Does anyone have any insight?

[Jim O'Bryan]

What was the "answer" that allowed Councilman Nolan and Councilman Juris to decide that
Lakewoodites can no longer be trusted in 2 out of 3 parks after sunset?

I am just curious as to why, all of us must pay the city with yet another loss to our freedoms,
services, and amenities.

Council, what was the tipping point in letting you decide, good honest trustworthy
Lakewoodites can no longer be trusted in our public parks?

Just curious if anyone has the answer.


FWIW

[Betsy Voinovich]

What was the "answer" that allowed Councilman Nolan and Councilman Juris to decide that
Lakewoodites can no longer be trusted in 2 out of 3 parks after sunset?

I am just curious as to why, all of us must pay the city with yet another loss to our freedoms,
services, and amenities.

Council, what was the tipping point in letting you decide, good honest trustworthy
Lakewoodites can no longer be trusted in our public parks?

Just curious if anyone has the answer.


FWIW

Well there's some insight in the the Observer that just came out today, with Chris Bindel's coverage of a somewhat fractious Council meeting. We already know, from Councilman Anderson's post on the Deck that he opposed the idea of closing the parks early and why.*

Chris Bindel's article describes a deeper conflict:

Councilman Juris said that he
did not believe that this ordinance was
intended to take the use of the parks away
from citizens who are legitimately using
them after dark. However he said he has
yet to hear of a legitimate use of the parks
after dark. He continued by saying that,
rather than it being stated that Council is
taking something away from citizens, he
would like to hear what specifically it is
that they are taking away.

Councilman Anderson responded
that he also would like the answers to
those questions, so they might better
understand the benefits and consequences
to this potential change. He, however, felt
that the half hour discussion they held in
committee was not sufficient to fully vet
all aspects of this matter.


Councilman Juris says that he has yet to hear of a legitimate use of the parks after dark? They have the same use as they do in the daytime. Going across the street after a lecture at the library, or an art class, with your fellow students, to walk and talk, or sit on the stands and look at the stars. I include adults and young people in this description. It seems sometimes that Lakewood is phobic about its teenagers, no matter how hard the schools celebrate all of their achievements, and I will put it out there: their moral character. Young people might bring a ball and throw it around at night. Kauffman is well-lit from the Drug Mart Plaza and surrounding streetlights. Kids might meet each other. Yes! Meet each other! In order to hang out and talk in a place where they can have some privacy away from their parents' front porches. It has to happen. We have to trust them to interact with each other. There are very few places for them to go. There are already curfews, they won't be out too late if those curfews are enforced.

Around 9:30 PM on St. Patrick's Day evening we were walking through Lakewood Park, we ran into groups of kids talking and laughing and hanging out. That's what you do in a park. We continued our walk through Kauffman Park. There were kids there too, not nearly as many. They were also talking and laughing and hanging out. In a place that's beautiful and green and refreshing in very warm weather.

I'm not sure what Councilman Juris is trying to imply. It sounds like he can only imagine crimes going on after dark. Crimes can go on anywhere. Why do we have to lose a beautiful green retreat, especially in the summer, because of a very small amount of graffiti? It isn't proven that more crimes in Lakewood are committed in parks at all.

As Councilman Anderson points out, the more people there are around, the less vandalism there is. An empty park invites vandalism and crime. This change doesn't make any sense.

The last point that Councilman Anderson made is very important. He didn't think that the issue received enough discussion. He felt that all aspects weren't fully vetted. Again, a government body acting quickly, before the public can even digest what is happening and why. This is not good representation. This move makes Lakewood look bad and dangerous to the very people we want to attract. We are publicly admitting that we don't trust our public, and we can't keep our parks safe and clean.

Such negative decisions for such a beautiful day, and such a beautiful city.

Betsy Voinovich

[Meg Ostrowski]

Chris Bindel's article describes a deeper conflict:

Councilman Juris said that he
did not believe that this ordinance was
intended to take the use of the parks away
from citizens who are legitimately using
them after dark. However he said he has
yet to hear of a legitimate use of the parks
after dark.

I challenge Observers to post legitimate uses of parks after dark for Mr. Juris here. I will consolidate them and forward them to Council for consideration.

I'll start.

Having lived in several cities where parks are a part of nightlife, I can imagine a troubadour and followers heading to Kauffman Park after The Root Cafe has called it a night to continue sharing music and poetry under the stars, leaves rustling, train calling in the distance.

