Community Meetings on the Mission of the City

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Observers,

I, along with other Members of Council, just discovered this tonight. No formal notice had been delivered to me prior to finding this on the city website. Please consider attending a meeting and giving your input. I apologize for the short notice.

COMMUNITY MEETINGS ON
THE MISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

Jennifer Alexander, Ph.D. and Susan Freimark of the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs of CSU will be hosting four community meetings/focus groups on the Mission of the City of Lakewood:

November 29, 2006
7:00 to 9:00 PM
L-Room at Lakewood High School, 14100 Franklin Boulevard

December 6, 2006
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Beck Center for the Arts, 17801 Detroit Avenue

December 11, 2006
7:00 to 9:00 PM
Imperial House Apartments, 11900 Edgewater Drive

December 13, 2006
10:30 AM to 11:00 AM
Kathleen & Robert Lawther Center, 16024 Madison Avenue

[Kenneth Warren]

Are these meetings any different in intent and structure than earlier focus groups that some of us have already participated in months ago concerning issues facing the city and expectations for the functioning of government?

Were these results disclosed yet?

Why aren't the wizards from CSU using a tool such as the LO Observation Deck to capture whatever it is they need to capture and disseminate whatever order of vision and plan our city is expected to execute?

In the city that would know itself better than any other, it seems that those that know do not speak, an ancient order of wisdom.....

Can we resolve as a city to break the codes of silence in the New Year and finally realize the planning potential of the LO project to unify the action and intelligence?

Will the Wizards of CSU be there to greet the flaming monkey of our resolutions for the city on New Year's Eve?

Kenneth Warren

[Bill Call]

Were these results disclosed yet?

Information is power and politicians are loathe to share power. The Observer is a great place for City leaders to share insight and information. They don't use the site because they have no interest in sharing information.

They don't want to share financial or operational information because it would challenge their power base.

Citistat is a good example. Other cities have used the program to save millions of dollars while improving service. A successful program has to be based on transparency and accountability. The City is interested in neither. Lakewood's Citistat "program" is program designed to give the illusion of action.

If the citizens knew how many city employees cost more than $100,000 per year would they demand some answers? I think yes.

If they knew about 45,000 sick hours every year would they be curious about the abuse of sick time? Probably.

If the citizens were fully informed about City finances would they be more or less likely to keep funding the gravy train?

Local media sources, including the Observer, hesitate to offer financial information because it would upset the status quo.

Did you every wonder why the media hails each new superintendent of the City of Cleveland Schools as a genius because he/she is doing such a great job of correcting the disastrous policies of the previous superintendent even though the previous superintendent was also hailed as a genius?

[Jeff Endress]

Maybe Susan is working on her PhD and needs a study group......

But in all seriousness does any City have a "Mission"? (Yes I know we have "the Mission". but that's something different). Certainly there were some early mission driven urban projects, usually centered around some religious precept, but by and large, mission driven urban collectives would be hard to find. Anytime someone began posting opinions about Lakewood which would smack of a perceived "mission", there were rampant allegations of Kool-Aid consumption.

Jeff

[dl meckes]

I thought this whole idea came from council members who wanted a strategic plan for Lakewood, but I could be confused (wouldn't be the first time...).

[Steven Greenwell]

Greetings

I wanted to share with this (group? system? fellow citizens?) that I attended the first of the series of meetings CSU is facilitating with citizens regarding the mission of the city.

My first suggestion to those involved -- better PR. I only found out about the meeting when our City Councilperson sent an e-mail. The turnout for this meeting -- two citizens, the facilitator from CSU, and two employees of the city (Jennifer from Finance and Dryck from Planning and Development).

When asked what brought about this process we were told that it was the result of a strategic plan from the city and council. Members from the administration and city council participated in a retreat this fall and one of the procucts from that meeting was a set of strategic initiatives to offer to the citizenry for consideration and feedback. In response to a previous message on this thread I don't know if some segments of the community have already participated in this process.

We were presented with three broad areas; Economic Development, Public Safety, and Housing. There were three initiatives listed with each one. We were asked to rank them and state our desire to invest (i.e. pay taxes) in each initiative. Well, since there were only two of us it was a very informal session!

Probably the first reaction to an announcement about meeting to discuss the city mission is, "Enough meetings...how about some action!" That is my initial reaction to this process. However, I hope that some of the the very thoughtful folks who post on this message board will take the time to attend future meetings. (I would hate to have the city decide on its mission based on the ideas of the two of us at the one meeting

But seriously... Though this may not be on the same scale as the discernment process the school Board went through to involve the community in the decision for the future of the school buildings at least there seems to be an attempt to listen to the citizen response as the administration makes decisions about the investment of city resources.

