The Observation Deck

Jim,

Thanks for being melodramatic enough to let me cite Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Just because someone doesn't see everything in shades of conspiracy does not mean they are being snowed in. They could just have a different point of view or just disagree. Suggesting that we are "snowed in" could be perceived as a little patronizing.

Moving on.

Why is everyone this angry with a councilman asking what I feel is a legitimate question, which so far has not recieved a solid answer on this thread?

Are you sure that all these uses listed are real and not just idealistic uses for the park? I have lived here over 20 years and I have never heard of trubadors or art students having cathartic post-class drum circles in the parks on a regular basis. And only those who want to get smacked in the face with a baseball play catch after dark, even in "well lit places".

Have anyone actually done any of the things suggested as uses regularly? If not, I wonder why some are getting so worked up about something they're restricted from doing that they don't do to begin with?

But, if you think I am wrong and believe there are those who stargaze regularly etc, that's fine, but where are the specific numbers to back you up? Show me don't tell me.

If I were a councilman, I too would have asked what uses there are for the park after dark, outside of the 4th of July. Granted, there likely should have been more time devoted to the discussion, I'll give you that. If you disagree with the Council's stand on the issue, compile numerous facts and statistics and use that to approach them.

Are they shutting the parks down I thought they were just closing them earlier.

I believe "what this action is saying" depends soley on the person and is certainly not the destruction of Lakewood. Personally, as a life long and continuing resident of Lakewood, this park closing change would not change my personal perception of Lakewood and I certainly don't think most people who would be looking to live here currently would give 2 sheets. I think there are much much bigger things people look at. At least several people I have spoken to about this expressed the same.

However, they should not change anything... so people can then complain when something "bad" happens in those parks after dark. Cause after all, just because crime decreases doesn't mean it has been eradicated.

"Just because someone doesn't see everything in shades of conspiracy does not mean they are being snowed in. They could just have a different point of view or just disagree. Suggesting that we are "snowed in" could be perceived as a little patronizing."

Nice quote....

I'll take the high road here, knowing that the only "snow" in my hair comes from those distinguished graying temples of mine.

It does seem that a bigger point has just been made here, however.

If anyone wants to make a point or argue for good cause, let it be said and done, and I'll do the same.

Opinion answering opinion? I'm fine with that.

Point answering counter-point? I'm fine with that too.

Conspiracies coming out of Lakewood's woodwork? I'll chuckle along.

But let's please talk issues only.

Back to the banjo.

if i remember correctly, i was at the safety committee meeting, ALL but 3 parks close at an hour after sunset. Kauffman Park, Madison Park, Lakwood Park were the ONLY 3 parks open till 11. Lakewood Park will now remain open till 11 but I do belive the walkway "thingy" to the lake is closed. The school playgrounds are even closed at sunset.

I don't believe they are shutting the parks down, big fences will come around the parks, and people will be snipered out if in the park. I believe this just gives the police better "ammunition" (for lack of a better word) to really go after the people who should NOT be there. And we all have to admit, there are some people who should not be in the park at night alone. Most of the closing falls in line with the curfew that is on the books too. (i don't even go to Madison Park because honestly it scares me...)

I could go either way with the parks being open or closed. I honestly do not go to the parks in Lakewood. We go to the metroparks but that is a dog related issue...

My only issue with this new rule is that the people up to no good are still going to enter the parks after closing time. And now, there will be less people around to see them doing the no good things.

Graffitti, especially, is a crime of opportunity. So now with zero chances of people passing by, these people are still going to do this stuff. Maybe more so now that less people are around.

Missy Limkemann wrote:if i remember correctly, i was at the safety committee meeting, ALL but 3 parks close at an hour after sunset. Kauffman Park, Madison Park, Lakwood Park were the ONLY 3 parks open till 11. Lakewood Park will now remain open till 11 but I do belive the walkway "thingy" to the lake is closed. The school playgrounds are even closed at sunset.