Hopefully the new hours, which will take effect on April 16th, will be accompanied by signs that read:

PARK HOURS: Sunrise to One Hour After Sunset. Upstanding Citizens Excepted.

I do believe that there was no intent to take away legitimate use of our parks, as I have been assured by two city employees that legitimate use of the parks after hours will not result in citations. Without an "upstanding citizen exception" posted, how will upstanding citizens know it is OK to enter after hours? They won't. They will simply obey the new sign and wander off in the dark. Nowhere to go but home in this city of homes...unless you like bars.

Lakewood, This Must Be The Place.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iR4WNJ6sgY&feature=related[/youtube]

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

You all haven't heard of the Boogie Man?!

Fears aren't real until they're manifested; then they become a law or an ordinance, which can be a problem.

"Lakewood, Ohio! A great place to live and pay high taxes for things you can only use until 9:30!"

[Stan Austin]

Meg---while it is well intended that park users post "legitimate" uses of a park I would posit that it is actually up to Councilman Juris to defend his "illegitimate" position and list those activities that he thinks would be unique to late hour park users and don't occur anywhere else which he would somehow object to.
Stan Austin

[Jim O'Bryan]

Meg---while it is well intended that park users post "legitimate" uses of a park I would posit that it is actually up to Councilman Juris to defend his "illegitimate" position and list those activities that he thinks would be unique to late hour park users and don't occur anywhere else which he would somehow object to.
Stan Austin

Stan

I would go one step further. What insight it does give us is about a person, and a public
official and what they really think about his safe, middle class community, their parks and
more importantly his constituents and the rest of the residents and businesses?

This is what happens when people start to feel they are anointed not appointed. He cannot
possibly think of a legitimate use for parks after dark. So no one gets to use them. If we
continue to allow council to legislate us, by using their imaginations, we are in trouble. It
would seem from the comments made by Councilman Anderson, that there was very little
if any fact finding, so we have to believe that Council Juris twisted view of parks and the
residents of Lakewood, was the only thing he drew on to push this through.

There is even a more sinister part of this legislation that is slowly surfacing. "We will not
enforce it on the good honest people of Lakewood." to paraphrase one comment. This is
dreadfully close to, "We are trying to keep out those people!" And exactly who are those
people? But again it would seem that Councilman Juris has fallen flat once again. The much
better, and legal way to regulate the city parks, and one that has been proven to work and
cover all bases is the one use by Bay Village and Westlake. Parks stay open but they are
"For Residents Only." This allows the police to question anyone in the park, anytime. If the
local police do not know the person they ask for an ID. This allows them to put a name to
the face on the security cameras. (Have we even figured out yet if they work?)

We have established there are nuisance laws, curfews, littering, and more to control what
goes on in the park. Why do we need more Draconian methods like closing it as early as
5pm in the winter? Kauffman Park was a great place for little kids to learn sledding with
their parents when I was a kid. Gentle hills from the parking lo to the back of the park.
Gave the wee ones a nice learning place, and a damn fun long ride. Of course with the new
hours, that would be impossible if you worked. But maybe only if you work and are not
one of those people.

Which reminds me of a story we did 5 years ago, about SWAT being deployed at Kauffman
Park.
http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/2005/11/16/swat-team-deployed-at-kaufmann-park
Where we had reports of bad kids with baggy pants hanging out at a park. Ohhh the horror!
What we found were some good kids, just hanging out, and actually helping to
keep it clean and safe. But the kids did have baggy pants, and well you know, some of
those...

No matter, I would hope that council will revisit this before the city wastes more money on
new signage, and new patrols.

There are a million things that need to be done in this city. Limiting the movement of law
abiding tax paying citizens should never be one of them.

FWIW

Interesting side note. No comment from the graffiti appreciator and Ward 2 Councilman who
has made green space and the enjoyment of green space the cornerstone of his career.

.

[Gary Rice]

To me, it is more than reasonable that a public park have a stated closing time.

To allow a public park 24 hour access would be to invite vagrancy and mischief-making.

