Tom Bullock

[chris richards]

does anyone ever think that it's threads like this that push politicians and people who want to do good for the city away before their time?

I do find it funny coming from a person that was using a blog to stalk me, and attack me, BUT in the end gave me a chance publicly to explain why I park the way I do. For that I am grateful, and I have always been glad for that chance and everything that has come out of it since.

If you run for office and do not think these kind of things are being talked about behind your back, than you are a fool. Everyone in this thread is actually doing the person a favor by bringing it into to the open court of public opinion, airing their differences.



FWIW


.

to set the record straight, i never used my blog to stalk you. i challenged the manor in which you park, and raised valid concerns about other things i saw and heard about in the city, most of which went unanswered aside from being attacked with anonymous comments saying that i must be for child molestation and also a drug addict. the first post i made on the issues was in frustration and anger and i quickly apologized for it. and when it came down to it, i was glad you responded to my query about your parking habits, but still disappointed that there really is no reason for them.

my point is that if people are trying to do good for the city, and are continually shot down, not necessarily on the deck, but by the city or by the citizens, why should they want to stay here when there are other communities that are more open to new ideas or just plain better ones?

[Jim O'Bryan]

to set the record straight, i never used my blog to stalk you. i challenged the manor in which you park, and raised valid concerns about other things i saw and heard about in the city, most of which went unanswered aside from being attacked with anonymous comments saying that i must be for child molestation and also a drug addict. the first post i made on the issues was in frustration and anger and i quickly apologized for it. and when it came down to it, i was glad you responded to my query about your parking habits, but still disappointed that there really is no reason for them.

Chris

I agree with this paragraph, as a far representation, but it was also constructed to prove my point. Your blog was far fairer then most I run into. You provided me with a forum to discuss my parking problem. I cannot ask for anything fairer or better. From all of that you now have an opinion of me based on fairness and openness.

How can any public official ask for more than a similar opportunity. Would it be better, if I had printed the photos, or made the comments in private to everyone I met on the street? And Tom or others had no chance to hear the comment and no chance to respond?

my point is that if people are trying to do good for the city, and are continually shot down, not necessarily on the deck, but by the city or by the citizens, why should they want to stay here when there are other communities that are more open to new ideas or just plain better ones?

Who is to say they are right? Honest? Good for me? Good for a majority of the city? and on and on. In the case of Tom Bullock how was that good for the city? I have thousands of photos of graffiti around town, never post it or print it, never. Why give anyone reason to tag anything? I have covered stories of graffiti without the images, as to not encourage or create the refrigerator art for the tagger. But Tom, in his innocence does an interview with a regional magazine, read heavily I am sure by "taggers" and basically says "Come to my ward, tag our homes, cars and buildings, and you can be on my facebook page."

Running a city is not black and right, right and wrong. Right now we are watching sides drawn, and discourse growing over schools. I believe that both sides are doing what they think is right for the city. Or I would hope so.

With the Tom Bullock thread, there are many dynamics. I know one poster in this thread is hoping for a person running against Tom. Another might even think of running against Tom. Are these people not trying to do what is right, or "good." If anyone bothered to notice, my posts are all in an effort for Tom to serve out his term, not get rid of him. All of my posts like his letter still link to his accounts and volunteer sites. This is not done of malice as you seem to infer, but one of one friend saying to another. PLEASE explain yourself. Why are you only using my city for a brief stepping stone? Why are you not keeping your promise?

These are all people trying to do good for their city, state country, or lives. Who is the star chamber that decides what is good? I think you have mentioned the library is not good, others think it is. Who is the judge. Could both be right? do we even need a judge? In a democracy are we not all judges?

I would also ask you to think about your post. Do you think I have extra pull with Tom because he is a friend, because I know him better than you? Do you think he would represent my businesses better than you because I know him better? That is what you are suggesting in saying he would take better care of Lakewood. He will remember us first. No politician should ever act that way, and one thing I like about Tom, is I cannot see him ever acting that way. Young, immature, overly passionate, green behind the ears, driven, career minded yes. But I do not believe he could be bought on any level.

.

