Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 25 endorses Mayor George

[Thomas J. George]

Observers,

I am proud to announce the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 25 (representing Lakewood Police officers) has endorsed me for re-election.

These individuals know safety in Lakewood better than anyone. They live it 24/7.

They know my record, they know my background, they know my priorities. They know I pledged to make safety first before others were even talking about safety.

Safety is a cornerstone of our economic development success. Lakewood wouldn't be enjoying the kind of development we are enjoying unless we had and will continue to made safety first. Investments don't flow toward unsafe communities.

My administration brought security cameras to both Madison and Lakewood Parks nearly three years ago. We have re-instituted the highly visible motor cycle police. We have returned our safety forces to full strength. We have increased our narcotics enforcement. We developed a CERT (Community Emergency Response Team). We instituted Lakewood's emergency radio station 1660 to inform you of potentially dangerous situations.

The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 25 is familiar with my opponents. The F.O.P. knows their backgrounds, the F.O.P. knows their records.

If you are concerned about safety in Lakewood, the choice is clear.

Thank you for helping to build a better Lakewood.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

The mayor is once again highlighting another endorsement from people who do not live within our city. It should be noted that the FOP did not even bother to interview Councilman Fitzgerald or myself as they have in the past. In addition, I was informed that this decision had been made within days of the approval of the latest contract. The Mayor negotiates the terms of the contract.

This makes me wonder, "Is city hall for sale?" And to whom does the mayor really answer?

[David Anderson]

Councilman Demro -

You imply that the "latest contract" may not be focused on Lakewood's best interests and question whether "city hall is for sale." (I don't know one way or the other as I was not at the negotiating table and know absolutely nothing about the agreement.)

Specifically, what component(s) of the "latest contract" prompt you to raise such questions. What would you have done differently?



Mayor George -

Please describe the "latest contract" in brief and compare/contrast new or amended components.



Councilman Fitzgerald -

Please weigh in on this issue as well.



Sincerely

[Frank Murtaugh]

The mayor is once again highlighting another endorsement from people who do not live within our city. It should be noted that the FOP did not even bother to interview Councilman Fitzgerald or myself as they have in the past. In addition, I was informed that this decision had been made within days of the approval of the latest contract. The Mayor negotiates the terms of the contract.

This makes me wonder, "Is city hall for sale?" And to whom does the mayor really answer?

Mr. Demro;

At the July 16, 2007 regular City Council meeting you voted to authorize the Mayor to enter into the contract with the Western Cuyahoga Lodge No. 25, Fraternal Order of Police, Lakewood Division, for a three year period commencing January 1, 2007. Pursuant to the City Charter, a minimum of five Council votes was required. The Council vote on this important police contract negotiated by the administration was unanimous.

[Lynn Farris]

Mayor George you said

These individuals know safety in Lakewood better than anyone. They live it 24/7.

They know my record, they know my background, they know my priorities. They know I pledged to make safety first before others were even talking about safety.

Safety is a cornerstone of our economic development success. Lakewood wouldn't be enjoying the kind of development we are enjoying unless we had and will continue to made safety first. Investments don't flow toward unsafe communities.

I completely agree with you regarding your last paragraph. Respectfully, however, I'm confused. Are you saying that Lakewood is a safe city as it is now? Are the people that are talking about crime - just using scare tactics to get elected?

[Jim O'Bryan]

I completely agree with you regarding your last paragraph. Respectfully, however, I'm confused. Are you saying that Lakewood is a safe city as it is now? Are the people that are talking about crime - just using scare tactics to get elected?

Lynn

Not answering for the mayor but from my own experience.

Yes.

I have been to most safety and park meetings. Litter a big problem, hanging gutters, pulled down was about 1/8th of Bullock's meeting. At Ed's meeting a car parked during rush hour was highlighted for 17 minutes.

Everyone is over reacting to this issue.

Of course when candidates speak of "increased gang violence" and "a man from East Cleveland stabbing a man from Lakewood on a basketball court" and NEITHER ARE TRUE, I would have to say those leading with safety, are going for low hanging faux fruit, that will cost this city people moving in, and maybe cause some to leave.