I don't believe they are shutting the parks down, big fences will come around the parks, and people will be snipered out if in the park. I believe this just gives the police better "ammunition" (for lack of a better word) to really go after the people who should NOT be there. And we all have to admit, there are some people who should not be in the park at night alone. Most of the closing falls in line with the curfew that is on the books too. (i don't even go to Madison Park because honestly it scares me...)

I could go either way with the parks being open or closed. I honestly do not go to the parks in Lakewood. We go to the metroparks but that is a dog related issue...

Missy

There are far better and far smarter ways to accomplish what you are saying. Many of them
send not only better messages to the community, but beyond the community.

Valerie is right on this one. Crimes of opportunity need more eyes in the park not less. It
is that simple. Hundreds have written about it, many cities tried shutting down only to
find it makes the problems worse, not better. Than there is the issue if we close parks
because of Graffiti and Loitering, we have really lowered the bar on giving up.

What really upset me, is the same week our council passed this law, and gave up because
we could never keep up on it. A sister city in the area, without hesitation approved
$20,000 for a colorful awning over their pool.

How do we ever think we are going to compete for businesses and residents.

Lakewood has bet the farm and much of our "extra funds" on Economic Development, not
residents. It has not paid off.

FWIW


.

We always had longer hours until this topic was brought up.... so based on your statements the "crimes" or whatever should've been spotted already. I'm not sure why you think NOW all of a sudden so many people will be there to catch perpetrators if we do not change the park hours?

As someone stated, if anything it may give a better ability to monitor happenings at those later hours.

I don't buy this "tool" explanation. Just as when the teen curfew was enacted, the proponents claimed that the curfew would give the police another "tool" to be able to round up troublemakers.

This "tool" idea is a bunch of BS. If the police see people in the park and suspect criminal activity, they have every right, AS IT NOW STANDS, to confront the people and investigate their activities. Police are certainly able to look at a situation and if they determine that there might be danger or criminal activity, they can investigate.

Who is stupid enough to believe that the police "need" this "tool" to do their job? I certainly do not. They are currently empowered with enough "tools" to monitor and confront criminal activity.

That's what's great about this country and the Internet, we can believe whatever we want, even if it means trying to make a point by calling people stupid or other.

I mean I'm sure many of us don't agree with much of the stuff that is stated here.

/thumbsup

J Hrlec wrote:We always had longer hours until this topic was brought up.... so based on your statements the "crimes" or whatever should've been spotted already. I'm not sure why you think NOW all of a sudden so many people will be there to catch perpetrators if we do not change the park hours?

As someone stated, if anything it may give a better ability to monitor happenings at those later hours.

J Hrelc

You are correct. If there was no one there to catch the last person there is not guarantee there
will be someone there the next time. Of course legislate legal use to less hours and you have
a much better chance making sure they will not be anyone there to see it.

My point all along has been. Instead of the easy and proven wrong method of taking it out
on law abiding citizens, why not look at ways to make the parks used more, and thereby safer?

I was talking with some skateboard and bike people yesterday and wondered aloud, what
would happen if the city had placed 6-12 mounds of dirt in the back of the park? I am sure
the BMX bikers would find it and start using it. BMX bikers and skateboarders do not mix.
They like similar terrain, but hate using it at the same time. Ray's Inside Mountain Bike
Park is a crazy success. Such a success Trek came in, financed more and eventually bought
it and are now opening more.

If it was such a success there, why not in the back of Kauffman Park. We have as many
mountain bike and BMX bike riders in this city as skateboarders. So with a simple thought,
a couple trucks of dirt, we could turn an unused(not really) park into a Downtown focal point.
I am sure riders would seek local food and drink and it would become much like the dog
park and the skatepark a proper destination.

For less time and effort than it takes to cut down a tree and take it to...

Just saying, the secret discovered long ago. Busy = Safe.


.

If Ms. Becker agrees that speaks volumes of the decision.

Shawn Juris wrote:If Ms. Becker agrees that speaks volumes of the decision.