[chris richards]

I would also ask you to think about your post. Do you think I have extra pull with Tom because he is a friend, because I know him better than you? Do you think he would represent my businesses better than you because I know him better? That is what you are suggesting in saying he would take better care of Lakewood. He will remember us first. No politician should ever act that way, and one thing I like about Tom, is I cannot see him ever acting that way. Young, immature, overly passionate, green behind the ears, driven, career minded yes. But I do not believe he could be bought on any level.

.

i'm not inferring that you have extra pull with tom, or that he could be bought. i don't know where you would get that from what i've posted?

what i did say is that if he is elected to a higher office, he would still be representing lakewood. from what i understand, and has been posted here, district 13 includes lakewood.

while we should all strive for what is better for the city in which we live, we should also support those in the community trying to better themselves, especially if they are reaching for positions in which they can better serve the community. while i too would love for tom to serve out his term, one has to understand that opportunity sometimes knocks earlier than one is prepared. does that mean that the opportunity should not be taken?

[Jim O'Bryan]

i'm not inferring that you have extra pull with tom, or that he could be bought. i don't know where you would get that from what i've posted?

what i did say is that if he is elected to a higher office, he would still be representing lakewood. from what i understand, and has been posted here, district 13 includes lakewood.

while we should all strive for what is better for the city in which we live, we should also support those in the community trying to better themselves, especially if they are reaching for positions in which they can better serve the community. while i too would love for tom to serve out his term, one has to understand that opportunity sometimes knocks earlier than one is prepared. does that mean that the opportunity should not be taken?

Chris

You train of thought is not in sync with your train of thought.Also they are all very separate issues. Plus you should read the other threads closer.

Maybe not you but others have indicated that Lakewood would benefit from the young lad that served nearly two years out of a four year term at council. And that because he has rented here for nearly two years, he will bring the bacon home to Lakewood and treat us better. This is a false thought.

So if it was found out that a politician came to Lakewood, created a bunch of cuts, and laws that no one real wanted, asked for or needed, all in an effort to move up the political ladder, not for the sake of Lakewood we should be happy? We should all support that person blindly because????? He is from Lakewood? He is now one of us?

In most political races their are two people. In this race their could be at least three from Lakewood. Now do we want all of them to succeed, or can we be so bold as to look at their records? Or do we pick the Lakewoodite that has lived here longest? Has the most property? Or served the city the best? Or kept the most promises?

This is not Binky's Clubhouse. This is not the Kiwanis backing a fellow Kiwanian? This is an election for a very serious office, and I maintain, though i like Tom, and he is a good guy, he has shown very little at this time to make me want to check the box. If he wants to take that leap, which he has every right to do. Then we have every right to judge him on his past, his present, the future, and all of his actions should come into play in that decision. So what you are saying that promises, friends, cities, commitments, moral fortitude means nothing when offered a promotion or chance for a raise? I know of at least four elected officials and many more public officials that have the morals to stand behind what they say, will stay while better offer were made to finish what they started and to keep their words to the city that elected him. Is not that as valid a view as yours?

As far as people doing good, there is not enough critical thought in this city to even start talking about that.

.

[Thealexa Becker]

I'm starting to wonder, if there was all this latent suspicion of Mr. Bullock because he has only rented here for a short time and he created laws that no one wanted and promised things that were unpopular or whatever everyone is continually suggesting, how he got elected in the first place.

How many people on this thread supported him when he ran? And if no one did, then shouldn't you be happy he's leaving instead of scolding him ideologically?

As for this thread scaring away politicians, in all honesty, I don't think enough constituent opinion is accurately represented to constitute any manner of worry.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I'm starting to wonder, if there was all this latent suspicion of Mr. Bullock because he has only rented here for a short time and he created laws that no one wanted and promised things that were unpopular or whatever everyone is continually suggesting, how he got elected in the first place.

How many people on this thread supported him when he ran? And if no one did, then shouldn't you be happy he's leaving instead of scolding him ideologically?

As for this thread scaring away politicians, in all honesty, I don't think enough constituent opinion is accurately represented to constitute any manner of worry.

