The Observation Deck

Bill

Great points. Self inflicted, nor by accident.

Gary

Funny how you always seem to worry more about my thoughts than the deeds of others hurting the city.

ALL

Well guess what? Forest City Enterprises is making big changes at Rockport to make the neighborhood better
and more visually attractive, and as their is a new fence, and other work involved I am sure it got the full
approval of the City and the Building Department.


A wonderful fence?

Instead of having them plant grass and throw in a bench or two, they are putting up a big fence to make sure
no one does who knows what on their ghettoized piece of Detroit Avenue.

Talk about vision or planning!

It had to cost less to plow it under, which has to be done anyway, and plant grass and a bench or two. Which
would have not only added to the neighborhood but also would add not detract from the price of property
nearby. For all of you that say something is better than nothing...

Really?

How about things that add to the value of property owners and residents.

It would seem some in this thread are happy sticking their head in the ground and dreaming what they want
to see until they are in dreamland forever. Me, I like living and walking in the city I love, head above ground
face in the sun, and talking and joking with the neighbors. But in more and more neighborhoods residents ask
why is City Hall hurting the residents again?

FWIW

.

.

Hmmmm......

Time for a bit of a clarification here.

When I express an opinion, or make an observation...

(and last I heard, MY opinions and observations are as good as anyone's )

They are simply those: opinions and observations regarding whatever general commentary has been expressed.

I intend my remarks on this deck to apply to general opinions expressed by myself and others.

I try not to take opinions expressed here personally...generally.

Nor should anyone confuse my challenging their positions with any sort of personal affront. That would not be my intent at all.


Jim:

Please understand that I do not worry one iota about your thoughts.

I have enough trouble with my own.

Better get back to that old banjo....QUICKLY!

Gary Rice wrote:Hmmmm......

Time for a bit of a clarification here.

When I express an opinion, or make an observation...

(and last I heard, MY opinions and observations are as good as anyone's )

They are simply those: opinions and observations regarding whatever general commentary has been expressed.

I intend my remarks on this deck to apply to general opinions expressed by myself and others.

I try not to take opinions expressed here personally...generally.

Nor should anyone confuse my challenging their positions with any sort of personal affront. That would not be my intent at all.

Gary


Thank you for posting the general rules of the game.

We all have opinions, and well all have "facts" to how they apply to our lives.

The Deck is the Mosh Pit Of Word Jazz, that allows for the give and take and vetting of issues.

This came after a period of time when "officials" believed they were above comment, and at the time the
conversation was stacked against them. So we, that would be civic leaders and the LO crew developed the Deck.
So that people knew who they were talking to, it was believe that was fair enough for all.

Of course, many have tried to copy, some have a mix of real and faux, with is just idiotic, and some don't care.
But here on the Deck real names, real conversations with people that actually have opinions and thoughts
they wish to share with others.

However, when a person singles out a person, it always becomes personal, and the discussion often turns.
While I personally have no problem with this aspect others do, and others think they can make it personal then
declare, "it wasn't personal" when they were the ones that pushed it that way.

Then sometimes others mention members fot heir family or friends, which brings them into the discussion as well.
"Well my father never thought that..." Then it becomes fair game and proper to mention "Dad" in any return discussion.
Such is unregulated open adult conversation in this democracy of a website.

We do not delete, we do not go in and change posts or "news" when we have been proven wrong as others do that
then talk about how right they are. That again is a game for fools, to even have a discussion on such a one
sided device.

But Gary, I personally have a hard time even thinking about guitar lessons, when forces from outside the city are
working to destroy it, and the residential neighborhoods that have make Lakewood what it is. When City Hall joins
the forces doing this it becomes extremely frustrating.

Thanks for the post and the break.

.

Jimmy,

I hope you know how VERY much I respect you, and I sincerely share your concerns about that vacant lot, among many other topics that we have discussed from time to time. I just kinda disagreed with this particular "dollar type" store posting, as Lakewood history is quite consistent over the years in having a variety of storefronts appealing to our various demographics. I would be very unhappy if Lakewood were to become an "upscale only" retail operation, because Lakewood has always been an eclectic place for a wide variety of people. To me, our community's economic and social diversity has been one of our great strengths. While there has always been a kind of polite neighborhood-to-neighborhood tension over the years, the fact remains that we still have that community unity that really shines, for example, with LHS Friday night football.

I was just there with the Alumni Band on Friday. Great time had by all.

Do I tend to look at Lakewood's glass as being half full at times? Do you look at Lakewood's glass as being half empty at times? One way or the other, I'm sure that we both agree that the rest of the glass needs to be filled. The only question would be whether that glass would be filled with existing liquids, or as Bruce Lee taught, should we empty that glass first, and then begin anew?