Councilman Juris


Thank you for explaining why you took away as much as 4 hours a day of residents enjoying
our parks legally.

Your answer also speaks volumes, and volumes and volumes and volumes.




.

Wow, I was not expecting something I wrote to start such a mêlée. Unfortunately I feel it has been used to miss represent the actual situation.

To start I want to say that I personally do not agree with this change. I do agree with several of the legitimate points made here, on both sides of the issue, and several are points I made when talking to council members, however, there is also a lot here exaggerated and miss represented.

First of all when Councilman Juris asked for legitimate reasons people would be in the park, he was not trying to make an underhand comment, he was seriously looking for responses. He had asked earlier in the process and did not receive any responses, so he was once again asking for real examples. It was him asking this question that prompted Councilman Anderson to agreed saying that he as well would appreciate knowing these examples, agreeing with Juris’ sincere interest. And as Thealexa pointed out, it is indeed a legitimate question to ask. All of the points made about crime in the parks were made by Director Beno first, not the council members, therefore vilifying them as saying that only bad things happen in parks after dark is not only in accurate by the statement, but also in who is saying it.

Another thing that needs clarification is Councilman Anderson saying that the topic did not receive enough discussion. Although this is a true statement, he also said later that it did go through the right amount of readings and the proper process, just that he was frustrated that they could not spend more time discussing it. As Councilman Powers pointed out, they are some times restricted by sunshine laws in how much discussion they can have on a topic because it can only be done in official meetings and they don’t always have enough time in official meetings. This is not to say that they could not have deferred the matter so it could have received more discussion, however I just wanted to make it clear that this wasn’t rushed through. It did receive the proper amount of readings and 6 of the members of council felt content with the ordinance as it was after those readings.

Which brings me to my next point, there are 5 other Council members voted to pass the ordinance including the chair of the Public Safety Committee who also agreed and made supportive statements of the legislation, this was not just Juris.

Missy is completely right, this just put those parks in line with the other parks in Lakewood without a park worker there (Lakewood Park has someone there until 11), and the school playgrounds. Also it is meant as a tool for police to move people out if they think they are up to no good, not if you are walking your dog.

Lastly, where are the comments about the 4th of July coming from? The fireworks are held at Lakewood Park which will still have an 11 pm closing time, therefore not affecting that event at all.

Christopher

I know just how hard to work to cover Lakewood City Council, you go out of your way to be
fair to all members of council and to those that speak. With that said.

The conversation here was not caused by the article, and the turns it has taken was not
caused by the article. This is about City Council once again punishing the people they
promised to serve.

Speaking strictly for myself, and that is all I can do. I know that this was passed by
Council, I know that it was not just Coucilman Nolan and Councilman Juris. I am finding
each one of them "guilty" in my view of a very poorly thought out decision. This is in my
view every bit as bad as rolling over for AT&T and their small group of tiny installations for
UVerse. As bad as giving Lakewood Hospital the building on Hillard and Madison, and
many other decisions. My point of this discussion is to try to slow the production of signs I
hope when common sense and residents talk to council they will change their mind on.

If the Safety Committee, Councilmen Juris, Nolan and Anderson gave this more than 10
minutes of conversation I would be shocked. It would seem that Councilman Anderson was
more than a little upset over the vote and the decision. I have not said it did not go
through proper process. That does not make it immune from being a bad decision, once
again look no farther than trash collection and Uverse to name but two.

Now let's pinpoint two other parts of your clarification.

Christopher Bindel wrote:First of all when Councilman Juris asked for legitimate reasons people would be in the park, he was not trying to make an underhand comment, he was seriously looking for responses. He had asked earlier in the process and did not receive any responses, so he was once again asking for real examples. It was him asking this question that prompted Councilman Anderson to agreed saying that he as well would appreciate knowing these examples, agreeing with Juris’ sincere interest. And as Thealexa pointed out, it is indeed a legitimate question to ask. All of the points made about crime in the parks were made by Director Beno first, not the council members, therefore vilifying them as saying that only bad things happen in parks after dark is not only in accurate by the statement, but also in who is saying it.

