Dear Editor:
On Wednesday evening, April 25, four highly respected humane groups, which have thus raised $525,000 to build a new animal shelter in Jersey City, were seeking City Council approval to begin site planning on land that has been vacant for 20 years. The major opposition to this effort came from SPCA’s Thomas Hart, Director of the SPCA Assisi animal shelter in Jersey City. On the same day, the State of New Jersey published a report which declared Assisi to be the worst animal shelter in the state, calling it far from adequate in terms of capacity as well as operations, and totally unacceptable (not to mention detailed allegations of abuse of the animals and financial improprieties.) Mr. Hart spoke at length, sometimes on topic and sometimes out in left field, but he went on and on, completely contradicting himself on many key points. For example, he stated that he had actually written the proposal for the four other groups, but that since they had split off from him (?), the City Council should deem the proposal no good. He claimed that the site is a toxic waste dump and that he would not even sink a pole for a sign into it, but he then argued that the property is worth millions of dollars and so the city should not allow it to be utilized by the “competing” shelters. He argued that the Council should foster cohesion (but only by forcing the other groups to be subservient to him),while consistently speaking on an “us vs. them” basis. He argued that the City should not “trust” these groups, but it should trust him only (considering the history of his shelter, this is an incredible insult).
He was unable to provide coherent or complete answers to basic questions, such as who is on the Board of Directors of his shelter and where their funding comes from, etc, etc. Bottom line, the Jersey City Assisi Animal Shelter and its Director are a disgrace in their own right, but Mr. Hart’s attempt to block other worthwhile efforts for the animals, which he admits that he cannot provide for a fraction of the needs of the community anyway, is scandalous and totally unacceptable. Mr. Hart obtains a lot of press in the Reporter, mostly self-laudatory letters to the editor. How about reporting on these other groups’ efforts and also on Mr. Hart’s opposition to their efforts? His impassioned opposition to these worthy projects should cause a good investigative reporter to question Mr. Hart’s motivations and the sincerity of welfare?
Tom Ronell