Public Safety Meeting re Park Hours/Pitbulls TONIGHT 6PM

[kate e parker]

...give me the stats of people who actually use the park (kauffman) after let's say 9:30 pm. let's see the numbers.

besides you i mean.

[Jim O'Bryan]

...give me the stats of people who actually use the park (kauffman) after let's say 9:30 pm. let's see the numbers.

besides you i mean.

Kate

I would like to see the stats of cost to clean 2 slides, 4 swings and one set of monkey bars.
After all that is why they are closing early. Should we have something besides the guy
whose job i is saying, "Nope just too busy, better close it down."

I like Joe Beno, but this borders on madness. I will tell you what I will do. I will call Joe
Monday, maybe even go down and see him, and I will ask how much it costs to clean and
how often. Then I will tell Joe a couple idea for saving his crew time and energy that could
lead to more time for little things like cleaning parks.. And lets see what he says after
that. Who knows, maybe, just maybe something can be done. You know, maybe I will go
over to the judge, who has a great history of finding "criminals" for helping water plants
and removing graffiti and see if maybe he sees any chance of helping with these 4 swings,
two slides, and a monkey bar.

Lakewood Park is dark at night, they have grandstands, should we close Lakewood Park?
I was down there today, and found interesting graffiti, and to be honest a little loitering.
If we do that, that would leave only one park, open all night I believe, and with basketball
and tennis courts.

It is not my job, but you know what I am going to give it a try. I am also going to try to
give your little survey idea a try to, write a story. I have had some calls, and even some
opinions from inside of city hall. Yes, a survey! Thank you!

Here is a simple start, take the survey...
http://lakewoodobserver.com/daily-question/2012-03-10

Last week's question with 197 responders was: Is Lakewood Getting Safer?
• Yes:22.2%
• No:77.8%

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Kate

You were the one talking about "i could care a less what non-residents feel about our parks closing after dark. as a parent, im glad that my fourteen year old can't be hiding under the bleachers doing god knows what at 10:45 pm."

In other words, you can't either control or watch your son, so please close the city parks
by as much as 4.5 hours earlier than normal, and stop all 51,795 people's legal right to
use the facility their taxes have helped pay for and maintain for decades. PLEASE!

How else does one read your comment?

Part of the ongoing survey.
Bay Village, where many Lakewoodites have looked to..


.

[stephen davis]

i could care a less what non-residents feel about our parks closing after dark. as a parent, im glad that my fourteen year old can't be hiding under the bleachers doing god knows what at 10:45 pm.

Let's see what existing laws would apply to a 14 year old hiding under the bleachers in a Lakewood park.

509.12 CURFEW.
(a) No child of or under the age of fourteen years shall be upon the streets or sidewalks or any public property within the City between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning; nor shall any child over the age of fourteen but under the age of sixteen years be upon the streets or sidewalk or any public property within the City between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m, nor shall any child of or over the age of sixteen but under the age of eighteen years be upon the streets or sidewalk or any public property within the City between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. However, the provisions of this section do not apply to a minor accompanied by a parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor, or where the minor is upon an emergency errand or legitimate business directed by a parent, guardian or other adult person having the care and custody of the minor.


(b) No parent or guardian of any child of or under the age of fourteen years shall allow such child to be on the streets or sidewalks or any public property within the City between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following morning, nor shall any parent or guardian of any child over the age of fourteen but under the age of sixteen years allow such child to be upon the streets or sidewalks between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., nor shall any parent or guardian of any child of or over the age of sixteen but under the age of eighteen years allow such child to be upon the streets or sidewalk or any public property within the City between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. However, the provisions of this section do not apply to a minor accompanied by a parent or guardian or to any other adult person having the care and custody of the minor, or where the minor is upon an emergency errand or legitimate business directed by a parent or guardian or by any other adult person having the care and custody of the minor.


