Lakewood vs. RR: Battle for Dog Park

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:07 am

From Cleveland.com this morning...

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindeal ... xml&coll=2

Are we able to send a crew over to their yards to collect noise level information?

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:21 am

What's with the claim about the people coming at night "toting flashlights and candles." ? I find that hard to believe.

What's really funny are the comments posted after the story. Looks like supporters outnumber the whiners.

IMO, unless the complainers can PROVE the park violates noise ordinances, they can't win. Lakewood apparently has conducted these tests and the park never exceeded posted limits. Therefore, I predict a loss for Rocky River.

I also question why the city of Rocky River is involved in the suit. Why didn't the "affected" homeowners file the suit? Why did the city choose to get involved and spend River city tax monies to assert the cause of just TWO homeowners?

J Hrlec · Post by **J Hrlec** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:21 am

Bret Callentine wrote:From Cleveland.com this morning...

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindeal ... xml&coll=2

Are we able to send a crew over to their yards to collect noise level information?

I mean how ridiculous is that... do we need to start handing out Lakewood residence passes so no Rocky River people can use the dog park? Of course I think not, since that would be almost as ridiculous as this lawsuit.

Colleen Wing · Post by **Colleen Wing** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:27 am

http://www.westlifenews.com/2007/08-01/dogpark.html

This one is in WestLife.

Mike Deneen · Post by **Mike Deneen** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:02 pm

Newnet5 is doing an online poll about the dog park. Feel free to click over and vote in support of the park!

http://www.newsnet5.com/family/13830273/detail.html

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:57 pm

Vote early, vote often...

Phil Florian · Post by **Phil Florian** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:17 pm

dl meckes wrote:Vote early, vote often...

Scary but true. It is voting, Chicago style.

Richard Cole · Post by **Richard Cole** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:08 pm

Just voted in the Newsnet 5 poll - currently its in the Dogs favor 75-25.

The times I've taken our two dogs down there, I'm always surprised at how quiet it is.

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:14 pm

Jeff Endress wrote:It could be appropriate (and more effective than petitions) for those who are involved as Friends of the Dog park, and users of the facility to request of the court that they be permitted to intervene as interested parties, to set forth their own specific concerns which may, or may not, be adequately addressed by the named parties.

Intervening would be at the discretion of the court, but if allowed, would dramatically increase the scope of the litigation to include those affected. It isn't necessary that an intervenor be represented, they can proceed "pro se", but if allowed, would be entitled to notification of dates as well as service of papers and pleading which are filed.

I'm not certain, because the online records are not specific, but I am assuming, given the short date for the scheduled hearing, that what the court will decide on 8/15 is whether to grant either a temporary restraining order or injunction against continued operation. If that is the case, the plaintiffs have to demonstrate ongoing irreparable harm, as well as the probability of succeeding in the full trial on the merits. The Court should require more than mere anecdotal evidence and the plaintiffs should have to demonstrate that the issues of which they complain have a basis in fact. I would imagine that proving that the noise is specific to the dog park, as opposed to the pound, or other sources of noise will require some rather specific scientific evidence. The same holds true for smells, separating the dog park from the water treatment plant. As for the dog bite issues, unless there are reports and claims, that would be mere speculation. The 8/15 hearing is, most likely, just the first salvo of the war, but it's outcome could well affect the eventual final result.

Jeff

This was a great suggestion - any action on it? Who would make the request?

Mike Deneen · Post by **Mike Deneen** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:19 pm

The dog park will be a topic of discussion on "sound of ideas" tomorrow at 9am on WCPN 90.3 FM.

It is a call-in show, so please feel free to call in.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm

Would it be in bad taste to the TP or egg the hosues of the complainers?

Bret Callentine · Post by **Bret Callentine** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:47 am

I renew my request from the earlier thread. If indeed we are forced to move the dog park, I suggest moving it to the top of the hill and adding a giant trebuchet that at the top of each hour will fling all of the "natural byproduct" across the river.

Jim, which do you think is best for the tee shirts?

Rockport Excrement Artillery Brigade
Lakewood Medieval Arts Association
North Coast River Defense Guild

Jeff Endress · Post by **Jeff Endress** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:40 am

North Coast River Defense Guild

I like that one, Bret. And speaking of Brets, Regina did a nice hacket job in her column this AM.....

Jeff

Gary Rice · Post by **Gary Rice** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:03 am

Aren't we in the "Dog Days" of August?

Therefore, how can we lose any kind of court battle?

In lieu of court costs, we might have the protagonists clean the dog park for a month or two.

Phil Florian · Post by **Phil Florian** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:12 am

The Dog Song, in honor of this historic court battle. Song by Nellie McKay on the David Letterman show. Catchy, I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PBxZYPL_Q