Lawyers Love Loopholes

The Oregonian’s In Portland article (11/15/07) by Edward Hershey, “Dog dispute spotlights law with no teeth,” gives one a fair idea why lawyers exist. The article also give one a fair idea why zoning laws, neighborhood associations, neighbor-law books, and perhaps even dogs, not to mention doggy-day care businesses, exist.

So when you hear anyone say, “it’s not rocket science” when talking about drafting laws or contracts, or interpreting them, step back slowly and walk away – and for heaven’s sake, don’t sign on their bottom lines.

Excerpt (full story here):

“A dog day care has pitted neighbor against neighbor and underscored a St. Bernard-size loophole in city and county regulations.

T.J. Civis, objecting to barking and foul odors, insists the Safe Journey dog-sitting service has no business operating next door to his home in the Brooklyn neighborhood. City code, he says, is clear: Pet facilities must be “at least 25 feet from any building used or capable of being used for human habitation.”

But Shawn Ryan, Safe Journey co-owner, says a city official encouraged him and Daniel Lioy to move their business to the Victorian home on Southeast Milwaukie Avenue.”