(c) Whoever violates subsection (a) hereof shall be dealt with in accordance with Juvenile Court law and procedure. Whoever violates subsection (b) hereof is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. (Ord. 45-07. Passed 6-4-07.)

Looks like some of this has already been covered. So, did we need new legislation that impacts family and adult usage of our parks?

When did we Lakewoodites become so afraid of the dark? In the Winter, dark is the only time many working people can walk in or through a park. I often walk in Lakewood parks until 11:00 PM. Some like to run there. What if someone wants to just sit in a park and look at stars? The recent legislation is really pretty silly in our crowded and walking community. Park use should be encouraged, not discouraged.

I have heard some comments from people concerned about loitering in parks. I have also read comments by Mr. Juris questioning legitimate uses of our parks after dark. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines loiter as "to remain in an area for no obvious reason". Sounds like a perfectly legitimate use for a park, light or dark.

Since I brought up loitering, I'm going to move a little off the parks topic to comment about loitering DowntowN. Okay, it can be a problem, but the City Hall response to loitering has been one of my frequent complaints ever since the "No Loitering" signs went up on Detroit between Gladys and Andrews. We should not have signs like that in DowntowN Lakewood. I like some congregation on the sidewalks. That's what we do in Lakewood. If an individual causes a problem, then deal with it. Just take down the signs.

Here are codes for that:

509.11 UNLAWFUL CONGREGATION.
(a) No person shall congregate with others on a sidewalk or street corner or within the parks or public grounds, or in or about the shopping centers and retail business districts of the City, including but not limited to the areas designated by the property owner for off-street parking, the ingress and egress thereto, driveways, sidewalks, malls, arcades, service areas and the entranceways into stores and buildings, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace; or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned by serious annoyance to shoppers; pedestrians or residents in the immediate vicinity; or by threatening, insulting or abusive conduct to them; or for the purpose of lingering or loitering in any manner which will obstruct, impede or interfere with the free passage of other persons using such areas; or refuse to move on when ordered by a police officer. (Ord. 60-69. Passed 7-21-69.)


(b) No person or persons having any occupation or business at the places hereinafter named shall congregate upon or occupy the sidewalk or the corner of any street, or in such manner occupy the sidewalks in front of any dwelling or place of business, or in such manner occupy sidewalks in public parks, or in front of any place of worship or amusement or occupy or congregate or gather upon any public property in the City; it is the duty of the Division of Police to prevent such gatherings or occupation of sidewalk and street corners and to arrest persons found violating any provision of this section. (Ord. 12-65. Passed 3-1-65.)


(c) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.

To sum up, I think Council should revisit the park hours legislation. Oh, and take down those "No Loitering" signs.

Steve

.

[Stan Austin]

Just a quick read would indicate that any business owner couldn't stand in front of his or her own business. Real clear grammar--- kudos to whomever wrote this stuff.

[Jim O'Bryan]

The bleachers that could be the hiding place for???? Seems pretty open.


You can see they have tried to stop people from getting in there.


But the back is wide open. Here showing where a 14-year-old may loiter after dusk.


A note from someone to?????


The city spends millions to get people downtown. When two local residents hit gold with the uber
successful "The Root Café," which spurs good times for "Lion In Blue" and Record Exchange" the
city's answer was "NO LOITERING"



I took these photos while taking a survey of nearly 80 people about Kauffman Park, and if the
city should close their lit parks at dusk?


.

[stephen davis]

Just a quick read would indicate that any business owner couldn't stand in front of his or her own business. Real clear grammar--- kudos to whomever wrote this stuff.

Stan,

I think you are on to something. Section (b) reads pretty funny.

509.11 UNLAWFUL CONGREGATION.

(b) No person or persons having any occupation or business at the places hereinafter named shall congregate upon or occupy the sidewalk or the corner of any street, or in such manner occupy the sidewalks in front of any dwelling or place of business, or in such manner occupy sidewalks in public parks, or in front of any place of worship or amusement or occupy or congregate or gather upon any public property in the City; it is the duty of the Division of Police to prevent such gatherings or occupation of sidewalk and street corners and to arrest persons found violating any provision of this section. (Ord. 12-65. Passed 3-1-65.)