[Kenneth Warren]

Steve:

Thank you for the post. It sounds like the session you attended had developed a tighter focus of strategic action topics, with the payment notice, than the earlier session I attended with Jim and a few others.

Why the CSU facilitators and the powers that be - whether Councilman Demro Councilwoman Antonio, Mayor George or Mr. Jordan or the Planning Commission - don't avail themselves of the LO Deck and register a new chapter in their planning services repertoire to process these issues is beyond me, especially given the low turn-out you mentioned.

Let's light a spark, break the code of silence, learn how to process civic content that bears on the city's future together and do the job right for the 21st century.

That you have stepped onto the LO Deck, with the commitments, wisdom and service record you possess, to bring light, means a great deal to me and the LO community here.

Many thanks.

Kenneth Warren

[Stan Austin]

Steve--- Good report. Along with the two administration members in attendence, which council members were at the meeting?
Stan Austin

[Steven Greenwell]

In the spirit of, "shared information is a good thing!" I will share the information that was handed out at the meeting I attended. There was a one page flyer handed out that reads as follows:

DIRECTION:
Under each subheading are strategic initiatives for citizens to consider. Examine the statements with your group and rank them in order of importance. After each initiative indicate whether you would support it if it were to require an increase in taxes. You are invited to provide additional detail to the initiatives in accordance with what emerges from your group conversation.

Economic Development:
a) Generate residential, commercial, and retail development (including land banking, TIF financing and other development tools to support building projects around the city that are attractive to residents and non0-residents.)

b) Maintain and enhance residents' quality of life through timely and visible public infrastructure improvements, increased visibility of the public safety forces and generating a healthy, pedestrian-and bicyclist-friendly retail environment.

c) Implement cost saving efforts while improving the city's image as a progressive community (including the development of wind cogeneration and waste-to-energy systems within Lakewood).

Public Safety:
a) Engage in more crime prevention through increased education, enforcement and cooperation among city departments (one of the city staff present stated that this sentence should end with, "...and the community")

b) Use crime data to identify and target types of crimes and ensure that resources are being allocated appropriately (with respect to location and type of crime).

c) Create an internal task force to coordinate the work of departments.

Housing:
a) Create programs to help citizens maintain the quality of their housing that are available regardless of income. Publicize it.

b) Create a proactive approach to vacant housing and pass a predatory lending law (in response to absentee landlords).

c) Create a tax incentive for infill housing or unmarketable housing (abatements and incentives to convert multi-family housing to single unit housing).

That concludes the wording of the flyer. Even if you decide not to attend future meetings I would encourage you to contact your city council representative with your thoughts about these initiatives. Perhaps invite them to join a discussion on this message board!

Two final thoughts: I forgot to give credit to Ryan Demro in my last e-mail for sending out a notice about the meeting. And in response to Stan's question -- there were no city council members at this meeting.

[Shawn Juris]

Interesting. Thanks for posting Steve. Was there any indication of budgets that they thought were necessary for these programs. I guess I'm wondering what type of tax increase is needed for the public safety items. Are they not currently using crime data to respond appropriately to trouble areas?
The housing issues also seem to be some touchy subjects. Personally, the two family conversions still sound risky to me from a marketability perspective.

[Jim O'Bryan]

...including land banking,

c) Implement cost saving efforts while improving the city's image as a progressive community (including the development of wind cogeneration and waste-to-energy systems within Lakewood).


b) Create a proactive approach to vacant housing and pass a predatory lending law (in response to absentee landlords).

Steven

Thanks for the post, do you want to do the story for the paper?

The ones above all seem promising. I know of 6 lots that should be land banked right now. Can think of more important stuff than wind power, but love this "Implement cost saving efforts while improving the city's image as a progressive community" Reads like the Lakewood Observer Mission Statement.

http://workingwithwords.blogspot.com/20 ... -this.html

The other resident at the meeting was an Observer. Jennifer Pae, Ryan Demro, and Nicki Antonio are as well. I agree with Ken, but because I am so close to the project, the talk, the city, etc. I will be quiet.

But right now Observer Project is very much like the Ferrari, that has never been out of first gear. In 2007 I think ALL MEMBERS will open it up and see she what she can do, eh?

Thanks again, will try to get Pat to throw in his $37.50(two cents would never cover the bill) he always has a refreshing honest take on things. Like a Democratic version of Mr Sharp Pencil, Bill Call.


.

[Tom Bullock]

I had the chance to attend the Wed Dec. 6 session. Also there were 8 other attendees (including several Observers), two facilitators, City Finance Director Jennifer Pae and Councilwoman Nickie Antonio.

Overall, it was an informative, lively, deep, insightful exchange. The facilitators, Pae, and Antonio all did a superb job of answering audience questions, many of which were very specific or very involved.

