The Law That Never Worked

[Greg Murray]

Let's just call the dog ban for what it is, a massive fail that has cost the city thousands of dollars and wasted countless hours. Lakewood has had many opportunities to repeal Ordinance 506.01. The one that sticks out in my head the most is the incident with Leonard Shelton. The dog didn't even have "pit" in it. There are plenty more examples like Leonard and Roscoe.

Leonard & Roscoe's Story - http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/ ... ation.html

So here we are today, another good resident and good dog being bullied because of the way the dog looks. When will this stop? When will the city invest all that time and money wasted since 2008 on the dog ban and put it toward enforcement, communication and education related to companion animal safety in Lakewood?

There will never be a magic wand that decreases dog bites in Lakewood to zero. However, a failed law banning a dog based on looks does not make a city safer. The city created a false sense of safety in 2008 by implementing the dog ban and during that time has bullied too many good people and good dogs.

For those of you that don't understand the law, it's not black and white. It's very subjective. We must move to stronger objective breed-neutral laws that are enforceable.

There are “pits” all over Lakewood. All you have to do is look. Look at people walking them. Look down people’s driveways. We are aware of many of them. We see some of the same ones daily. We've been DNA testing many of them to confirm they're over 50%.

The Lakewood law states that a dog that is majority "pit" is illegal in Lakewood. What does that mean? It means that a dog over 50% "pit" is banned from Lakewood. There are many problems with this. Let's assume that DNA tests are accurate. A dog that DNA tests at 62.5% pit may look like a mutt and not have a blocky head that people associate with pits. I have a friend with a dog that is 75% pit and you would never guess it. A dog that DNA tests as 37.5% may very well have the blocky head that makes it look "pit." Most "pits" are just mutts. They're multiple different types of dogs. There are "pits" all around you in Lakewood. You just have to look. A dog is legal at 50% "pit." A dog that is 55% is illegal. What happened in that 5%?

Here’s how they are getting into our city.

- Animal Control approves them, thinking they are under the 50% threshold. But sometimes they’re over the 50%. Multiple different people are visually approving them. Different opinions, different set of eyes…It’s subjective, not objective. I did a public records request and combed through 2 years worth of emails that visual acceptance/denials are all over the place. They have a very difficult job and it's a shame the city has tasked them with approving a pet based on looks. The City of Lakewood approved a dog a few years ago based on photos. That dog was later DNA tested for fun by it's owners. It DNA tested as 100% Amstaff, which is considered a "pit" and illegal in Lakewood. The City of Lakewood approved the very dog they deemed vicious to live in their city. How many other times has this happened over the past 9 years? More that a few times, I can assure you that.

-People move to Lakewood with a dog over 50% “pit” not aware of the law. Because who would ban a dog based on looks? Good people, good dogs. I’ve met many of them. Families with children. Now they fear their furry family member getting taken away.

-People move to Lakewood knowing they’re dog is over 50% “pit” OR they just don’t care, because dangerous is not the way a dog looks. For some people, circumstances require them to move to the city. Why give up a perfectly well behaved family dog?

-As puppies. People rescue puppies from a local shelter, saving a life. The puppy grows up to be a dog over 50% "pit."

The city has an opportunity to do what is right and fix a mistake. It's what we do when we realize that we made a mistake that matters. Let it stand? Or fix it? This issue is not about being right. It is about doing what is right. It's actually very simple and the city is making it very complicated, by putting another good dog on trial. Your tax dollars, down the toilet again.

We are having a peaceful gathering outside of city hall today starting at 2pm in support of Charlie, all the people that have been pushed out of this city because of their dog's looks and all the pits that are currently in Lakewood. Charlie's family had to hire a lawyer....His hearing starts at 3pm.

Dangerous is not the way a dog looks.

I'm With Charlie.

- Greg

[Michael Deneen]

Both science and public opinion demand that this dumb law be repealed.
There is literally NO justification for it.

Will Bullock, Butler, and Summers stubbornly stick to this policy because they refuse to admit they were wrong?
Are they still pandering to a racist element here in Lakewood that wants to "send a message" to black folks thinking of moving here?
Or will they simply do the right thing, change the law, and "Move forward" (they love that catchphrase)
It's OK for politicians to admit they made a mistake. They should come clean and say that they've "evolved on this issue".

[Bridget Conant]

Yes, MOVE FORWARD!

[Amy Martin]

I believe that there are issues more pressing to the City as a whole this year than talk of repealing this ban. To me, this is just lipstick on a pig.

[mjkuhns]

I believe that there are issues more pressing to the City as a whole this year than talk of repealing this ban. To me, this is just lipstick on a pig.

And people are free to talk about, post about, organize around, lobby and campaign on other issues.

To the extent that those other issues might potentially get more attention, if breed-specific legislation vanished from the conversation, I think responsibility lies with Lakewood City Hall. This is, certainly, a trivial issue in that it can be resolved to everyone's benefit at any time, with little effort. Ordinances that leave good animals alone, while doing a better job of managing actually dangerous dogs, are well known and proven.

Adopting such a policy could be taken care of in weeks, and people have been asking the city to do so for years.

Yet instead of making a simple and dependably beneficial change, the City of Lakewood seems to prefer to defend an unhelpful policy in court.

In that light, I think this may represent a pressing issue.

[todd vainisi]

I'm sure I'm not educated enough, but similar to health care reform, I'd like to see new ordinances prepared before repealing other attempts (no matter how misguided) to control animal ownership in Lakewood. I think that would go a long way in winning uncertain voters over who would rather leave things the way they are then wonder what sort of controls would be there instead.

[mjkuhns]

I'm sure I'm not educated enough, but similar to health care reform, I'd like to see new ordinances prepared before repealing other attempts (no matter how misguided) to control animal ownership in Lakewood. I think that would go a long way in winning uncertain voters over who would rather leave things the way they are then wonder what sort of controls would be there instead.

I'm in complete agreement, here (and on health care).

I can't speak for other activists, but Tristan Rader has recommended an ordinance like the one Cleveland approved in 2011. He has talked with one of its authors, gone through the language and believes it can work well here with some minor adaptations to fit the structure of Lakewood.

That's only one option, and it should certainly go through an appropriate process… one benefit of making it a starting point is that Cleveland Animal Control Services e.g. could presumably be reached for some "how's this working" questions, pretty easily.

[Bridget Conant]

Some quotes from Summers from WKYC - it appears to indicate that his concern for "safety" means the city will continue on with this ridiculous law and likely end up costing us taxpayers more money when the city gets sued, which it will.

http://www.wkyc.com/mobile/article/news ... -466781081

According to Lakewood Mayor Mike Summers, it comes down to public safety.

“We’ve had experiences with dogs in this community and this breed in particular, that has indicated that we’re slightly less safe than otherwise,” Summers said.

And in the usual attack mode, Summers claims anti-BSL supporters are EMOTIONAL! Sound familiar?

It’s an emotional issue,” Summers said. “I understand, but we have to make the best judgements that we can and in my opinion, we’re gonna air on the side of being safe.”

[mjkuhns]

As I posted elsewhere just now, breed-specific legislation is opposed by:

• the Center for Disease Control
• the American Bar Association
• the American Veterinary Medical Association
• the National Animal Control Association

I doubt that these organizations are being "carried away by emotion."

Particularly the CDC, which spent 20 years researching BSL policies, and concluded that there is no basis to claim that they represent "the side of safety."

I can cite all of this. I wonder if anyone at Lakewood City Hall can cite their claims.

[m buckley]

And in the usual attack mode, Summers claims anti-BSL supporters are EMOTIONAL! Sound familiar?

It’s an emotional issue,” Summers said. “I understand, but we have to make the best judgements that we can and in my opinion, we’re gonna air on the side of being safe.”

He's in full Big Daddy mode there.
Patronizing. Condescending. We know best. Insular Lakewood Lifer mode.
The truth is it's always about the brand.
It's a gut thing for him.
It's white on white and nowhere near perfect.
It's those people.
It's those people walking those dogs.
Make no mistake, this is an emotional issue for Big Daddy

[dl meckes]

Patronizing. Condescending. We know best. Insular Lakewood Lifer mode.

Mr. Buckley, I assure you that not all Lakewood Lifers march lock step.

I may be patronizing and condescending, but I'm with Charlie.