It does seem that if Chas Geiger works at a sidewalk sale in front of his store, he could be cited under this ordinance. If not, is law enforcement being equally applied, vis-à-vis the signs by The Root Cafe.

I use my friend, Chas, as an example. Please, nobody assume that I advocate any legal action against him or his store. Quite the contrary, as I endorse a vibrant street presence of merchants and pedestrians, even if they linger (loiter?).

Section (b) was passed in 1965. Maybe things were different then. It looks as though this one should also be revisited, at least for clarity.

Maybe I'm not reading it right.

Steve

.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Hampshire.jpg (77.64 KiB) Viewed 2323 times

This is from Hampshire Rd, where it meets Coventry Road in Cleveland Heights. I'd much rather see a couple of these than have the park closed.

When the idea was proposed that the School Board and the City consider a land swap, allowing Lakewood to have a central elementary school campus, between two of the schools being looked at for closing, Grant and Lincoln, we were told that Kauffman Park had already been spoken for by The Cleveland Clinic! They wanted a health campus there, for their employees, and the reward for the citizens of Lakewood, who would be giving up the only public green space in the center of Lakewood, was that the Clinic would let them use the track they were going to build for their employees, after hours.

Well to answer kate's question about how many people go there, the park had been allowed to degenerate into a place where you might not want to go. Little Links was not maintained, those of us who went there found it really fun, and really unique, and charming, kind of an old fashioned attraction for young families downtown. But it became rundown, and finally scary. Maybe it was too much to maintain Little Links-- but what kind of backlash would there have been from the citizens of Lakewood if the City tried to sell that park to the Clinic when it was beloved and well-used? How much easier after it's "blighted" and not maintained. Lakewood can maintain anything it wants to maintain, and as Jim points out, this one's an easy one to drive through. How intentional was it to let it run down so there wouldn't be opposition to selling it?

It is beautiful there, and it doesn't feel like some vacant field behind a strip mall. It's set down and protected. Which makes it feels like a clean green retreat in the center of the city. And a great place for sledding. And for concerts! Natural acoustics (yes our own small Blossom) and a great place for picnics, except the City hasn't even allotted enough money for Kauffman for one picnic table. Why?

Anyway, we were told that the deal with the (non tax-paying right? Non profit?) Clinic fell through, though the School Board never actually talked to the City even once about making a land swap. That may have its own problems etc, but it sure felt like "Don't look at Kauffman Park! Forget about Kauffman Park!"

Mayor Fitzgerald did tell me that though he could see some issues with it, it was an interesting idea and mentioned another western suburb who put something together like that.
As for a deal with the Clinic, he said there had been interest shown by different parties at differnt times but nothing was pressing at the time.

So, kate, who knows how many people would be visiting Kauffman Park if it had more love and care and a higher profile? God bless Kauffman Park Friends for doing what they do-- clean ups, scavenger hunts, snow sculpting contests to get people to know about the park.

What we found out at the time was that Kauffman Park is in the middle of more Lakewood families than any other spot in the city. It seems like a place to celebrate.

Betsy Voinovich

[Jim O'Bryan]

Mayor Fitzgerald did tell me that though he could see some issues with it, it was an interesting idea and mentioned another western suburb who put something together like that.
As for a deal with the Clinic, he said there had been interest shown by different parties at differnt times but nothing was pressing at the time.

So, kate, who knows how many people would be visiting Kauffman Park if it had more love and care and a higher profile? God bless Kauffman Park Friends for doing what they do-- clean ups, scavenger hunts, snow sculpting contests to get people to know about the park.