The discussion opened with an explanation and overview of Lakewood City Finances by Pae, who handed out a superb chart breaking out the various income streams and spending budgets.

The punchline: the City is strapped for $$. We are also 80-90 percent maxed on allowable debt. Adding to the pressures: a key federal funding category (Community Development Block Grants) is getting the budget ax, thanks to the Iraq War, and will be reduced by 20 percent.

Then we split into two groups to discuss the nine suggested initiatives, as described above by Greenwell.

I'll provide highlights of my group's discussion in a separate message.

[Tom Bullock]

My group had five participants. Our first reaction was to question whether the nine initiatives proposed by the City could only be funded by tax increases, or were there other options? We loosely agreed that cuts should be looked at first. One pointed out a combination of cuts and raises were probably necessary.

Also coming up: the lack of a residency requirement for City of Lakewood employees. A vigorous discussion took place: some pointed out that since easily 2/3 to 3/4 of City revenues go to 512 full time and 200 part-time City employees (police, fire, and all other civil servants) the City can't afford NOT to have the payroll it invests in these forces helping to boost Lakewood commerce (through home occupancy, property taxes, increased local purchases, etc.).

Highlights:

We agreed that developing downtown commerce was important but distinguished that this should mostly be funded by private sector money. The role for the City is to round up the players and cut a creative deal, perhaps put down pennies on the dollar to kickstart a deal by private developers. Also, the City could play a role through land use decisions--e.g. zoning for commerce vs. residency.

We ADDED a new initiative to the list: make the City departments, rules, permits business friendly. This means providing GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE, producing an "Easy 123 Steps to Opening a Business in Lakewood" guides, and easing up on sign rules etc. where appropriate. We realized Lakewood could be "The City of Homes AND Small Businesses". (Later Steve Gross countered, "Lakewood should be the 'City of Neighborhoods'.")

We also agreed that building neighborhoods were crucial. This means having cops *walk* the beat--so there is better proactive crime prevention (and integration of rough neighbors). Moreso, this means helping Lakewood residents FEEL and SEE the presence of law enforcement so they FEEL SAFE. The acid test for success: when parents feel safe letting kids walk to school; when seniors feel safe walking to the drug store.

Also discussed (my neighbor's idea): reviving the Block Parent program Lakewood had in the 60s and 70s--a designated, background-checked neighbor who can serve as the after-school safe haven, trouble shooter, fight resolver, superviser for kids on the street plus others in trouble.

We also thought promoting and building block parties had value. Some areas of Lakewood are more active than others. When you hold a block party, you really get to know your neighbors.

Finally, we discussed how the first two housing initiatives were interlinked and should be pursued simultaneously. i.e. Housing codes should be enforced more strictly. At the same time, crack down on predatory lenders.

AND (added to the list by Dan Slife) Lakewood should adjust present first time homebuyer assistance so that the City isn't acting as a predatory lender itself--by helping lower-income residents get into an unsustainable situation where they who can't AFFORD to maintain the home according to our once-again-strick housing standards. So the assistance should be retargeted UP the income scale. (People in the $20-32k range can rent in Lakewood's uber-affordable rental market--not a bad situation, by any stretch.)

Finally, we thought the private market, not subsidies from our squeezed City budget, should fill "infill or unmarketable housing".

We discussed more, but at least this gives key highlights.

[Bill Call]

.... One pointed out a combination of cuts and raises were probably necessary.

AND (added to the list by Dan Slife) Lakewood should adjust present first time homebuyer assistance so that the City isn't acting as a predatory lender itself--by helping lower-income residents get into an unsustainable situation where they who can't AFFORD to maintain the home according to our once-again-strick housing standards.

The City has virtually no borrowing authority and no cash in the bank.

For the last ten years administration after administration depleted savings, cut investment in infrastructure and engaged in various shell game tactics to avoid confronting City employees with this unpleasant fact of life: The current level of pay and benefits is unsustainable.

I am not willing to accept any tax increase of any kind that will simply be used to fund the status quo.

When the Mayor last tried to get an increase in the income tax it was pointed out that the money raised would pay for two years of wage increases promised to City employees. After two years another income tax increase would be needed to fund another round of raises.

At the end of last year the City had 689 employees. That is a level that is far higher than existed 15 or 20 years ago. Have City services improved?

Dan is correct regarding the Lakewood Home buyer program. The reality is that the people who are elligible find it difficult to pay for all that is required to maintain a home.

[DougHuntingdon]

I have known people approved for home loans through some kind of program, but they still had to pay a relatively small amount of closing costs, which amounted to less than a couple thousand, I believe. They could not come up with the money for the closing costs, so they did not buy the house. Something is wrong with that picture, though.

Doug