Look at the poll on page one. One one person in twelve mentioned safety. Most want to see property values secured and cleanliness addressed over the next four years.

One candidate early on said he would run on safety. He is. The other now trying to claim it also. Most crimes in this town, domestic violence, followed by nuisance and now curfew. Don't take my word for it, read the reports from court, the police and even the raw calls.

The police levy that some of us are pushing for has very little to do with crime now. It is all about crime in the future, and sending a message to criminals. We have the most police by far, stay out of town.

Burglaries, up in River, Bay, Westlake, North Olmsted. Drugs up in Bay and Westlake.

Fear tactics, trying to scare you into voting.


FWIW


.

[Lynn Farris]

Jim you said:

The police levy that some of us are pushing for has very little to do with crime now. It is all about crime in the future, and sending a message to criminals. We have the most police by far, stay out of town.

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. You are suggesting increasing our tax burden at a time when foreclosures are hitting a record high in NE Ohio and people are being downsized by 33% for something in the future that we may not need? Why not wait until we need it?

Is Mayor George suggesting this 33% tax increase for this potential crime wave for the future?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim you said:

The police levy that some of us are pushing for has very little to do with crime now. It is all about crime in the future, and sending a message to criminals. We have the most police by far, stay out of town.

I'm sorry, I'm still confused. You are suggesting increasing our tax burden at a time when foreclosures are hitting a record high in NE Ohio and people are being downsized by 33% for something in the future that we may not need? Why not wait until we need it?

Is Mayor George suggesting this 33% tax increase for this potential crime wave for the future?

Lynn

This is the police levy out of the VAL think tank. No connection with anything from any Mayoral camp. I want that clear.

Year one - equipment and training

Year two - residency incentives

Year three - serious look at how many and where.

If we were to address crime now maybe another handful 3-5 police to cover nuisance laws and curfew. That is all maybe.

The secret with crime is to stay way in-front of it. This would allow us to do it. Common sense tells us tougher times are ahead for every city. Look at burglaries, or as some of us would say "serious" crime. Up most places but not here by any large number.

The police levy we talk of is very heavy in getting police to move back into Lakewood. I was talking with a union lawyer the other night who handles fireman in other cities, and asked. "If the mayor was to hire 30 NEW police could he demand they live here as part of the hiring?" His answer was if phrased correctly yes.

This is what is so frustrating, we have many easy options for making the city safe internally. Most revolve around residency incentives for fire, police and teachers. 30 more police on the streets, that is offensive not defensive.

Did I clear anything up?


.

[Bret Callentine]

Why not wait until we need it?

Preventing a problem is usually cheaper than fixing a problem. Adding a few more police now is better than waiting until we need dozens more to solve problems that we let infiltrate the city.

Ask a homeowner which is cheaper, a gallon of exterior house paint now, or replacing rotted siding after letting the paint peel away.

Unfortunately, too many people prefer to let the house rot, and then they blame it on the rain.

[Lynn Farris]

Thanks Jim, you cleared up some questions but generated others.

1) The 33% income tax increase that the Mayor is proposing and promised Moody's to get the better rating is not related to the police levy?

2) The police levy is based on property tax?
a) If we pass this levy what assurances do we have that they will not
reduce the amount for police in the general fund by the same
amount (a la the lottery money for the schools?)
b) What assurances do we have that the Mayor will not redirect the
money like he did with the sewer fund?

3) So in the next few years, if the Mayor is reelected, should we expect our tax burden to increase 33% in income tax, as well as the police levy, as well our schools have been very good about waiting for the operating levy. So we are going to be hit significantly in both the income and property tax areas?

[Phil Florian]

When people throw out "33%" tax increase, it is usually to reinforce their view that they don't like the levy. I assume you are saying that of what we are getting taxed, that is going up by 1/3, correct? When I see "33%" it is to make people think that 1/3 of their income will go to this levy, not a 1/3 increase in our income tax. What is the current and what is the next level of income being taxed? This would be more of interest to me. Are we going from the current 1.5% to what? 1.9%? 2%? I think an extra half-penny for every dollar I make is worth a bit more security for the future.