Thealexa

I could not vote for Tom I do not live in his Ward, but supported his effort to run. For the record I thought Dan Shields was also a good solid option. I did have a single moment to pause and reconsider with one of his campaign workers, but realized it was not Tom talking but one of his minions. Helped Tom every chance I could, and still really like talking with Tom and consider him a friend. I own four businesses in Tom's Ward, and am soon starting another.

As for being a renter. Over 50% of the city is rental property. To me that makes the point neither a plus or a minus. Renters have every right for representation. While I openly joke with Ken Warren for being a "washashore" as he has only been here 26 years. The fact is to live here one hour makes you a resident, and as such you should have a say. However who would you say at first look would carry "Lakewood" to the next station in life. You, who grew up here, or a renter that merely stopped to catch a breath and move on?

As for input on the Deck or any source. I would hope any politician understand every time he makes a stand, he alienates or has the chance of alienating his constituents. This is the nature of politics in America, and is far worse in Europe, where protests are still a favorite form of expression. As mentioned in "Sicko" when speaking with Americans now living in France. "In Europe the politicians fear the citizens. In America the citizens fear what the politicians can do to them." I find that to be a very real and very honest statement. 80% of all the comments I get about using real names is, "what will happen to me I will be singled out." I would hope that any politician would be happy to discuss any issue with any resident. However in Lakewood the general though is eletters, so they never have to answer questions publicly, and Facebook, where they can block and ignore any real discussion. This is in an upcoming story of how groups and politicians, make their friends online where they can block them.

Actually we have a pretty interesting series of stories of the psychological make-up of the city, and its "leaders" coming the second week of July. For obvious reasons.


.

[marklingm]

does anyone ever think that it's threads like this that push politicians and people who want to do good for the city away before their time?

i've heard and read about many people who have worked hard to build a better lakewood that kept running into road blocks and then eventually decided to just leave and take their vision elsewhere.

Chris,

Personally, I would rather people bring their concerns and comments out in the open so that public officials can have the "opportunity" to respond.

Matt

As we start papers in other cities, one of the many things the other cities and their politicians seem to enjoy is: 1) putting an actual real name to the post/position, 2) Like knowing what constituents are thinking and saying, 3) Gauge quickly and easily what the city is thinking, 4) A public place to vet ideas and stop rumors in the bud.

Mayor Edward FitzGerald had become a pro at using this tool just for that. Go back and read the garbage thread, it is the one I use to show how it can work, and how the politicans can do a great job with the four I mentioned.

Jim,

I agree.

Matt

[Jim O'Bryan]

It was great watching the "Tom Bullock for something" crew out cleaning nearly two blocks of mostly private property this morning. Well until I saw all of the cameras filming the crew in bright blue "Tom Bullock for something shirts." Not sure if the were only doing two blocks or if they ran out of film.

Figure this was done to offset the "Tom Bullock for something" I encourage tagging and graffiti, moment of a couple weeks ago.

But every little bit helps.

Watch for it on the small screen soon I am sure.


.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Mr. Sage, I have no plans to run for office at the present time.

Ed, feel free to substantiate as you like. I have called several Catholics who are active in the community and they can recall no such remarks. All they recall is that most of my biggest supporters are Catholic and that I have a record of supporting LCA while on Council.

What is really being called into question these days is the timeline and your forthrightness with the St. James community regarding the church closing situation.

Ryan Patrick Demro

Something you want to say?

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

just wanted to keep this topic fresh, as The Ward 2 Councilman is now pushing a pet leash law that he knows will not fly, or pass the vote.

But his effort should equalize the negatives in making of some popular dog breeds illegal in the next election.

After all, it is all bullet points fro the next election.

right?


.

[Valerie Molinski]

just wanted to keep this topic fresh, as The Ward 2 Councilman is now pushing a pet leash law that he knows will not fly, or pass the vote.

But his effort should equalize the negatives in making of some popular dog breeds illegal in the next election.

After all, it is all bullet points fro the next election.

right?


.

Jim, can you share what this new proposal is? Thank you.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim, can you share what this new proposal is? Thank you.

It is something I agree with, but has ZERO chance with this council.

