Dogs off-leash at Frick Park (Pittsburgh, Sewickley: neighborhoods, store, design)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by scottrpriester

I can't believe such a debate could be started over something so simple.

Good point. We should probably stick to truly important topics, like who has a right to call themselves a Pittsburgher.

[TechieTransplant]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Good point. We should probably stick to truly important topics, like who has a right to call themselves a Pittsburgher.

Now you've got it!

[gallacus]

Originally Posted by scottrpriester

...And as far as the two twits arguing about who bequest what, the signs clearly say "ALL DOGS MUST BE ON A LEASH". Period. I can't believe such a debate could be started over something so simple.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one that's confused about this, but what do signs in the park have anything to do at all with the discussion about whether or not the Frick bequest could be upheld in court?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by gallacus

I'm not sure if I'm the only one that's confused about this, but what do signs in the park have anything to do at all with the discussion about whether or not the Frick bequest could be upheld in court?

I suppose the signs and other efforts to enforce the leash law in Frick Park indicate that one of the following is true:

(A) There is no such condition in the bequest;

(B) There is such a condition, but it is unenforceable;

(C) There is such a condition and it might have been enforceable, but the City has secured some sort of legal agreement that it won't be enforced;

(D) There is such a condition, and it might be enforceable, and there is no such legal agreement, but the City is simply getting away with it anyway.

Or so on. The upshot is you are basically right--we can't really know from the mere fact they are enforcing the leash law in Frick Park which of these many possible scenarios is true.

[gallacus]

Yeah, apparently this poster doesn't understand that the mere existence of signs in the park does not necessarily mean that the city placed them there legally.

[TechieTransplant]

Originally Posted by gallacus

I'm not sure if I'm the only one that's confused about this, but what do signs in the park have anything to do at all with the discussion about whether or not the Frick bequest could be upheld in court?

You seem like the kind that could become easily confused, so here's a bit of help.

The City of Pittsburgh now owns the park. The City of Pittsburgh has placed signs in the park that reference a specific city ordinance regarding dogs on a leash. There is nothing to debate. The city police enforce this on a regular basis.

[BrianTH]

I also would like to announce as a general forum rule that if a particular discussion comes up that is on a related but different topic than the one I have been addressing, but I am not personally interested in discussing that related topic, that means there is nothing for anyone at all to discuss.

[TechieTransplant]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I also would like to announce as a general forum rule that if a particular discussion comes up that is on a related but different topic than the one I have been addressing, but I am not personally interested in discussing that related topic, that means there is nothing for anyone at all to discuss.

I've been a part of this discussion all along. I'm more than interested in partaking in common sense, realistic discussion regarding this topic.

I think if the City of Pittsburgh was scheming to illegally post a law/ordinance, they would find something a hell of a lot more lucrative than a leash law violation. And point two, let your animal run loose, get approached by an officer, and try your nonsense debate on what the Frick's wanted the park to be, and watch the officer take a seat and listen to what you have to say. That's really going to happen. This country is in the shape it's in because of jokers who call themselves lawyers who make their living debating topics like this.

[BrianTH]

I will also get very angry if people want to discuss something I'm not interested in discussing. This country is falling apart because people are having conversations I don't personally find interesting somewhere on the Internet!

[hnsq]

I want to start by saying my dog is always on a leash, but I also don't see what the big deal is with Frick park.

It is the ONLY park in the city that is dog friendly. Pittsburgh has a lot of parks, if you don't want to be around dogs, just go to a different park. What is the big deal about that? Why go to the most dog friendly park in the city when you don't like dogs? Especially when there are plenty of other parks close by?