What’s a poor poodle to do?
One needn’t be a dog owner to find a certain degree of amusement in the effort underway to legalize leashed dog walking in Lakewood city parks. A very simple straightforward attempt to let dogs in the park has gotten bogged down by a weird kind of political constipation.
June 19, 1972: A day that will live in doggie infamy
For reasons that are not completely clear, Lakewood City Council voted to prohibit leashed dog walking in city parks on June 19, 1972. According to Councilperson Thomas Bullock (Ward 2), the official minutes of the meeting do not include any hint at the reasoning behind the decision. Someone who identified himself as a longtime Lakewood resident said at a recent committee meeting that dogs were banned because owners were not cleaning up after them in the park.
A review of the Sun Newspaper archives from 1972 and 1973 showed no recorded incidents of trouble, but revealed the city may have been preoccupied with another event the week the ban was passed.
The city was abuzz about an election to determine whether not to permit construction of the Lakewood Center North building. Voter turn-out was stronger than expected and citizens firmly issued their approval, defeating the efforts of a band of homeowners whose homes – 16 in all — would be demolished to make way for the Belle Ave. parking garage.
The ban received three sentences inside the front page section (see .PDF)
What’s a poor poodle to do?
Council officially banned canines from all public parks in Lakewood Monday night. City ordinance now forbids all dogs, including those on leashes, from entering the parks. Owners, however, will be the ones responsible for misdemeanor fines.
In February of 1973 a resident wrote a letter to the editor complaining about lax enforcement of the city’s leash law (see .PDF). A follow-up article published the next week noted Lakewood had 1,125 dog complaints in 1971 and 1,337 complaints 1972 (see .PDF).
Ban reversal effort got off to a bad start
When Councilperson Bullock first expressed his general desire to repeal the ban, he was greeted with quiet disapproval by fellow members of council who wanted to see more details of the plan. Councilperson Brian Powers (At-Large), in particular, was cranky that Bullock didn’t provide any kind of concrete ordinance language.
Council’s consternation with Bullock increased when at the next meeting he introduced what he termed a “placeholder” ordinance that would charge the public works director with the responsibility of managing the rules for leashed dog walking in city parks. Nickie Antonio (At-Large) felt city council should be responsible for making those rules and was actually disgusted enough to vote against referring the matter to the public safety committee. Other members of council voice similar concerns, but forward the matter to committee for further discussion anyway.
July 15th public safety committee meeting
Lakewood’s animal advocates put forth three or four times the amount of energy of any other group in Lakewood. They showed up en masse to oppose the pit bull ban and have organized – with different people, but the same kind of verve – a citizens committee to legalize leashed dog walking in city parks. When the issue was referred to the public safety committee meeting for discussion, Councilperson Mary Louise Madigan (Ward 4) specifically requested the event be scheduled in the evening so that it would be more convenient for citizens to attend. Naturally, the meeting was then scheduled early in the morning.
Approximately six members of the public, councilpeople Kevin Butler (Ward 1), Powers and Bullock, Public Works Director Joseph Beno, Officer Gary Stone and an animal control officer gathered to discuss the matter.
Councilperson Bullock reminded everyone the ordinance he introduced was in draft form. He acknowledged the administration had its plate full with other issues and he didn’t want to add to their list of problems.
Councilperson Powers said he looked forward to hearing from the administration and wanted to have an evening meeting. He wanted to ask the Animal Safety and Welfare Board for a formal opinion, too, though they hadn’t met in over a year. “Apparently, they’ve had nothing to vote on,” he said in a slightly mocking tone.
Councilperson Butler countered that the group had been partly handicapped by a lack of legislative appointments.
Public works director concerned; Mayor okay with whatever council decides
Director Beno said among his concerns about the issue was that some parks, particularly the smaller ones, might be ill-suited for dogs. He said his department only had one person assigned to the parks, and his time was 2/3 dedicated to Lakewood Park. Beno said he hadn’t talked with the mayor about the issue.
Bullock said the mayor indicated he would be comfortable with whatever decision council reached. “We need to take a little more time and deliberation,” Bullock said.
“I still have no idea what we’re proposing,” Powers said, frustrated that there had already been two readings of the ordinance without any firm details.
Bullock said he wanted to lessen the burden on public works by utilizing the citizens committee as a sort of a block watch group to inspire people to clean up after their dogs. Done correctly, he said, leashed dog walking would raise the level safety in the park, chase away geese, etc. If handled poorly, he felt it would result in unpleasant piles of dog manure.
Police and animal control concerns
Someone asked the police and animal control representatives what they thought of the ordinance. “I have concerns,” said Officer Gary Stone, about the inevitability of irresponsible dog owners causing a problem. The animal control officer was worried about people unleashing their dogs. She said depending upon what else was going on, she might not be able to immediately respond to the scene when called.
Butler not sold yet
Councilperson Butler said the leash proposal is an all or nothing decision. “I don’t see this one having a balancing point. It’s a black or white issue. It’s going to sink or swim based on what residents do. We’re just going to have to wait and see,” he said.
Butler said anyone who steps in a pile of dog feces in the park is going to think it’s a bad program. “I’m not sold,” he said.
Powers worried resources are not available
“We’re already short-staffed in animal control,” Powers said, raising an enforcement concern. He concurred with Butler saying, “Dogs are either in the park or their out of the park.”
Though he was the father of the pit bull ban ordinance, Powers described himself as a “dog lover.”
“I’m not opposed to dogs,” he said.