From the Lakewood Observer Paper 05.09

Spring into Action - Leashed Dogs In Lakewood Parks

The signs of spring are all around us: longer days, milder weather, and flowers peeking up through the soft ground. Spring also brings to mind enjoying the outdoors and the beautiful parks in Lakewood.

Unfortunately, Lakewood tax payers are currently prohibited from walking their leashed pets in our parks. Lakewood is unlike any of the cities around us in this ordinance: Westlake, Cleveland, Rocky River and Bay Village all allow residents to walk leashed dogs in their public parks. Lakewood taxes maintain the parks, yet residents cannot fully enjoy the park due to this pet restriction.

Allowing leashed dogs in Lakewood parks would have many positive benefits for the city and its residents. Increased traffic through the parks by dog walkers helps keep the parks safe. Lakewood’s first class parks encourage healthy activity through the variety of paths and walkways. Allowing leashed dogs in all the parks extends this benefit to Lakewood dog owners and their families, reducing stress and encouraging community. Dogs walking through Lakewood parks will discourage geese from settling and leaving droppings, leading to a cleaner park.

There may be some Lakewood residents who have concerns about allowing leashed dogs in Lakewood parks. Leashed dogs and their responsible owners would be expected to abide by all current laws related to clean up and behavior. Clean up stations (similar to the ones in Rocky River and Bay Village parks) would further encourage responsibility for all dog-walkers. Leashed dogs would not be permitted in playground areas of the parks, to ensure safety and pleasure for all residents of Lakewood.

Lakewood residents deserve the freedom and respect to utilize the parks with their pets and families. The resident committee supporting leashed dogs in the park has collected over 400 signatures in support of allowing leashed dogs in Lakewood parks. Please join us and show your support of this worthy initiative that will bring many positive benefits to the residents of the city of Lakewood.

You can share your comments on the Lakewood Observer’s observation deck and/or join the resident committee. To join, e-mail your contact information to leasheddogsinlakewoodparks@yahoo.com


.

[Brad Hutchison]

Why does this have zero chance to pass? It seems to be politically safe... no one objects that strongly to dogs in parks, do they? And while we're at it, what is the objection exactly?

I was extremely disappointed in the council with the pit bull ban... their lack of research and consultation with experts and their unwillingness to engage the citizenry was worrisome. But leashed dogs in parks isn't surrounded with the same sort of hysteria... walking your dog in a park is easy to portray as a wholesome family activity (because it is), a good way to maximize park usage (because it is), and a great opportunity to increase a positive community presence in the parks (because it is). So what's the problem?

[Valerie Molinski]

Why does this have zero chance to pass? It seems to be politically safe... no one objects that strongly to dogs in parks, do they? And while we're at it, what is the objection exactly?

I was extremely disappointed in the council with the pit bull ban... their lack of research and consultation with experts and their unwillingness to engage the citizenry was worrisome. But leashed dogs in parks isn't surrounded with the same sort of hysteria... walking your dog in a park is easy to portray as a wholesome family activity (because it is), a good way to maximize park usage (because it is), and a great opportunity to increase a positive community presence in the parks (because it is). So what's the problem?

Ditto this completely. I seriously do not understand why this has no chance of passing. Plenty of Lakewood's citizenry have dogs. I do not understand the push to make Lakewood such an unlivable, unfriendly place. Yeah, it's dogs... not fixing roads (much needed)... but it's the little things that count. This is one of them. And it should apply to all parks, not just Lakewood Park. Because if this does pass, people are going to complain about the overabundance of dogs in the park as it would be the only place we can all go. But... you know... baby steps.

So, Jim, are you saying that Bullock is against this measure as well? The rest of the council?

[Jim O'Bryan]

I would say this has zero chance of passing after speaking with enough people in this city to make this statement.

Again, I have always been a dog lover. Was against the Pit Bull Ban as I saw it nothing more than over reaction to what is perceived as "Ghetto Dogs." Get it!


Nothing is more fun for a dog owner than walking in the park, field or anywhere with their dog. I love taking my dog down into Emerald Canyon to chase sticks into the river. It is a no brainer, but how many people on council have dogs? How many were willing to look seriously at saying no to the pit bull ban? How many were willing to even consider the Chicken ruling.

.