What are Bullock, Marx, and Nowlin's BSL Positions?

[Michael Deneen]

The "Charlie Debate" has been raging for the past couple weeks here in town, yet I haven't noticed any comments from our three incumbent council at large members.
Their challengers -- Rader, George, and Taubman -- have specifically stated that they are opposed to BSL.
What about the incumbents? What are they waiting for?

It's not surprising that Bullock is ducking the issue. On one hand, he loves to fool people into thinking he's a "progressive".
In reality, he has been a consistent user of race-baiting dog whistle tactics. He was one of the leaders of this legislation back in 2008.
Apparently he thinks it could all "blow over" without him having to pick a side.
If he does the right thing and renounces BSL, he alienates his wealthy Republican funders.
If he supports BSL, it will expose him as the race baiter that he is. That may not matter in 2017, but it will be a liability for his 2018 State Rep campaign.

Nowlin, the invisible council rep, is undoubtedly awaiting orders from "Big Daddy" Mike Summers.
(side question...what exactly has Nowlin EVER accomplished in that job?)
Marx is the most interesting one.....she desperately wants to maintain progressive "street cred", which would mean going against BSL.
However, she has shown that she is spineless when faced with pressure from Summers.
Her insipid campaign uses the slogan "A bold vision for Lakewood". She's not even bold enough to answer this simple question.

How will these three play it out?

[Bridget Conant]

Here are Bullock's own words when he advocated for and helped pass legislation to outlaw pit bulls:

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2008/2 ... ety-policy

Some highlights:

We have a rising caseload of pit bulls who have the potential to be dangerous, and we have a widespread pattern on non-compliance with our dog safety laws.

How many more pit bulls live in Lakewood, unregistered with both the city and the county? How many of these dogs lack the required liability insurance? Dog pen? Get walked without a muzzle?

Ban on non-compliant dogs plus “no new pit bulls” policy with major ramp-up in enforcement and new animal safety “best practices” advisory board.

[We're adopting a zero tolerance policy for irresponsible pit bull owners and putting the burden for dog safety where it belongs: on the owners. We're improving dog safety so kids can play in their front yards and seniors can walk on their streets.]

[Peter Grossetti]

"Please do not ever procreate."

[Lori Allen _]

Obviously, council and Summers haven't had time to research this situation.

I suppose we should give them a break. After all, it appears they have all been busy comparing notes to get their stories straight and finding really good lawyers. ( I believe they will be needing them real soon! )

Pit bulls are only dangerous if they are trained to be dangerous. I have friends who own two and have children. The dogs are given plenty of attention and love. They are NOT mean.

Then again, if Summers says"no", council is only allowed to answer"aye"!