What we found out at the time was that Kauffman Park is in the middle of more Lakewood families than any other spot in the city. It seems like a place to celebrate.

Betsy Voinovich

One of the things laid out in "Slaughter of Cities" is that "Urban Renewal comes at the cost of the
residents currently living there, in so many ways, besides the devaluation of their property. It also
comes about in the various ways your property is devalued so that it can be bought for pennies on
the dollar. One of the large ways is through disenfranchisement: close it down, keep people away
through laws, or fear of crime, race or religion. Yes the book's title is actually "The Slaughter of
Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing."

E. Michael Jones takes a look back at 200 years of Urban Renewal, and Ethnic Cleansing and
comes up with startling patterns that lay bare how it happens, and what a city needs to do to
counter it and stay a community. It is kind of fascinating as you read about things that sound
right, then look at the reasons behind it as god awful. Like George Bush calling the allowance of
more coal burning to be called "Clear Skies Amendment."

When you take a step back and look at Lakewood's total picture, and the players, you have maybe
three trains of thought. 1) Lakewood is a great place. We moved here and want to keep it great
for the reasons we moved here. 2) My personal taxes are too high, Economic Development and
only Economic Development (retail/commercial) will save us. 3) Leave us alone, we merely live here.

How does it apply? Lakewood wants to Land Bank property, for future economic development, but
homes cost waaay to much for that. Let them fall apart, keep needed programs from them, make
them hard to find, homes fall into disrepair, site owners grab for pennies on the dollar, tear them
down, tell the community it is green space until needed for strip mall.

Make parks and areas seem unsafe. Allow graffiti to build, don't connect security cameras, slow
down on patrol, and amplify the crime and the bad news for that area. Then as people stay away,
they begin to become less emotionally attached to the area and their memories. A city moves in,
says it is unsafe, “ ‘those people’ go there”* we cannot afford it, and now it must be another strip mall.

Developers--who are not evil people--are forced by their very job descriptions to develop. They need
to buy low, develop and sell high. Among the  many reasons a community will give you for needing to
redevelop are: taxes are falling, we need more money. So a developer comes in, lays the
neighborhood bare, and redevelops something really cool and groovy, well like "Marc's Plaza."
Which if you go back and look at the  hype was going to be a brand new fresh idea bringing high
end shopping to Lakewood, and might even have a skywalk to the hospital!!!!!! This always
reminds me of the monorail episode of the Simpsons.



However the very real and very sad truth is the city almost always could do better without the
monorail, and instead concentrate on keeping property values high, which while it keep developers
at bay, also keeps real value in the hands of the residents and people already there. While this
sounds great to residents that did not overbuy and moved here or stayed here because they love
it, it does not always sound so great to politicians and developers. Politicians have a need to be
seen as doing something, and they prefer that to be "exciting," "new," "better," and to also serve
their voting base. In this town the voting base block is nearer to the lake. If they are complaining
because their taxes are too high (75% of them), then the politicians need to at least make it look
like they are trying to reduce them. Hence the massive fanfare over Robek's and 5 Guys, and the
very little notice from the city that The Root has doubled in size and volume, that Rozi’s has added
one of the nicest additions to Downtown. It is just not as glamorous to say, we saved this or we
made this better as opposed to "McDonald's after a massive search all over the country has
decided that The Detroit Theater has been judged as a perfect location for a McDonald's!!!!!!!!"
Monorail, monorail, monorail, monorail.

Did not mean to get carried away, but it really got me thinking and looking back at notes. Lakewood
City Hall, with very little exception, believes ED will save this city. The driving force in Lakewood's
mindset with the elite has been Economic Development will save this city. Hence, you also see and
become part of the cycle that devalues residents, and holds commercial development in high esteem.

People trying to save homes and neighborhoods are labeled "Obstructionists." Those that devalue
Lakewood, become heralded as heroes. My issues for over a decade as I attend the many meetings
is that a city rated as "Best in the County" and "One of the coolest in the nation" does not have
to destroy itself and reinvent itself, it merely needs for city hall, and the residents to do a little better.

