Scott Township has filed a complaint against the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon. The docket number is GD-15-017557.
It is so new, that the documents have not been uploaded to the Court Records website. Woo Hoo!
Scott v Mt. Lebanon
Scott Township's reason for seeking an injunction is the "conditional use agreement" between Scott Township and Mt. Lebanon, which states in the deed that Twin Hills Park is for recreational use.
Our commissioners believe that our parks and golf course are for recreational hunting for 4.5 months, not recreation. On October 13, 2015, our commissioners will be considering adding a few additional months of "sharpshooting" at a cost of almost $90,000.
Update October 3, 2015 5:10 AM Mt. Lebanon needs Scott's OK to hunt deer in Twin Hills Park, township argues "Scott plans to ask a judge Monday for an emergency injunction, said township solicitor Robert McTiernan."
13 comments:
The battle has just begun!!! Great work Elaine!! Deer lovers 1- Gardeners -0!!
I listened to the citizen comments regarding twin hills. Brumfield told Kimberly Schevtchuk the park isn't used and that is one of the major factors that were considered when it was included as an archery site while other parks aren't. And yet, he had absolutely no factual evidence to support his claim. No data whatsoever. Maybe those comments or that portion of citizen comments could be uploaded to YouTube or shared with Scott. It is reckless and dishonesty to make statements like that when the result is the presence of firearms and/or archers in the park. Further, Brumfield knows that twin hills is highly used as previous controversy related to dog walking resulted in considerable citizen engagement at commission meetings. Brumfield and Mt Lebanon are lying to the public and endangering park users.
I remember from the Newcomers Tax days that Dave B. would say things off-the-cuff that had absolutely no factual basis, and was really just a lost man grasping in the wind for justifications for bad policies.
He appears to be at it again.
This is an answer to our prayers! (Make that our many, many prayers for the deer.) So...if you've been petitioning Heaven, please don't stop now. The Clash of the Titans is coming, and we need to be praying for the presiding Court to fully comprehend the situation and to make the right decision! Twin Hills Park is the Crown Jewel (and probably the greatest vulnerable spot) of this entire deer-killing venture: if Mt. Lebanon is barred from killing these Scott Township deer, the Virginia Manor Nuisance Complainers won't know what to do with themselves. And we all know how special the Virginia Manor Nuisance Complainers can be... So, Pray, Pray, Pray. Oh, and while you're at it, thank God that Scott Township has the judgment and the will to fight this through.
So, to the legal minds here: what happens next?
Scott lawyers and Lebo lawyers spar I'm court. Because Scott is seeking injunctive relief, the hearing will most likely be some time next week. They could always settle before hearing.
Does Lebo need to cease all hunting activities until this gets resolved?
Sorry. I meant spar IN court.
No. Lebo does not have to cease archery operations while the Scott case is pending. There has been no ruling yet.
Again, for the legally minded... I listened to the recording provided of the Scott meeting, when their lawyer mentioned the prohitibition against hunting in parks. Looked that up and suppose it may be this he's referring to? Wonder who would be responsible for/justified in doing the "posting" referred to... Does anyone think this is applicable/arguable, of if our home rule somehow offsets this?
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=34&div=0&chpt=25&sctn=8&subsctn=0
Title 34
§ 2508. Protection of institutions, parks and resorts.
(a) General rule.--Subject to the posting requirements of
subsection (b), it is unlawful for any person to hunt for or
take any game or wildlife or to discharge a firearm or bow of
any description into or upon any of the following areas:
(1) The lands, waters or premises of any public or
private hospital or sanatorium or health care facility.
(2) The lands, waters or premises of any park or resort
set aside for the use of the public where people may
congregate in the open for health, recreation or pleasure.
(3) The lands, waters or premises of any publicly owned
institution where people are hospitalized, quartered or
incarcerated at public expense.
(b) Posting boundaries.--The boundaries of the lands, waters
or premises set forth in subsection (a) shall be clearly defined
by appropriate posters or markers calling attention to the fact
that the land or water within the boundary has been set apart
for the specific purpose for which it was intended and that
hunting upon or shooting on the property is prohibited. No
privileges shall be granted by those owning or operating the
posted lands or waters to any other person to hunt for any game
or wildlife upon the property; nor shall the person or persons
owning or in charge of the lands be eligible to hunt for any
game or wildlife on the lands or waters.
(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to:
(1) Any properly constructed and designated pistol,
rifle, shotgun or archery range upon the lands of a hospital,
sanatorium, park, resort or other institution.
(2) Any part of the lands of any hospital, sanatorium,
park, resort or institution which lie outside of the posted
areas and are open to the public for hunting.
(d) Penalty.--A violation of this section is a summary
offense of the fourth degree.
No private right of action in that section. Although Scott may have used in their complaint in support of public policy.
I do think that there may be an issue with Mt. Lebo's park signage. Still unclear.
McTiernan described our Lebo leaders as "callous and unsophisticated." Perfect description.
Post a Comment