As the Weekly's Patrick Range McDonald reports, John D'Amico wants the Westside city to be free from the ravages of silky smooth clothing made from otherwise cozy critters.
D'Amico states on his site:
"West Hollywood has the opportunity to once again be a leader for animal welfare by becoming the first fur free city in the nation."
Strict limits over smoking in the city are already in place. Is this taking things too far. And, more importantly, as commenter of the day Brett asks, would it be legal?
"So, anybody wearing fur or fur products gets arrested? I don't see this law surviving a challenge. Unlike anti-smoking ordinances, which debatably have something to do with public health (even though non-smokers are still sucking in exhaust fumes from gas-burning cars in those "no smoking" cities), a ban on fur has nothing to do with public health and everything to do with legislating some kind of morality. It's no good when the Right does it, and it's no better when the Left does it."
Actually, the idea, as we understand it, would have WeHo ban retail fur sales, possibly at places the city wouldn't want to lose to nearby Beverly Hills or Los Angeles: boutiques and clothiers like Maxfield, Alexander McQueen, John Varvatos, 3.1 Philip Lim, and more.
But it's a good point: In West Hollywood, the left is so wacky about its animals (the city also has a cat-declawing ban on the books) that it could be seen as more rigid and controlling than the right, which, as Sarah Palin would attest, seems to like its animals dead, claws and all.