The Citizens Committee to Allow Leashed Dogs in Lakewood Parks
Donna Klein, member of the citizen’s committee seeking to allow leashed dog walking in Lakewood parks, said her group was willing to sponsor waste stations, work with the animal welfare board, and write educational articles for the Lakewood Observer.
Another member of her group said they had performed a lot research on the issue and found much real citizen support.
Officer Stone commended the group for being nonconfrontational.
One resident voices concerns about plan
Marlowe resident Jack Hagan, who doesn’t own a dog, but said he isn’t anti-dog, shared his concerns that allowing leashed dogs in city parks could diminish public safety for joggers.
First, he pointed out what others have previously — dogs are already illegally being walked in the park. He said he sees it with regular frequency. Hagan’s primary complaint was that the narrow asphalt jogging paths in Lakewood Park could not safely handle traffic from bicyclists, joggers, and dog walkers. He felt some dogs naturally chase after objects that are in motion, and was worried people could get bitten.
“I worry it will turn into another dog park,” he said. Lakewood has enough other places to walk a dog, Hagan said, people should “just leave well enough alone.”
Bullock concluded the meeting with the suggestion that the city might allow dogs in the parks on a trial basis for the second part of the summer.
July 29th public safety committee meeting
A couple of weeks after the first committee meeting, a second public safety committee took place in the evening. 22 people attended along with Councilpeople Bullock, Powers, Antonio and Madigan. Cameras from Channels 5 and 8 were also there.
Councilperson Bullock started off conversation about the issue by reading from a prepared statement. He said he was looking for the “middlepath” and supported a “commonsense” ordinance. He felt the current ban was created out of an “overreaction” to a few trouble-makers.
Councilperson Powers said he hadn’t made his mind up about the ordinance and looked forward to hearing from the public and examining how the law might affect the city’s budget.
Police and public works repeat their concerns
Officer Gary Stone said he checked with Rocky River and Cleveland and found they had various problems with unleashed dogs in their public parks. Westlake had fewer problems in comparison, he said.
Public Works Director Beno said his staff isn’t in 90% of the city’s parks. Someone is in Lakewood Park, but not on a regular basis.
Stone said if someone were to report an unleashed dog in the park the call would first be routed to an animal warden. If the warden was busy, the police would send a squad car and generate a CAD report. Councilperson Madigan said she didn’t want to see police bothering with loose dogs.
Citizens committee share information
A bunch of members of the citizens committee seeking to permit leashed dog walking in city parks were seated at a table across from city representatives. They presented quite a bit of research they’d done on the matter (see it on their Web site).
Lake Rd. resident Regina Tomek shared some observations about which city parks might accommodate leashed dog walking. She said she visited Madison Park, but didn’t feel comfortable getting out of the car. Councilperson Madigan said the park has security cameras and great neighbors. “If you ever want to go there, call me. It’s a wonderful park,” she said.
A couple of other members of the group said they thought responsible dog walking would become contagious.
Councilperson Bullock cautioned against having “Pollyannaish expectations” and wanted to avoid a plan that uses a lot of city resources.
Councilperson Powers said he intended “no disrespect” to the citizens committee, but they don’t have any formal authority. Powers wanted to hear from other members of the public that were present.
Feedback from the public
A Detroit Ave. resident said he didn’t think it was fair to penalize everyone due to the careless behavior of a small number of people.
Kirtlane Lane residents Brad and Charmaine Smith own three golden retrievers and live a few blocks away from the park. Brad echoed the sentiment of the first speak and felt it’s unfair to have a complete ban because of the misbehavior of a minority of the population. “We’re not making a rocket ship here,” he said. “How long is this going to take?” Councilperson Powers replied, “The legislative process takes time.” Councilperson Madigan added, “We don’t have a complete draft of the ordinance.”
Marlowe Ave resident Jack Hagan said he still had “grave” concerns about the proposal and many unanswered questions. Hagan wondered how jogger safety would be affected, how many city resources would be required, and what liability issues the city would have if something bad happens.
A member of the public asked Officer Stone what his “thumbs-up or thumbs-down” opinion was. Officer Stone declined to offer an opinion saying he wanted to take things slow and see the entire proposal first.
Lincoln Ave. resident Marge Salopek a 29-year Lakewood resident and 13-year dog owner said she is fearful of dogs she doesn’t know because she was once attacked while walking her dogs. She’s seen unleashed dogs in Rocky River parks. Salopek talked to a Rocky River animal control officer and he said many of the people he tickets are Lakewood residents. “I just feel this is not a good change,” she said.
Parkside Dr. resident Beverly Burtzlaff said she lives next to the park and uses it everyday. She felt it is great as it is. “I would be opposed to changing that,” she said, citing unpredictable dog behavior.
Mars Ave resident Brad Hutchinson, a lifelong dog owner, said people need to step back and realize that not all dogs are dangerous. “We’re just talking about people walking their dogs,” he said. He felt there was no need to involve police resources in the matter. He noted Rocky River might draw more dogs because it has beach and water access. Hutchinson mentioned his father is veterinarian and would be happy to donate some pooper scooper stations.
Detroit Ave. resident Yvonne Rubin said if leashed dog walking were permitted in city parks should would visit them more often and get exercise.
Wrap-up
Councilperson Powers said he wanted to see more firm estimates on what the program would cost the city. Councilperson Antonio again objected to the ordinance because it gives responsibility of managing leashed dog walking to the public works director. “That’s still problematic,” she said. “I really believe council should make the decision.”
Councilperson Bullock said the ordinance was only a placeholder. A revised ordinance taking into account council’s concerns and citizen’s suggestions would be provided at a public safety committee meeting prior to council’s next meeting in September.
Tags: