CALLING OUT ALL CANDIDATES!

[Dan Shields]

Jim -

In response to your original questions, I think you are playing into the "safety question" hysteria that has become the hot button issue of this campaign season, and has unnecessarily caused confusion and fear among my Lakewood neighbors.

How do we respond to your post? (Although I must say I think Mr. Markling did the best job). Will you feel better if I promise to hang around Cook and Detroit, and mediate all conflicts among twenty year olds? And eighteen and twenty two year old as well? And yes, Jim, I certainly don't want to see young men committing physical violence against young women - it's not 'taking advantage of', it's rape. However, as a candidate, do you want to hear my plan to patrol youth parties in the city?

My plan, as it were, is to see that the laws that are in place are enforced. Once again, it appears that the Lakewood Police did their usual good job regarding response time and investigation. If there is an arrest, the matter will be turned over to felony prosecutors, not council members. The same will be the case for the alleged assault. These are felony matters that will be handled by Lakewood detectives, then felony prosecutors and sitting judges. I don't see candidates anywhere in that mix, and asking what the candidates' plan is to stop/prevent felony (or misdemeanor) behavior is like asking whether or not we have a plan to stop excess rain so that the basements on Warren don't flood.

My plan is to support our Lakewood Police and provide them with what they need. They are the best judges of what is important for them to do their job. As a longtime neighbor and attorney working in the justice system, I have been told repeatedly that what the police in Lakewood need are updated or new facilities. I agree, and as a candidate I have promised to help them reach a solution to having outdated facilities and an overcrowded jail. I am the only candidate that is working with the Lakewood Police to solve their most pressing problem. They cannot go out, respond, and investigate if they don't have adequate facilities to finish the job.

That is why I am the Ward 2 candidate that is endorsed by the police, Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #25.

Dan Shields

[Tom Bullock]

Dan,

Thanks for your response. We agree in some areas, but disagree in important areas.

It's important that we don't dismiss Lakewood residents' concerns about safety, but listen to them and learn from them.

What I am hearing is not "hysteria", but broad and deep-seated concern about safety from residents, from Observers, from parents, from retirees. Instead of questioning whether the problems we're experiencing are real, let's roll up our sleeves and get to work solving them.

What you're seeing is not "unnecessary confusion", but frustration over crime, noise, trash, and absentee landlords; not a "hot button issue", but a troubling set of realities in our neighborhoods; not "campaign season" activity, but efforts by community leaders to find solutions for the problems Lakewood is dealing with.

We also disagree that responding to crimes is an adequate safety strategy for Lakewood. We need to PREVENT and deter crime in Lakewood. We need to get ahead of the problem so we are being strategic and go on the offensive. While our police have excellent response time, we need to build on this and get them the resources they need to prevent and deter. In addition, Block Watches and neighborhood engagement can help prevent and deter (more below).

I'm working for a two-part solution: first, strengthen our police; and second, organize our neighbors as a first step to dealing with crime, noise, trash, and absentee landlords. Organizing neighbors is important because it adds tools to our problem-solving toolbox by engaging citizens to solve problems. This is explained in my Good Neighborhoods Safety Plan, the most detailed version of which is here:

• http://tombullockforlakewood.com/files/ ... 20Plan.pdf
  
  (If this link is not working, try this one, then find the "Click here for detailed printout" link at the top/bottom of the page: http://tombullockforlakewood.com/safetyforum )

1) On the first part, we both agree: Lakewood Police need more resources to meet rising safety challenges. This give our police the tools to not only respond quickly, but to get ahead of the problem and prevent and deter crime. As you can see from the plan at the link above, there are both short-term and long-term steps needed to improve safety. This may include personnel, training, and tools.

Improving Lakewood safety certainly includes improving police facilities, which, as I know from my own conversations with police officers and leadership, is interfering with effective enforcement. (e.g. Sometimes officers can't make arrests because there's no jail space to hold a criminal; sometimes patrol officers are pulled off patrol to transfer prisoners to another city's jail, where we pay full room, board, and medical.)

Since financing a new police headquarters and jail is a big-ticket item, our city leadership may have been procrastinating, over the past several decades, on meeting this need, until it became more acute and apparent. Well, we are now clearly at that point, which is why so many in town--residents, Observers, and candidates--have been talking about safety and the need to do more.

Since building new facilities are big-ticket long-term items, I felt it was responsible to begin to describe how we might realistically finance such a plan. I have experience in getting federal budget dollars for local communities, and I think Lakewood will need to develop a comprehensive safety plan for personnel, training, operations, AND facilities, then seek joining financing from federal, state, and local sources. Lakewood residents pay federal and state taxes, but we only get some of these back. We'll get more back if we're at the table, assertively pitching our needs, making as strong a case as possible for Lakewood. On Council, I'll bring my experience to this task. Successful budget advocacy for Lakewood can expand our budget pie (a bit), and is preferably to reflexively going to the citizens for a tax levy as the first resort and path of least resistance.

2) On the second part, neighbor engagement and Block Watches, we disagree. Rather than "hysteria" and "confusion", I think neighbor engagement is important because it adds tools to our problem-solving toolbox by engaging citizens to solve problems. In fact, engaging neighbors is the opposite of fear: it's building confidence through solving problems and building community by making stronger neighbor relationships. A good Block Watch can make neighbors and friends where before there were only residents and strangers.

When neighbors are organized into a network that knows how to watch for and prevent crime, they can partner with the police and make problem-solving more effective. That multiplies the effectiveness of the police that we do have.

This same partnership can work for other issues: housing quality, absentee landlords, trash in yards, noise at night. While not hard crime, these problems matter too: in a town like Lakewood, where we live so close to one another, we need to be good neighbors and address any problem that detracts from us being a safe, clean, and family-friendly community.

Once organized, neighbors can build beyond a safety watch to address these other issues, and this helps the police since it means we're not looking to them as the first/only resort for quality of life issues (such as noise and trash) in neighborhoods. When we solve neighborhood issues, it frees the police to focus on bigger problems.

I have an Oct. 10 meeting scheduled for block captains to take the next steps in getting organized. Please join me if you want to be part of the solution.

Sincerely,

Tom

[dl meckes]

How would you prevent and deter adults from shooting each other in domestic violence situations?

[sharon kinsella]

Tom -

While I would like to commend you on getting so many endorsements from some regionals clubs, I think it is interesting and telling that the Lakewood Democratic Club, where you are Vice President and is the Democrat presence in the community you want to represent, endorse Dan Shields and not you.

Also, I helped put democrats in state leadership and our new democratic senator in the senate. Why haven't the democrats you helped put in office endorsing you?

Your postcard was misleading the way that you have "endorsed democrat" blazing all over the front of the card and yet the Lakewood Dems did not endorse you.

Let's have complete truth in advertising.

[Kevin Butler]

Sharon, both Tom and Dan are stand-up guys. This is a ward council race; we get paid seven grand a year for what really amounts to a second full-time job. Why be so nasty and dismissive?

[sharon kinsella]

Because Tom is misrepresenting the truth - and if there is one thing I can't stand is lies or misrepresentation.

As a lifelong democrat I take my party very seriously and will not stand idly by and allow this type of activity.

Notice how I didn't bring up that as an officer of the club, Tom is supposed to be supporting the endorsed democrat?

That would be a technicality wouldn't it?

[Bryan Schwegler]

While I would like to commend you on getting so many endorsements from some regionals clubs, I think it is interesting and telling that the Lakewood Democratic Club, where you are Vice President and is the Democrat presence in the community you want to represent, endorse Dan Shields and not you.

My understanding is that the Lakewood Democratic Club endorsements are based on a secret ballot vote which amounts to not much more than a secret popularity contest. There doesn't seem to be any objective reasoning to why they as a whole vote one way or another...it just depends on who's there and who votes.

That type of endorsement doesn't hold much water with me. I would be more impressed with a candidate's individual activism and platform especially at the local level. Party status for the most part is completely irrelevant in local politics.

