Jason Chavez, a Minneapolis city council member, has had to explain his comments over the past few days following remarks that self-driving cars are “murdering” pets. The statements were made during a meeting where he advocated for an ordinance mandating a human operator and a special license for all autonomous vehicles.
Chavez said during the meeting, “I will say cats have been killed and cats have been killed by these autonomous vehicles.” He also said, “I just watched a video sitting here from the dais, and it was really hard to watch. Literally, cats being murdered by these vehicles.”
Thursday saw the measure narrowly approved, and Mayor Jacob Frey has since said he intends to veto the proposal in a statement to multiple Minnesota outlets.
Frey’s Response
Frey said the proposal “doesn’t make sense” and that the city will continue embracing “innovative technology,” including transportation options. He acknowledged safety concerns but said he would not support a “backdoor ban” of the vehicles.
Backers say making a human operator necessary would bar autonomous taxi services and push prices up. Critics say the technology carries safety risks and removes jobs.
The debate has drawn attention online, particularly from conservative voices.
The Reaction Online
Dustin Grage, writing for Townhall, published a post on X where he pointed to a specific number. That figure was “The Minneapolis City Council wants to require a human in driverless vehicles because cats are being ‘murdered’ by them.”, which represents Chavez’s yearly pay at $110,000.
X has two distinct items attributed to Grage, one a quotation and the other a figure. The quotation is marked as “They’re calling it the cat genocide”, and the figure appears as “Hide your cats. The Waymos are coming.”.
On X, conservative commentator Gunther Eagleman wrote: “LOL! MINNEAPOLIS HAS FOUND ITS REAL CRISIS, AND IT’S ROBOT CARS ‘MURDERING’ CATS.”
Instead of focusing on homelessness, Eagleman said the city should tackle crime and fraud, which he described as a sign of failed leadership. His position came with this statement: “A council member in a city that let rioters burn down a police precinct and watched a $250 million fraud scheme happen under its nose now wants a human in every driverless car to protect the cats.”.
That’s what he said, adding “He’s pulling down $110,000 a year of taxpayer money to say this with a straight face. Minneapolis doesn’t have a driverless car problem. It has a leadership problem.”.
Fox News Digital columnist David Marcus posted on X: “They’re driving over the cats, they’re driving over the dogs!”
Three Rivers Park Commissioner Jennifer DeJournett posted on X: “Why is a city council member making 110,000 when families and seniors are getting priced out of their homes in Minneapolis and taxes are sky rocking???? That’s absurd – where is the equality in that???”
Journalist Zaid Jilani posted on X: “Fwiw I’ve been in a self-driving Tesla that stopped for cats to cross the road and Waymo is a lot more advanced.”
Dealer Teamwork CEO and co-founder Sean Stapleton posted on X: “My FSD Tesla avoids animals on the road. He is full of it.”
Related Story
Another account covers a distinct occurrence: “TERRIFIED PASSENGERS FILM WAYMO AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE DRIVING INTO LIVE FIREWORKS IN SAN FRANCISCO”.
What Happens Next
The ordinance’s future rests with Frey’s veto pen. The sequence of events follows:
- Chavez makes his remarks during a meeting advocating for a human operator mandate.
- Thursday sees the measure narrowly approved.
- Frey says he intends to veto the proposal.
- The veto is expected.
“He’s pulling down $110,000 a year of taxpayer money to say this with a straight face. Minneapolis doesn’t have a driverless car problem. It has a leadership problem.”
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the veto and is against the ordinance, which would hand new licensing authority to a city office. The measure treats autonomous vehicles as a danger to cats rather than a matter of public safety, and it would force every such vehicle to carry a licensed human operator — a mandate that punishes innovation and raises costs for riders while doing little to protect actual people.
The city already has tools to address genuine dangers from driverless cars, and Frey’s stated intention to embrace innovative technology is the right approach. The paper agrees with him that a “backdoor ban” would do more harm than good.
The criticism from Grage, Eagleman, Marcus, DeJournett, Jilani and Stapleton, while often delivered with humor, points to real questions about how a city spends its resources. A council member earning $110,000 a year should be focused on housing, taxes and public safety, not on whether cats can cross the road safely.
Source material: “Blue state councilman mocked after claiming self-driving cars are 'murdering' pets: 'Hide your cats',” Fox News.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.