But if all you have is a hammer, the entire world will look like a nail.

*by “those people” I mean blacks, white, poor, rich, baggy pants, jocks, section 8, and
on and on. I have noticed a real change in Lakewood, where the other side is almost
always referred to as "those people."



.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Yes the book's title is actually "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing."

E. Michael Jones takes a look back at 200 years of Urban Renewal, and Ethnic Cleansing and
comes up with startling patterns that lay bare how it happens, and what a city needs to do to
counter it and stay a community.

Hi Jim,

While it is devastating knowledge-- that things get "blighted" on purpose-- or called "blighted" like the homes in the potential West End development-- it is really good news that people like E. Michael Jones and Jane Jacobs have narrowed it down to the science that it is, so the technique can be recognized when its in our midst.

What I'm most interested in is the phrase I put in bold up there. What does Mr. Jones say that a city needs to do to counter it and stay a community?

Betsy Voinovich

[Jim O'Bryan]

Yes the book's title is actually "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing."

E. Michael Jones takes a look back at 200 years of Urban Renewal, and Ethnic Cleansing and
comes up with startling patterns that lay bare how it happens, and what a city needs to do to
counter it and stay a community.

Hi Jim,

While it is devastating knowledge-- that things get "blighted" on purpose-- or called "blighted" like the homes in the potential West End development-- it is really good news that people like E. Michael Jones and Jane Jacobs have narrowed it down to the science that it is, so the technique can be recognized when its in our midst.

What I'm most interested in is the phrase I put in bold up there. What does Mr. Jones say that a city needs to do to counter it and stay a community?

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy

You have to understand what both are talking about, and like nearly every book, lines taken out
of context often seem opposite of what they meant, or are crossed used.

The point of Jane's books are if you live in the perfect American town, which she sees as short
streets, big porches, closes schools, with bars and other businesses on the corners, learn to live
within it, and support it. Once you start changing the ecosystem all bets are off to what happens.

As far as Jones, the message is, they will use anything to devalue your property to revalue it later.
He strives more to make sense of what we see, and how it is being manipulated. In the old days,
if you wanted to break up a good American neighborhood, and crash it, and get people moving, all
you had to do was move in the Irish Catholics. Who can ever forget in "Blazing Saddles" To paraphrase
"We will take the black, the jews and the chinese, but we don't want the irish."

So by bringing many things to bear, leaders and developers can move people around, by making
it seem to them that it is in their best interest to leave or come.

.

[Jerry Ritcey]

Keep em open, I say. To me closing parks at night is akin to an adult curfew, and both a thing that will not curb crime but just annoy everyone else.

[Meg Ostrowski]

WOW! I am overwhelmed by the level of interest this topic has generated.

The closing time change was a real disappointment to me for so many reasons. I resist having to make sacrifices when I am not the problem. In this case a few kids with “sharpies” as Jim indicates have made it illegal for me to walk my dog through Kauffman Park after sunset, take the kids sledding on a Sunday afternoon in winter or sit quietly on the bleachers listening to a train roll by.

Once again I feel resources have been allocated to the north while residents in the middle and south must go without.

[Meg Ostrowski]

Meg,
To your question if surrendering is the best that we can do? It didn't come up in any way to be a surrender. The ordinance was brought to council by the Public Works Director as a recommendation to solve a problem, or more specifically curtail. Points were made and discussed and there was not a strong argument for why 11pm made more sense than an hour after sunset for these two locations.

I was recently at Lakewood Park and saw graffiti, including spray paint "tags" on the playground equipment. What is the argument for why 11pm makes more sense than an hour after sunset for this location? What is being done to curtail the problem there?

[Stan Austin]

Mr. Juris---- your remarks to a citizen would seem to be a tad bit peremptory.
Stan Austin