I do agree with the sentiment that getting out ahead of the need is far better than trying to catch up to it. We are being naive to think that crime won't increase if we do nothing to prevent it. Until the region is brimming with new money, jobs, hope and prosperity, I think we can expect more pressure on our police. Better to lock that down now than wait for it to boil over in years to come.

Jim, thanks for bringing a bit of reality salve to sooth the burn of the trumped up current state of criminal affairs in the city. It is sad that the very tactics that have been employed at a national level to win elections ("They are out to get us!") is being employed at a local level. But fear sells better than hope so go with what works, I suppose. But unlike the national level, where we "trust" what others tell us is going on, we can actually see what is going on around us. I hope folks are taken in by this or, as Jim suggested, are responding by selling homes or refusing to move into town.

[Lynn Farris]

Phil,

You are right the income tax increase raises the income tax from 1.5% to 2%, which is a 33% tax increase. I don't believe this has anything to do with the police levy that Jim is discussing.

The police levy I don't know the funding mechanism - but the terminology implies property tax increase.

I'm trying to find out if the Mayor wants the police levy in addition to the income tax increase.

It would also be interesting to see where the other candidates stand.

[Ed FitzGerald]

Regarding taxes and crime:

The mayor is proposing an increase from 1.5% to 2% for 2008, and he has been advocating this since his first month in office. That is a 33% increase over our current tax rate. Jim is correct in that this is not a police levy, it would go for general operating expenses. I oppose it, but it is up to the mayor to make the case for it and explain his rationale, as that is part of his plan for his second term.

As for crime, I have seen the statistics provided by both Lakewood Court and the police department. The 10-year trend is very clear. In the last 10 years, violent crime is up approximately 30%, drug crime is up approximately 70%, and property crime is up approximately 134%.

Addressing this serious issue is not a "campaign tactic." It is a reality that many residents are living with, and that I have personally heard from literally hundreds and hundreds of residents. Any candidate or commentator who claims this is unwarranted is denying both these residents' experiences as well as the statistics.

It is no comfort to me to claim that other suburbs' crime rates have also risen; if your home is broken into, it is not reassuring to be told that someone in Fairview is going through the same thing.

If people feel safer now than they did 10 years ago, then my message will not resonate and the Mayor's claims that crime is down will prevail.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Ed


Thanks for the information.

My point was and still is that the people I talk with seem more worried of property values than the crime wave some candidates, not you have spoken of.

We both know that answers to various questions depend on the set-up for the question. I was speaking with a person running for council that reported much of what you are talking of. When I asked to hear his pitch, he lead with. "So what do you think about the crime problem in Lakewood?" This made people lead with crime for a problem. Had he lead with poor housing stock, or just a "What do you like or dislike in Lakewood" the answers might be different.

I think you pointed out at one of your meetings that much of this "crime" is from people coming in from outside of Lakewood. In fact much of it is perception not reality, which is a good thing. However perception is very real in the minds of the people voicing concerns.

Having made nearly all the meetings, I have yet to hear of the "serious" crime some speak of. Parking, trash, graffiti, low hanging pants, vulgar language, litter seems to be 90% of what is talked about.

Even your question here is somewhat vague and prone to instant agreement. NO ONE feels safer today than ten years ago. We have had a president that has cranked so much fear into the population that I doubt we will ever feel safer in America. Or even as safe as ten years ago.
Sadly those days are gone.

I do feel safety is a big issue, only becuase we have a chance to get infront of this, and keep Lakewood safe.

As always thanks for jumping in and I have never heard "increased gang violence" or "recent stabbings" associated with your campaign.

FWIW


.

[Ed FitzGerald]

Jim-

Thank you for understanding the difference between some of the campaign claims out there. You and I have discussed this issue many times, and I agree with you that most of the complaints out there are about "quality of life" criminal offenses, not homicides, etc.

I posted in another thread some comments about Section 8 and crime- I really think the more data we have out in the public domain, the more rational our discussion will be.