If someone on the committee cannot think of any legal use of a park after dark, and then
asks the small handful of people staring blankly at council for their comments, in what
we both know is rhetorical in manner, and gets no responses. It still means that the
councilman knows of no legal use for a park after dark. Right? Nothing out of context, no
exaggeration in this discussion. My own personal view, is this represents a low point in
Lakewood politics when a councilman publicly takes away freedoms of Lakewoodites for
decades, based on his extremely limited views of life. I also think it reflects on what he
personally feels about his constituents.

Christopher Bindel wrote:rhetoriMissy is completely right, this just put those parks in line with the other parks in Lakewood without a park worker there (Lakewood Park has someone there until 11), and the school playgrounds. Also it is meant as a tool for police to move people out if they think they are up to no good, not if you are walking your dog.

Chris, that is not true. There are parks in this city with no closing time posted. I have the
photos. The lit parks have always been open to 11. Madison and Kauffman are "lit" parks.
It does not bring them into line.

As far as a tool for police, and the selective enforcement of LAWS. This city is still in court
over being "racist" now we do not dwell on it, and it is not true, far from it. But Avery
Friedman still has Lakewood in court. So when I read, "those people" and hear it coming
from public officials I cringe. If they mean criminals, then they better start saying it, if
they mean "those people" please get them out of public service.

Christopher Bindel wrote:Lastly, where are the comments about the 4th of July coming from? The fireworks are held at Lakewood Park which will still have an 11 pm closing time, therefore not affecting that event at all.

Chris, this comes from two parts of this conversation. 1) Gary Rice, who I love deeply, and
love to bust his chops about, well, nearly everything. Saying we will need to tag people
like in a concentration camp, and what about the 4th of July? 2) Many people noticing, that
another section of the city(was that gentle enough for those that freak when I talk about
geographical locations) once again gets punished, while another section of the city gets
the roses.

Which will bring me to my final point, and hopefully council, and others make it this far.

You have a house for sale in Lakewood, and the realtor is showing the house to people
coming in from as far away as West Park which is the better and smarter sale line?

"We have three major parks, lit and open until 11pm, and are there for residents only, or
those accompanied by a resident."

or

"We have three lit parks, two we had to close at dusk because we could not afford to keep
them clean and safe."

How does that compare to Bay? Westlake? Solon? WestPark.

This city has got to stop shooting itself in the foot.

Christopher thanks once again for both the reporting you do, and jumping into the mosh
pit of word jazz called the Observation Deck. Had Councilman Juris cared as much as you
do for setting the record straight, maybe we would understand his decision.


FWIW

Ok, I do believe this should have gotten more discussion. I don’t think it is a necessary tool because people will still be in the parks either way, they don’t pay attention to closing signs. Curfew and other ordinances should be enough to move those along they are afraid of leaving graffiti, and it seems doubly ridiculous to pass when they say they wont enforce it unless they feel a need to. That just doesn’t seem right. However that being said, a few more points.

Conversation caused by my article or not, it was quoted and miss represented, that was all I was trying to clarify.

Councilman Anderson said during the meeting that the Public Safety Committee spent a half hour discussing the topic. Still not a lot, and in my opinion probably should have been more, but I’m just trying to be accurate.

If there are parks without posted closing times, it does not mean that they do not close. The closing times are listed, if no where else, in the codified ordinances, and if it is not posted its not like they ever ticket anyone for being in a park past closing, they just ask you to move along.

Kauffman may have a light, but when was the last time you were there after dark? I would not consider it a “lit” park. It is extremely dark at night. But I understand your point.

Lastly, I understand the point your trying to make with your final statements, but really? A relater is only going to say how many parks we have and where they are located, and frankly anyone looking in the city is not likely to check out the closing times of every park. When they are looking at buying a house, park closing time is no where near the top of the important list.