The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.
ryan costa wrote:There is an abundance of open field space at the Cain park by the lake, and the big Madison Park. A designated dog enclosure would fit in either location. A dog park would be more accessible at either location. There is even parking available, and it is a closer walk for a greater portion of the population.
Ryan,
Thats a great idea! I have four dogs and try to get them to the park about twice a week. Between the drive and walking them from the parking lot. I need a rest when I get home.
I'll admit that I wasn't a big fan of the idea of the dog park when it first came up. The process was long and the organizers put a lot of work to manage all the forseeable issues that may arise. Moving it wouldn't be easy.
When the first complaints about the barking came up, I went down expecting to hear the type of barking my younger dog can display when another dog passes our house, mulitplied by 10.
That time and every other time I pass by, I stop to listen. I have never seen less than 10 dogs on the park...and none are barking repeatively. I have been down all hours of the day.
The proof is in the pudding. River needs to prove the noise. It's a shame we have to go through this process but I find it hard to believe they will be able to prove it.
It is illogical that a dog would bark repeatively in the park environment. It's like taking your kids to Gymboree...usually parents (owners) are even more aware of bad manners.
I am apt to agree with JO'B about the shelter theory.
I am going to do some digging in River but the Law Director is a D so maybe someone else could get the scoop from him.
The case will go to Common Pleas court on August 15. The Friends of the Dog Park are taking this case seriously, and are asking for your help. As Jen mentioned, the park is an important resource for our community.
There are a couple of ways you can assist our efforts:
1. If you'd like to sign a petition, contact either me or Jen Deselits via PM
2. If you'd like to collect signatures for our petition, please contact me at mdeneen@cox.net or via PM
You can collect signatures either at the park or in the community. Let me know which you would prefer.
3. If you would like to submit a letter to the judge on the park's behalf, contact me at mdeneen@cox.net or PM
We are already getting great support. Not surprisingly, we have lots of Rocky River residents on board, and they are EXTREMELY unhappy with their leadership.
Also, I'm glad to announce that Ryan Demro and Ed FitzGerald both signed our petition at the parks meeting tonight, so we have the support of all three mayoral candidates!
I would hope that the City's counsel take a very aggressive stance in the defense of the matter, including rerquesting an award of attorney fees for maintaining a frivolous action.
What's next after this? Forcing the sewage treatment plant to shut down because of its odors? How about that stinky mulch pile? Quite offensive.
Not to mention the noise from the animal shelter!!
Jeff "It's crap like this that give attorneys a bad name" Endress
To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
Case Number: CV-07-630510
Case Title: CITY OF ROCKY RIVER, ET AL vs. CITY OF LAKEWOOD, OHIO, ET AL
PLAINTIFF (1)
CITY OF ROCKY RIVER
21012 HILLIARD BLVD
ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116-0000
ATTORNEY
MICHAEL J O'SHEA (0039330)
55 PUBLIC SQUARE
SUITE 1600
CLEVELAND, OH 44113-0000
Ph: 216-241-0011
Answer Filed: N/A
PLAINTIFF (2)
MICHAEL BUDDIE
18540 HIGH PARKWAY
ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116-0000
PLAINTIFF (3)
CAROL BUDDIE
18540 HIGH PARKWAY
ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116-0000
PLAINTIFF (4)
TIMOTHY MERRIMAN
18580 HIGH PARKWAY
ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116-0000
PLAINTIFF (5)
TIMOTHY MERRIMAN
18580 HIGH PARKWAY
ROCKY RIVER, OH 44116-0000
DEFENDANT (1)
CITY OF LAKEWOOD OHIO
12650 DETROIT AVE
LAKEWOOD, OH 44107-0000
ATTORNEY
THOMAS D CORRIGAN (0022810)
55 PUBLIC SQUARE
SUITE 1500
CLEVELAND, OH 44113-1901
Ph: 216-696-0606
Answer Filed: N/A
DEFENDANT (2)
JANE DOES 1-10 JOHN
Oh my goodness!! It is really only two homes? I guess you really CAN sue anyone for anything. Can't a judge just shake his head in disbelief and shut the book on this? I am so curious as to what evidence they will bring. Don't they have to prove it or do they simply have to say it and then the City of Lakewood will have to spend time and money to show they are wrong? What can we users (though sadly I haven't gone as much this year) do to help at this point?
High Pkwy runs along the rim of the Emerald Canyon. Basically between wooster and the Valley.
Just a couple of thoughts on this.
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
To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
Thanks for your comments, but I'm not sure I understand them . Can you explain how intervening can strengthen our case. We need all the help we can get and are grateful for your input!
When a person who has a stake in the outcome of any litigation is permitted to intervene, it allows that person to put forth their specific interest, which may be different from those named as parties. Think of it in terms of what is frequently done by such groups as Greenpeace or the Sierra Club who will frequently ask to intervene in order that the interests they represent can more completely be addressed in litigation not involving them, but which has an impact on the matters which they champion.
So, to some degree it can be a numbers game. To whatever degree intervening is permitted, those persons or groups, become recognized parties in the legal process with the ability to address issues which my be different from the concerns of the named Plaintiffs and Defendants. It also allows the intervening parties to be completely in the loop of the process, and not have to rely on the grapevine. Parties allowed to intervene are required to be served with all pleading and documents and may participate (within the bounds of legal protocols, etc.) in the process itself. While individual park users would probably be deemed to have an insufficient interest (it being solely personal) to be permitted to intervene, there's no reason why they can't ask. The worse that can happen is the request is denied. On the other hand, a representative group, (ala the Sierra Club) with membership reflecting the common interests of the users such as the Friends of the Park might well be permitted to represent their stake in the argument. It can't hurt to request it, and if granted, puts more voices at the table. While hopefully, the interests of the city and the users are in unity, there could well be a divergence in those interests. It would be advantageous if there is a voice at the table whose sole concern is the park.
Hope this helps a bit.
Jeff
Jeff
To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
I don't know who in the city decides when or if to file suit. I would assume it would be the city's legal dept., under the auspices of its mayor, perhaps with approval and consent of council? But I really don't know how Rocky River (in this case) made the decision to take up the cause of 2 home owners......
The suit is decided in whatever court it is filed. In this case, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas.....But a City, as a Corporate entity can proceed in any court.
Jeff
To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
I want to thank everyone that has been so very supportive of the dog park. We got tons of support today at the Arts Fest, which as always was a great event.
. Can you explain how intervening can strengthen our case. We need all the help we can get and are grateful for your input!