The Observation Deck

Well nothing, if they followed the law as laid down by the Ohio Supreme Court.

But instead rumors have filtered out of City Hall, that our overworked Law Department has hired an outside firm, to throw Charlie the pet out, or have him put down.

As Mark Kindt has pointed out, the City of Lakewood is bringing all of these lawsuits on themselves.

Besides Charlie, there are many other cases being fought against residents, that the city continues to fight, even after the courts have ruled against them, time and time again.

As Mr. Kindt, how much more can Lakewood through away in frivolous defenses against residents that have the law on their side?

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Ask Mr. Kindt, how much more can Lakewood throw away in frivolous defenses against residents that have the law on their side?.

[Edited by Kindt]

Likely, a rather incredible amount! However, I have not actually seen amounts that tally this spending. They have outside counsel costs in the following case:

1. The Taxpayer Lawsuit,

2. The Open Meetings Lawsuit (Skindell v. Madigan),

3. The Public Records Lawsuit (the Essi Mandamus Action),

4. The let's not eject Charlie from Lakewood lawsuit.

Let's keep in mind that in these lawsuits, citizens are merely seeking that the city administration comply with laws (or interpretations of laws) that are well established. In both, items 2 and 3, there are strong arguments presented elsewhere that the city administration and its lawyers have pushed-the-envelope in ways that are improper.

.

Don’t forget the civil rights violation lawsuit filed against the city and police department personnel regarding the girl injured at the library. That’s in Federal court.

The dog lawsuit is indefensible. But hey, it’s not THEIR pocket the money is coming out of - its OUR money - the taxpayers.

Charlie isn't costing us anything.
Mike Summers, on the other hand, is costing us millions of dollars and destroying our reputation. When young people see crap like BSL they know the real intention of the legislation.....and they realize that the "Lakewood loves Diversity" narrative is a total lie.

When young people see crap like BSL they know the real intention of the legislation.....and they realize that the "Lakewood loves Diversity" narrative is a total lie.

Great point.

The social media backlash is largely among the more youthful voters. And you are correct - they see the insidious reasons behind the ban.

But the good thing is that it brought out voters. The millennials propelled Rader and George to the top spots.

This portends well for Lakewood. Hopefully, we will see a change to a more progressive agenda, not the destructive, paranoid, divisive, boot-licking course the current administration has pursued.

Bridget Conant wrote:The millennials propelled Rader and George to the top spots.

Is this an actual fact? I am not trying to be facetious but wondering if the age of voters is something we can look up somewhere to see. Very interested in the demographic breakdown of the votes.

Matthew

The county board of elections does not, AFAIK, issue a report by age group. However, there will be a breakdown by precinct for each candidate. From the precinct report you can infer demographic info such as income and general age.

As of today I have yet to see the precinct reports online.

My gut feeling is that younger voters voted more heavily in favor of George and Rader who both were very active on social media and anti-BSL.

It will be interesting to see the reports. Likely, the Clifton Park and north of the Williams-Sonoma line precincts voted for the Team Summers candidates.

Matthew Lee wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:The millennials propelled Rader and George to the top spots.

Is this an actual fact? I am not trying to be facetious but wondering if the age of voters is something we can look up somewhere to see. Very interested in the demographic breakdown of the votes.

Just checked the board of election's website and downloaded the voter data for Lakewood. Information on the most recent election is not yet posted, but since year of birth is a field that is included in the spreadsheet, historical trends in voter age could be calculated. It would be interesting to see how it looks.

First showdown Dog vs City.

Several Amicus briefs in support of Scott were submitted. The court has to agree to allow them to be entered. Of course, the city filed briefs in opposition and asked that they be denied or stricken.

Judge Nugent granted the Amicus briefs!

Dog wins Round One!

Not looking good for the city. It’s time someone told Stubborn Summers to give it up and spare the taxpayers.

Bridget Conant wrote:First showdown Dog vs City.

Several Amicus briefs in support of Scott were submitted. The court has to agree to allow them to be entered. Of course, the city filed briefs in opposition and asked that they be denied or stricken.

Judge Nugent granted the Amicus briefs!

Dog wins Round One!

Not looking good for the city. It’s time someone told Stubborn Summers to give it up and spare the taxpayers.

Moving to exclude these friends-of-the-court briefs is entirely consistent with the city administration's efforts to impair open debate on public issues, no matter what the forum.

Bridget Conant wrote:First showdown Dog vs City.

One of the cable channels needs to look at making Dog vs City into a new series.

mjkuhns wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:First showdown Dog vs City.

One of the cable channels needs to look at making Dog vs City into a new series.

A reality show?

In Lakewood, it would have to be an “alternate reality” show.

Matt Kuhns said [quoOne of the cable channels needs to look at making Dog vs City into a new series.
te][/quote] I would hesitate before putting a dog into today's treacherous media environment.

lol, my head is going to explode, I have such a simple life, I appreciate you folks who are trying to fix things, I haven't got a clue, I'm just lucky I can type.