It will remain to be seen how Lakewood's future will unfold. The good news is that we still have lots of people who care about our city.

That keeps me pluckin' this old banjo.

Your guitar lesson will always be waiting for you...
...or fiddle, if you prefer...

Gary Rice wrote:While there has always been a kind of polite neighborhood-to-neighborhood tension over the years, the fact remains that we still have that community unity that really shines ...

Gary,







Matt

Matt:

I think that I get your point.

A community can shine like new money...

...or shine like a 20 year old suit...

Yeah....

....either way, I suppose.

Half empty? Half full?

One problem as I see it, is that we have many dynamics, many agendas, many people wanting to set the sails of change...

The question would be whether we do have a proverbial "sailing ship", or an oar-rowed galley...

...and of course, who's rowing the boat?

...and where?

Back to the banjo.

Gary

Half full? Half Empty?

This is a city, not a glass of water. It just isn't that easy.

I see a city that is 95% filled, and those people came here because the city was, to
borrow from Joan Roberts, "Good enough for now." That alone is an amazing fact and
should give ALL a reason to pause and say, "What are we chasing?" And make no mistake,
many civic leaders are still chasing dreams from 15 years ago. Before the net got BIG,
before facebook, before tablets, online ordering, before Cleveland failed, and started
their "grant based" faux rebuild. The most perfect example, the "Capitol Theater" movie
set. A wonderful romantic project that would close tomorrow if it lost its grants. As they
do not make enough to stay open.

Right now I am watching people in their 50s and 60s demanding Lakewood gets more one
floor homes. Hmmmm what a coincidence, just as they decide not to climb stairs for one
reason or another, "Lakewood needs" one floor homes. Never mind the ones we have, or
the Gold Coast which has been the only real success story for housing in this city. Now
"we need one story homes with small yards that the elderly (themselves) can maintain."
This follows along with, "We need high end shopping on Detroit" so that we do not have to
drive for upwards of 15 minutes to Crocker Park, which shares the sales tax with
Lakewood. No "Lakewood needs" so they don't have to drive 15 minutes.

Lakewood is being changed not by what Lakewood needs, but by what a small handful of
people think we need. With very little thought and NO PLANNING on the outcome to the
city overall. Just two years ago we were encouraged to count anything with a humanesque
name as a family member for the census. God forbid we drop below 50,000 for the
millions we get from the larger government entities. The second we count "Fredricka the
dog" and her new litter, now we start tearing down homes in a flurry?

There are really three agendas I see. 1) High end commercial development will save us,
just not Marc's. Oopps. Maybe next time, Oopps! 2) How about some respect for the
homes, history and residents that are here? We have built new schools, new libraries, and
love it. 3) City Hall, damn I just hate even thinking about that while Dancing with the
Stars is on. Group 1 never seems happy and sees change as good, even when it
consistently turns out far worse than they promised, then do it again. Group 2 is at peace
with themselves and their city. Sure it could be better, but for the overall health of the
community, why keep trying to hit home runs that end up being outs? Perhaps a little
tinkering, to fill in that last 5%. Better parks, better schools, cleaner streets, etc. The 3rd
group depends on the first two bringing common sense to each other.

I suggest instead of a glass a water, you think of Lakewood as a coral reef. A community
of various animals with completely different needs, that through natural organic means,
thrives for decades and centuries until they become truly upset by outside influences, and
then they die very quickly, like East Cleveland.

I am blessed, I get to work with city councils, mayors, school boards in many, many
different places. I get to listen and talk to them about many, many things. And all of them
make me appreciate what we have in Lakewood more and more. I would hate to see that
change because 20 people thought we needed single homes and high end shopping, and
failed again and again until? The only thing that would make that more painful, is seeing it
happen while people stand around and play, errrrrrrrr twiddle their thumbs.

For the record, AGS had been offered money to move to Cleveland and/or Rocky River. I
fight to stay in Lakewood, and you well know, it is not an easy fight. But there is no better
place in Ohio. It is where I live and where we have decided to make our stand. Others
threaten to move to River, Bay, Westlake, yawwwnnnnn. I know people that have, and
came back to Lakewood. I bet we all do.

I am not opposed to change, I am not opposed to development. I did not chain myself to
the Detroit Theater, the three doubles on Sloane that are now Clifton Pointe, not even to
the 4 apartments that are still for sale at the end of Detroit. The term I like is respectful
change, that benefits those with vested interests and residents.

Is that really so radical and troubling Gary?

.

I think that one possible reason that I tend to emphasize positive stuff here on the Deck would be that if I were to start on the negative stuff....

...I could be here for awhile.

"Respectful change" is OK until its your ox that's being gored.

At that point, ANY change becomes too much.

I'll just leave it there for now.

