating the commercial sale of animals. Licensing of pet shops by the state does not preempt local regulation any more than state licensing of restaurants prevents cities from regulating food trucks, zoning, business hours or health codes.
Municipalities regulate businesses every day.
Stamford does it every week.
The ordinance is not illegal, nor unenforceable.
It is merely unwelcome to the entities who profit from the cruelty pipeline.
Why the Dept. of Agriculture’s Position Is Not Neutral — and Why It Should Not Drive Municipal Law
The veto message echoes the Dept. of Agriculture’s long-standing claim that municipalities “cannot” act in this area. But the department is not an objective stakeholder. It is the agency that licenses the very pet shops that obtain animals from large-scale commercial breeders whose histories include repeated Animal Welfare Act violations.
The department, over multiple administrations, has opposed numerous animal-welfare initiatives — from municipal reforms to statewide legislation. The agency also oversees municipal animal shelters, many of which remain underfunded and in distress despite repeated inspection failures. There is a structural reluctance to embracing reforms that require assertive oversight or challenge existing relationships.
Yet the department’s preference is not statutory law.
A municipality’s legal authority is determined by the statutes enacted by the General Assembly — not by the Department of Agriculture’s internal policy preferences, and certainly not by meetings between the Mayor and department officials.
A former legislator would know this.
And Stamford deserves an executive who remembers it.
The “Symbolic” Argument — and Why It Misses the Point Entirely
The veto message claims signing the ordinance would be “a symbolic act.” That only underscores how deeply the true legal analysis has been mischaracterized.
If the ordinance were truly symbolic — meaning the city lacked the power to enforce it — then:
- There would be no litigation risk, because a symbolic ordinance cannot be enforced and therefore cannot create liability.
- The Dept. of Agriculture and the pet-shop lobby would have no reason to stop it, since symbolism poses no threat to their business model.
Yet both entities pushed forcefully to stop the ordinance.
That alone reveals the truth: the ordinance is not symbolic.
It is effective.
This is why communities across the country — from large cities to small towns — have enacted nearly identical bans. Municipalities everywhere have used their business-regulation and animal-welfare powers to stop the cruelty pipeline, without state preemption.
Stamford could have joined them.
Instead, we chose hesitation wrapped in legal misinterpretation.
Danbury Shows What Moral Clarity Looks Like
Meanwhile, Danbury — a city that was not even discussing this issue a month ago — is now moving toward adopting its own ordinance after intense public backlash to a state senator’s social media post celebrating a pet shop selling puppy-mill animals.
Danbury residents spoke.
City officials listened.
Momentum shifted.
If Danbury passes an ordinance while Stamford vetoes its own, the contrast will be unmistakable:
One city rising to the moment, the other shrinking from it.
In the national conversation on puppy-mill reform, Stamford will not be remembered as a leader. It will be remembered as the city that stepped back just as others stepped forward.
The Charter Issue — A Separate Problem of Process and Transparency
The City Charter requires that ordinances be printed or typewritten, signed by the Board of Representatives President, attested by the Clerk and presented to the Mayor within two business days. That is the legal start of the ten-business-day veto window.
But for years, Stamford has operated instead on “action reports” that do not comply with the Charter’s formal requirements. The Mayor issued a prior veto earlier this year without ever receiving a properly signed, printed ordinance. That raises real procedural questions — questions that now affect not one ordinance, but four.
A city governed by law cannot ignore its own Charter selectively.
If the Charter was not followed, in common practice, then the veto window may not have been properly evaluated, potentially invalidating the timeline the administration now claims.
This is a matter the Board must address immediately.
Our laws are not optional, and process is not cosmetic.
What the New Board Must Do Now
Stamford’s incoming Board of Representatives has inherited a defining moment. Overrides require a two-thirds vote of the full Board — a high threshold, but a necessary one.
The question before the new Board is simple:
Will Stamford be a city that protects the voiceless, or a city that defers to political pressure?
This is not only about animal welfare.
This is also about the role of municipal government, the integrity of the Charter, and whether Stamford’s legislative branch will fulfill its constitutional role as a check on the executive.
Leadership is not tested in easy moments.
This is the test.
And the animals waiting in the pipeline do not have time for political caution.
Stamford Should Lead — Not Retreat
As someone who has spent years fighting for humane policy at every level of government, I know how hard these battles can be. I also know when a community reaches a moral crossroads.
The Board of Representatives already chose the path of courage.
The Mayor chose the path of retreat.
Now the new board must choose which path defines Stamford.
Cities are remembered for what they protect.
Let Stamford be remembered not for stepping back, but for stepping up.
—
David Michel is a former Connecticut State Rep. and served parts of Stamford from January 2019 to 2025. He was Assistant Majority Whip and Co-Chair of the bipartisan CT Animal Advocacy Caucus (for 6 years).