The Observation Deck

You are reading it here first!

Here is the actial Decision handed down by Judge Friedland
http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/media/docs_1296595775.pdf

Lakewood has won the Dog Park Suit brought on by the city and residents of Rocky River.

Full story shortly!

Good work Lakewood Law Department!



.

Best news today!!! Awesome!!!! (and if those people are worried about barking they should come to my house!!!)

A 36 page document was created by the court that explain how and why
Lakewood won the lawsuit leveled by Rocky River Residents.

"It can be appealed" said, said Scott Claussen, asst. Law Director for the city of Lakewood.

The Lakewood Observer has been working with the city and residents on this. The LO
was one of the big supporters of the Dog Park, and our sister company donated much
of the signage to the Dog Park.

One woman at the Dog Park today said, "This is great news!" When I asked for her name
and a photo she refused telling me she is from Rocky River!

More as this story develops.


.

That is great news! We were there this weekend and the dogs were having so much fun in the snow! GREAT NEWS!

Good news. I'm still puzzled why it took so long for the judge to rule on this.

The System Works!

From the City

DOG PARK CASE DECIDED
COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF LAKEWOOD

Today, Common Pleas Court Judge Carolyn B. Friedland ruled in favor of the City of Lakewood in the Lakewood Dog Park case which was filed by the City of Rocky River and its residents in 2007. Judge Friedland found that the dog park does not constitute a nuisance and has denied the Plaintiff’s request for an injunction.

“We are pleased that the Court has ruled in our favor,” stated Mayor Michael P. Summers. “We are grateful that the residents of Lakewood and the surrounding communities will be able to continue to enjoy the use of the dog park and we will continue to strive to be good neighbors.”

In Judge Friedland’s Journal Entry, she found that the Lakewood Dog Park was not a public nuisance under Lakewood ordinances was not a common law public nuisance and was not a private nuisance. The Journal Entry states “The Court cannot conclude that the operation of the dog park amounts to an appreciable, substantial, tangible injury resulting in actual material and physical discomfort to the High Parkway residents. Nor can the Court conclude that the dog park is an unreasonable use under the circumstances.”

The Lakewood Dog Park opened in 2003 and provides a fenced-in area where owners may exercise their dogs off leash to play and socialize with other dogs. The Dog Park is located at 1299 Metropark Drive in the Metroparks.

In 2007, the City of Rocky River and four residents from the High Parkway filed a lawsuit alleging that that barking from the dog park constituted a nuisance. After numerous attempts to settle this matter, a bench trial was held in July of 2010 to decide this matter. Today’s ruling was the decision from that trial.


.

The Rocky River resident who lead the lawsuit in the blue shirt, with the group
hired to do the sound study, which found the dog park almost soundless.

Here is the actual Decision handed down by Judge Friedland

http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/media/docs_1296595775.pdf


People from all over the county love the Dog Park.


Conceived, and partially maintained by dog loving volunteers!

Thank you to everyone, and we are happy to include the Law Department, on this.

Ed FitzGerald had always believed that Rocky River never made a case, and that their
numbers and comments made ours. This was one reason the law department never
really mounted one. BUT... He always said, never try o read the Court's mind.

PS - Now would be a great time to adopt one of the cute puppies from Missy!

.

If you read the opinion, the Judge notes that she wonders why the City of Rocky River was involved in this lawsuit. She questions whether they even had standing in this case, an important point.

Overall, while the opinion centered on technical details regarding ordinances, the Judge made clear that the people involved admitted that they heard as much traffic and airplane noise as they did barking, yet they considered the traffic and airplane noise to be "background noise," while the barking noise was "annoying" noise.

I can't help wondering how much it cost us to defend this baseless action. We could stop a lot of these nuisances by making people put their money where their mouth is.