Back to the banjo...

Matthew John Markling wrote:

Gary Rice wrote:While there has always been a kind of polite neighborhood-to-neighborhood tension over the years, the fact remains that we still have that community unity that really shines ...

Gary,







Matt

Wow it's not that often that I feel like I totally don't understand what's being said on the Deck, but like Matt, I had the same question about this line. I haven't experienced polite tension between neighbors and neighborhoods here. That's one of the things I like about Lakewood. Maybe because my neighborhood is not that tense-- or well-organized. The kids come in when the street lights go on and we look out for each other but we don't even have a block club. Sometimes we have a street-wide yard sale.. But when everybody's together at the Lakewood Art Fair, or the parade, or this past weekend at "Fitness Works" I think we do pretty well together.

I think there may be a lack of fairness or perceived lack of fairness in the way the City serves different neighborhoods. Like huge tax abatements for the new condos on Sloane (boy I bet the schools could have used the property taxes on that place) and CDBG funds for the new Nature's Bin training facility--- for THAT neighborhood.

No CDBG funds for groups that would have liked to do something with the old Detroit theater, in fact, the back end of the Clifton Park neighborhood was able to send that greasy, bright, "you want fries with that" noise and drive thru to where the Detroit theater was for a real good price-- it was a done deal-- while they got the new, quiet, good-for-the-community training facility. So did the Clifton Pointe neighborhood DO THAT to the other neighborhood? Is that neighborhood better represented among our elected officials than the Detroit Theater neighborhood? Well I guess that could cause tension, but not really between neighbors. Most people don't even know about that.

Is that what you're talking about Gary?

And I don't get the "glass half empty or half full" metaphor exactly-- but when you say:

Gary Rice said:
One problem as I see it, is that we have many dynamics, many agendas, many people wanting to set the sails of change...

The question would be whether we do have a proverbial "sailing ship", or an oar-rowed galley...

...and of course, who's rowing the boat?

Is one group being used to propel the other group?

I understand that question.

I also don't get Jim's point when he says:

Jim said:
I see a city that is 95% filled, and those people came here because the city was, to
borrow from Joan Roberts, "Good enough for now." That alone is an amazing fact

I find that an "amazing fact" because I view Lakewood as so much more than that. I know so many families that had a choice, that came to this area from out of state, and looked around the entire area for where to live and CHOSE Lakewood as a great place to raise their families. Over Cleveland Heights, or Pepper Pike, or Westlake, Rocky River and Bay. Not "good enough for now." It was our neighborhoods, our diversity-- especially economic-- we are not a planned community with six different marginally-differently-designed not tremendously well-built homes ending in a cul de sac with a pool. It's a real town. There aren't many left, especially ones that border big cities. This place is precious. There is a lot to lose.

I do get what Jim says when he talks about the three agendas, I do get what he means when he questions whether 20 people are making decisions for all of us, as if some neighborhoods count way more than others, and especially that the people in some neighborhoods count more than others. Or that a huge portion of all of our tax dollars can be used for one tiny area in "downtown" Lakewood when there is no proof that that's good for the city, or the people in the city, at all. That's where the "responsible development" idea comes in.

What is that Ordinance number again, in our own Planning Code?

Section1173.02(b)(4):The City encourages conservation, preservation, redevelopment, and revitalization of residential neighborhoods to preserve their unique environments and for the public welfare of the City. The City acknowledges as a matter of public policy that the preservation and protection of residential neighborhoods is required for the health, safety and welfare of the people.

Not some neighborhoods, and not some neighbors. All of them.

As Gary says, "The good news is that we still have lots of people who care about our city."

It is unusual to have a city that cares as much and tries as hard, even if we have differing opinions of "what's good for us." Even if we have different opinions of what "us" means. We have to sort ourselves out. What is valuable? What is fair?

My dad (speaking of referring to our parents) is always talking about "finding the balance."

I think that's what we're trying to do.

Betsy Voinovich

Great posting Betsy.

There are many contemporary and constructive voices like yours that are indeed seeking the balance. I will be shortly coming out with a constructive column concerning our city that may well relate to your thoughts.

I am reminded at this point about how long it takes to build something, and how short the time would be for it to be torn down.

I view Lakewood as having much that has been generally built very well. Perhaps I might even be tempted to use Jimmy's 95% figure as a descriptor of how much of our city HAS been well-built, both socially and with its infrastructure over the years.

Still...

Residential, business, social, economic, and governmental interests of a city always contain changing and interactive dynamics.

I always feel that the more constructively and open we approach issues regarding that interactivity, the better off we will be.

Back to the banjo...

Gary Rice wrote:Great posting Betsy.