Honestly. long-time Lakewood residents will remember that the Kauffman Park location was once an area of quite a bit of trouble-making activities. going back to the '60's and even before. It was a notorious hang-out at times, (as well as having possibly been Lakewood's premier necking destination) until regular attention was paid to the area. It's just more isolated than some other Lakewood Parks. The park at Orchard Grove and Rosewood, for example, is very open to view from all sides and at all times. For a small park, that one really gets a lot of use, by the way.

One good thing about Kauffman, from a security standpoint, would be that there is but one way in and out of there. In a way, it seems to me that could be one of the most easily monitored and contained public facilities. Just pull a cruiser up by the gate and anyone IN Kauffman STAYS in Kauffman unless they are really good fence climbers.

(My family really misses the "Little Links" golf that the city had at Kauffman too. Having regular municipal activities really helps keep a place like that alive)

I'm not a fan of some kind of "residents only" sign either. Whenever you post some sort of exclusionary sign, I would think that you could open yourself up to criticism from many quarters and for many valid reasons.

Cameras, an 11 p.m. closing time with all Lakewood parks, (as the Metroparks already have) and diligent random patrols by Lakewood's finest should be sufficient to address the park issue without resorting to further restrictions.

We need all the green space facilities that we have available- as much and as long as possible, for Lakewoodites of all ages to enjoy.

All just my opinions and I may be wrong, but it seems, so seldom lately...

Back to the banjo...

[Danielle Masters]

I like Gary have no problem with a reasonable closing time. 11pm or so seems reasonable but I like others do enjoy the park at night sometimes.

It's peaceful to sit and look at the stars in the quiet of night and that is enough for me. I usually only go down to Lakewood Park but for some Madison Park is closer and they should have the right to do that.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

Wait, so is the July 4th fireworks show going to be moved up to 6 pm?

[Gary Rice]

Ivor's point is well taken.

Gee, the way cities are trying to raise money these days, just imagine fining maybe 5000 "non-residents" say... $100 each, for "using the park after hours" on the 4th.

'Course, you'd need to set up fences and gates and "card" everyone upon their egress from the facility....

That might take a week or so...

but....

Lakewood COULD raise a lot of money that way....

....'Course, with the brouhaha that would follow, no one would want to come back here....

...and where would you put all those non-resident "lawbreakers"....

WAIT, I know! KAUFFMAN PARK!!!

Fenced in like that, it could make an easy instant concentration camp. Just add watchtowers.

The worry I have would be that if all this keeps up, some of our leaders might want to go ahead and fence in this entire city.

At least that would keep the chickens from getting out...

Back to the banjo....

[Jim O'Bryan]

...and where would you put all those non-resident "lawbreakers"....

WAIT, I know! KAUFFMAN PARK!!!

Fenced in like that, it could make an easy instant concentration camp. Just add watchtowers.

The worry I have would be that if all this keeps up, some of our leaders might want to go ahead and fence in this entire city.

Fenced in...

Fenced out...

Not sure I see a big difference.

As for the fireworks, I see no problem saying Lakewood residents only and guests.

That is called an incentive to move here.

Also, why not ticket and tow cars of non-residents?


FWIW


.

[Gary Rice]

Jim's certainly entitled to his point of view, but my tongue-in-cheek commentary was intended, among other things, to show the practical difficulty in determining "residential" vs. "non-residential" vs. "guest" in virtually any situation.

There is, of course, a geographic area of Lakewood where a kind of homeowner's association exists, as there presumably would also be with area condominiums...

but....

Are we proposing that the entire city become a kind of "residential association", having little stickers on our vehicle windshields to identify us as Lakewoodites?

...or perhaps, like swimming tags, or participation wristbands for concert events, or perhaps photo ID cards, would we propose that every Lakewoodite be accordingly "tagged"?

I mean, it's bad enough that the graffiti so-called "artists" are tagging the park equipment...

Do we want to "tag" our people?

They did THAT in the concentration camps too...

I may be wrong here, but it seems as if presenting a "government ID" is being thrown out of court lately regarding election laws, so I'm not sure if that stuff would hold water anyway. Some lawyer could hopefully drop by here to clarify all of that.

I think that the Bible called officially created identities "The Mark of the Beast".

I even recall back in the hills and hollers way back when, that quite a few people felt that way about Social Security numbers.

Ah well, as my dear late grandma once said..."Tain't one thing, "Tis another".

All just my opinion, but thankfully. I can still at least express one.

Back to the banjo...

[Jim O'Bryan]

I mean, it's bad enough that the graffiti so-called "artists" are tagging the park equipment...