As for Tom in particular, I believe he is endorsed by several other Democratic organizations so I hardly consider that misleading.

For the record I know neither Dan nor Tom personally and I don't live in Ward 2.

[sharon kinsella]

Bryan -

Our democratic system is based on secret ballots - it's called the poll booth. Maybe you think it's a personality contest, I think it's a judgement of character and experience.

And yes, the other organizations are demoratic organizations, I never said they weren't and I congratulated Tom on getting those endorsements. But, the Lakewood Democratic Club is the organization which represents and is open to all Lakewood Democrats which is the venue that this race is for council.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Our democratic system is based on secret ballots - it's called the poll booth. Maybe you think it's a personality contest, I think it's a judgement of character and experience.

In some respects, yes, elections are popularity contests. So here's my question then...why did Dan get the endorsement over Tom? Why is Dan a better Democrat? I'm not necessarily saying Tom is better than Dan mind you...just that I fail to see how the Democratic Club process answers that question for me.

And yes, the other organizations are demoratic organizations, I never said they weren't and I congratulated Tom on getting those endorsements.

But you're basically calling Tom a liar for saying he's an endorsed Democrat while admitting that he has been endorsed by Democratic groups. I guess that's why I'm confused.

[sharon kinsella]

Truth in advertising - yes I am saying that what Tom is indicating is misleading. The Lakewood Democratic Club gave the city endorsement to Dan and not Tom.

I didn't say Dan was a better democrat, please don't attribute words to me that I didn't say. I'm well aware that when I type on here it is in writing and my name is signed to it. Therefore, I don''t say things lightly.

I'm tired of all the misleading mailers, statements, rants that have been going on since this whole primary race began. I have spoken to Tom and Ed and Dan about these issues. Frankly, the only one who has consistently been without guile is Dan Shields.

I've gotten exclamations of "didn't intend for it to sound that way", "no, I'd never do that" and "you need to teach me".

I don't need to teach people who consider themselves seasoned enough and reasonable enough to run for office, how to be honarable, above board and stand by their word.

Do I sound angry - why yes I do.

Am I bitter - no I'm not.

Am I surprised - no I'm not.

Am I disappointed - yes.

I will not stand by silently while people tear my town to pieces with misrepresentations.

[Bryan Schwegler]

I didn't say Dan was a better democrat, please don't attribute words to me that I didn't say. I'm well aware that when I type on here it is in writing and my name is signed to it. Therefore, I don''t say things lightly.

I didn't say you said said that, reread what I wrote. I was asking this in reference to the Lakewood Democratic Club. They endorsed Dan, hence they're saying Dan is a better choice for Democrats. I'm just wanting to know why?

[sharon kinsella]

No one person can speak for the whole club - for myself - Tom George is the better candidate because he is not out there misrepresenting the truth, as far as I am concerned. Almost all of the claims that have been made during this primary can be substantiated by the cities open records. It's not all that complicated.

Why did I pick Dan over Tom - well one of the reasons was the mailer that Tom put out about protecting our borders - give me a break. When I confronted him about it being racist, he said that he didn't mean it that way. I told him that that's how it came out and he told me I "needed" to teach him about it. Why am I going into detail about that? Tom is an English major. Anyone with an understanding of literature and the English language should understand the power of words and innuendo and if they don't - what were they doing while in school?

Dan has consistently moved the conversation away from divisiveness to inclusiveness - that gets my vote everytime.

Just like I can't and you can't define why the US voted GWB into office (personally I think we was robbed) no one person can speak for a whole organization.

In a democratic process the will of the people should rule.

[Bryan Schwegler]

No one person can speak for the whole club

So if the club as a whole can't articulate why they endorsed someone, what is the value of that endorsement?

[sharon kinsella]

Bryan -

It is the will of the membership. No more no less.

That's the american way - remember.

[Kevin Butler]

I will not stand by silently while people tear my town to pieces with misrepresentations.

But you will use hyperbole, like this, to get your message across. You're a candidate after all!

Picking up the town's pieces since 2005,

Kevin Butler
(Ward 1 Council)