I am dying for Cam’s perspective on this story and this related post from Cato@Liberty.

Amid the goods found in the stores, there is one thing that many owners and employees say they cannot do without: their cats. And it goes beyond cuddly companionship. These cats are workers, tireless and enthusiastic hunters of unwanted vermin, and they typically do a far better job than exterminators and poisons.

[snip]

But as efficient as the cats may be, their presence in stores can lead to legal trouble. The city’s health code and state law forbid animals in places where food or beverages are sold for human consumption. Fines range from $300 for a first offense to $2,000 or higher for subsequent offenses.

“Any animal around food presents a food contamination threat,” said Robert M. Corrigan, a rodentologist and research scientist for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “And so that means anything from animal pieces and parts to hair and excrement could end up in food, and that alone, of course, is a violation of the health code.”

[snip]

“He wants me to get rid of the cat, but the rats will take over if I do,” Mr. Martinez [a bodega owner] said. “I need the cat, and the cat needs a home.”

[snip]

Many bodega owners reason that a cat is less of a health threat than an army of nibbling rats. “If cats live in homes and apartments where people have food, a cat shouldn’t be a threat in a store if it’s well maintained,” Mr. Fernández [another store owner] said.

So, the city doesn’t want the stores to have rats, but it also doesn’t want the stores to keep cats in order to keep the rats away.

Just one more example of the government getting in the way of common sense.

Cam: Back in the old days before I met my wife, she lived in public housing in Camden, New Jersey. She hates cats, but had to resort to having one as a mouser.

I hate cats too, but I’d much rather see a cat in a convenience store than a rat. Then again, when you have a rat as a mayor, what do you expect?