Do we want to "tag" our people?

They did THAT in the concentration camps too...

Gary

Does it make more sense to punish the hundreds of people that live around these parks?

So we roll over and give up our way of life over 1 sharpie bandit, maybe 2!

For the record, the city is already starting a "resident buy program" I have missed your
comments about the "Mark of the Beast," with that program. Oh you save the concentration
camp and mark of the beast stuff for the guy that wants to keep the parks open for everyone?

Really.

Guess that makes me Hitler? Because I dare to ask two council members what they based
their decisions on. Hmmmmmm concentration camps, 666, mark of the beast, just asking
public officials to be accountable and transparent on decisions that affect the city.

Wow, they have you snowed.

My attitude, they can cut whatever, but I want to see the reason, and I want to know what
we are saving.


.

[Gary Rice]

First of all, I have no quarrel with anyone's opinions here or anywhere else.

I'm just the campfire sing-a-long guy, remember?

In fact, I seem to agree about keeping the parks open and I too wonder about the motivations behind the thought processes of those involved who want the parks closed at sunset. Financial motivations? Societal motivations? Whatever the reasons may be, these kinds of decisions really deserve more public vetting.

By the way, no one has me "snowed" one little bit.

As well, NEVER would I want to compare Jimmy with some dictator.

(I just wanted to make the point that tagging every Lakewoodite won't stop a few malcontents from tagging the rest of our city with their marking pens. )

Just as a general observation, I do believe that community leaders certainly do have the unbridled right, and even the responsibility, to express their viewpoints on all matters Lakewood...but at the same time.... I think that anyone in a position of leadership needs to be measured with their responses to the public, much as I needed to be, when I was a classroom teacher.

Community leaders need to encourage and facilitate conversation and interchange.

Sometimes, that may involve having to restrain what they might normally otherwise want to REALLY say in a given situation.

The expression of one's opinion is, after all, not necessarily a personal criticism of someone else's point of view.

On a more serious note, too many times in the past, I've seen too many of Lakewood's leaders try and squelch constructive dialogue by questioning the questioner. We certainly don't want that sort of thing to happen these days.

Just my opinions here of course.

Insight was ASKED for in this thread, by the way. (see title of this thread)

I gave it.

'Nuff said.

Back to the banjo...

[Jim O'Bryan]

In fact, I seem to agree about keeping the parks open and I too wonder about the motivations behind the thought processes of those involved who want the parks closed at sunset. Financial motivations? Societal motivations? Whatever the reasons may be, these kinds of decisions really deserve more public vetting.

By the way, no one has me "snowed" one little bit.

As well, NEVER would I want to compare Jimmy with some dictator.

(I just wanted to make the point that tagging every Lakewoodite won't stop a few malcontents from tagging the rest of our city with their marking pens. )

Gary

Lets take these in order. So you too believe the parks should stay open. OK

No one has snowed you a bit? Really.

Than what is the truth, Is Lakewood safer than it has been in over 10 years as recently
reported by the Mayor and the Chief of Police. Or is it so bad we must keep people, even
"those people" from it. Who are they protecting, why and how?

None of this adds up, and what is even more confusing is how it gets through our representatives,
approved, passed into law, when none of it makes sense.

We want to keep the parks nice, so we have to shut them early? Then why keep them nice
if we cannot enjoy them when we are actually not working? Is the city safer, if so why the
lock down of two parks serving the center and the south of the city? Are we walkable and
green or do we legislate against green and walkable? This is what I have never understood.

While all the mixed messages coming out of city hall. And I am only talking about the official
things coming out of city hall. If I were to throw in the back channel items, it would seem
to underline some believe heavily in chaos theory.

So back to the topic, how did the Safety Committee on the heels of a great and getting
better report from the Lakewood Police, feel it was necessary to shut down the parks?
Perhaps if they told us their reasoning we could see how sound it was and agree. What
are the reasons, and where has this worked before? Where did they learn this new park
management tool? How much time did they spend talking with others about their thoughts?

I mean while utterly depressing that a council person can't think of one good thing that
could ever happen in a park after dusk. Is that what Councilman Nolan thinks too? Is that
what the rest of council believes to be true. That none of their residents could ever have
any legal reason to be in a park after dark?

Really, that is what they think of us, the residents?

.