[Amy Martin]

I found this article to be the least subjective of what I've seen on-line regarding pit bulls:

http://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit ... ttle-girl/

[Missy Limkemann]

If you think breed bans won't ever affect you. The following list contains dog breeds, in alphabetical order, that are either banned from ownership, or restricted so as to make ownership more difficult than owning other breeds, in legislation either passed, proposed, or tabled in venues throughout the United States of America. The breeds are listed by name exactly as they appear in legislation. Redundancy, or misnaming is due to the wording of codes, and/or ordinances. (copy and paste a lot)

1.AIREDALE TERRIER
2.AKBASH
3.AKITA
4.ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG
5,ALASKAN MALAMUTE
6.ALSATIAN SHEPHERD
7.AMERICAN BULLDOG
8.AMERICAN HUSKY
9.AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
10.AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
11.AMERICAN WOLFDOG
12.ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD
13.ARIKARA DOG
14.AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
15.AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
16.BELGIAN MALINOIS
17.BELGIAN SHEEPDOG
18.BELGIAN TURVUREN
19.BLUE HEELER
20.BOERBUL
21.BORZOI
22.BOSTON TERRIER
23.BOUVIER DES FLANDRES
24.BOXER
25.BULLDOG
26.BULL TERRIER
27.BULL MASTIFF
28.CANE CORSO
29.CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG
30.CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD
31.CHINESE SHAR PEI
32.CHOW-CHOW
33.COLORADO DOG
34.DOBERMAN PINSCHER
35.DOGO DE ARGENTINO
36.DOGUE DE BORDEAUX
37.ENGLISH MASTIFFS
38.ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL
39.ESKIMO DOG
40.ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG
41.FILA BRASILIERO
42.FOX TERRIER
43.FRENCH BULLDOG
44.GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
45.GOLDEN RETRIEVER
46.GREENLAND HUSKY
47.GREAT DANE
48.GREAT PYRENEES
49.ITALIAN MASTIFF
50.KANGAL DOG
51.KEESHOND
52.KOMONDOR
53.KOTEZEBUE HUSKY
54.KUVAZ
55.LABRADOR RETRIEVER
56.LEONBERGER
57.MASTIFF
58.NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF
59.NEWFOUNDLAND
60.OTTERHOUND
61.PRESA DE CANARIO
62.PRESA DE MALLORQUIN
63.PUG
64.ROTTWEILER
65.SAARLOOS WOLFHOND
66.SAINT BERNARD
67.SAMOYED
68.SCOTTISH DEERHOUND
69.SIBERIAN HUSKY
70.SPANISH MASTIFF
71.STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
72.TIMBER SHEPHERD
73.TOSA INU
74.TUNDRA SHEPHERD
75.WOLF SPITZ

[Bridget Conant]

Greg Murray

Any updates?

From what I understand, a hearing was held and the owner has to wait for the decision

From comments made by Mayor Summers, it appears the city is ready to dig in its heels and continue to enforce an unconstitutional law. The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that breed specific legislation is unconstitutional in Ohio. Many communities dropped these laws after that ruling. Not Lakewood. If the city rules against the dog owner and the owner sues the city, there we go again with taxpayer dollars being spent because the city leaders have taken an untenable position.

http://www.wkyc.com/mobile/article/news ... -466781081

Summers characterizes dog supporters as EMOTIONAL. Sound familiar?
Just paint your opponents as silly people having emotional hissy fits - that's HIS modus operandi.

It’s an emotional issue,” Summers said. “I understand, but we have to make the best judgements that we can and in my opinion, we’re gonna air on the side of being safe.”

So here we are with yet another issue DIVIDING the city while the Mayor, the decider, inflames the issue and does NOTHING to actually lead and do the right thing.

Apparently, the person who conducted the hearing is none other than the mayor's executive assistant, Shannon Strachan. Don't know how that came about or what her new title is, but I'd find it surprising if she contradicted her boss's opinion on the matter.

We shall see.

[jackie f taylor]

Sometimes Lakewood's ordnances, rules, and regulations, makes me feel like I'm living in ? Antarctica ? nothing but black and white, WHERE IS THE GRAY ? aren't we living now, in a gray society? a mixture of everything out there today, boys, girls, men women, blacks, whites and everything else. tattoos, colored hair, piercing's, boys with boys, girls with girls, boys with girls and boys, all of it.. and your banning a loveable adoring, a proven trained and loving member of your family, a dog, whatever breed, or gender, your banning this? Like life, every situation should be considered by the circumstances contained, not a book. Is this HITLER all over again, maybe, not. I was definitely born too early, I want to be born on September 1st, 2017.