I view Lakewood as having much that has been generally built very well. Perhaps I might even be tempted to use Jimmy's 95% figure as a descriptor of how much of our city HAS been well-built, both socially and with its infrastructure over the years.

Hi Gary, thanks.

So it sounds like you're in the "Group 2 Agenda" of the three groups that Jim described in his post:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Group 2 Agenda: How about some respect for the homes, history and residents that are here? We have built new schools, new libraries, and love it.

Group 2 is at peace with themselves and their city. Sure it could be better, but for the overall health of the
community, why keep trying to hit home runs that end up being outs? Perhaps a little tinkering, to fill in that last 5%. Better parks, better schools, cleaner streets, etc.

Group 2 is the kind of group you think you would like to have in a city. BUT. Group 2 keeps being told that they can't be trusted after dark in the park. Group 2 is being told we have to settle for any development that we can get, even as our parks, schools and streets are compromised: Parks? Close Madison and Kauffman early-- say it's because we can't pay city workers to maintain them?? While we change the color of our light poles and put up fancy street signs? Because of graffiti vandals!! Or is it actually for more parking for the visitors that the city hopes will come to restaurants very near both of those parks? One of which is already not doing so well, too bad they can't put the trees they tore out back.

Schools? Close Excellent-rated Grant Elementary for "Best re-use"? Wait, where is the educational welfare of the densely populated area of kids and families in that decision? Where was the criteria that the community asked for: "Neighborhood schools." The community didn't ask for a "Best for re-use" criterium but that's what they got. That's why Grant was chosen. Re-use for more "high end shopping?" The City can't do that! Right, they can't, the School Board, in their new, pretty darn public role as City planners, made that decision and--pay attention--some of them are pretty reluctant to let go of it. Or they are not being allowed to let go of it. We have seven schools while we have a levy in front of us. Pay attention, Group 2, we need our neighborhood schools, to be IN our neighborhoods. And speaking of neighborhoods...

Streets? Streets? Ask the people with the new grease pit drive thrus right next to them, with houses destroyed or distorted for parking, with beautiful, full, well-maintained apartments at the ends of their streets that were great buffers being torn down, their tenants evicted so Drug Mart could spread out on the surface and wouldn't have to dig down and disturb the tanks underneath the property. The people who live near Detroit Avenue know that it's a commercial street. But if they were the sort that read planning codes they might have seen this:

Section1173.02(b)(4):The City encourages conservation, preservation, redevelopment, and revitalization of residential neighborhoods to preserve their unique environments and for the public welfare of the City.
The City acknowledges as a matter of public policy that the preservation and protection of residential neighborhoods is required for the health, safety and welfare of the people.

There are those that would say that a Drug Mart is better than an empty Ganley dealership. There are those that would say responsible development would have had Drug Mart treating the brown field and taking care of it, and keeping their footprint smaller and not needing to take down the apartment and half of the next yard. Now they are not taking the whole house because some people from Group 2 got together and stopped them. But they weren't even told the reason that Drug Mart had to go wide instead of deep. And perhaps if Drug Mart had to do that, they wouldn't have filled that empty space, so it was worth it to compromise one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in Lakewood. But it wasn't even a new store. They just moved across the street and down.

Just wanted to provide some fascinating examples. Since I already talked about Grant I won't move on to talk about the Detroit Theater-- which is now a McDonald's that is also not a new business, just one that moved down the street directly into the path of half of the middle school kids in Lakewood. Maybe the kids will use their pocket change to buy the apple fries and not join the ever-growing obese population of children in the US.
Middle schoolers are known for their good decision-making skills.

Jim's conclusion?

Group 1 is a little out of hand:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Group 1: High end commercial development will save us, just not Marc's. Oopps. Maybe next time, Oopps!

Group 1 never seems happy and sees change as good, even when it consistently turns out far worse than they promised, then do it again.

Lakewood is being changed not by what Lakewood needs, but by what a small handful of people think we need. With very little thought and NO PLANNING on the outcome to the city overall. Just two years ago we were encouraged to count anything with a humanesque name as a family member for the census. God forbid we drop below 50,000 for the millions we get from the larger government entities. The second we count "Fredricka the dog" and her new litter, now we start tearing down homes in a flurry?

And Group 3 watches "Dancing With The Stars" and doesn't pay any attention. According to Jim's post, The 3rd
group depends on the first two bringing common sense to each other.

I like the sound of that. Common sense.

And Gary, that kind of sounds like you, banjo-playing common sense (and sometimes banjo-playing uncommon sense.) So maybe we should propose a Group 4-- that becomes more proactive. Rather than shaking our heads after we lose yet another great community attribute that we took for granted, we pay more attention and ask that the City make it easier to know what's going on before it happens-- how great would it have been to have a mixed-use cafe, educational center and movie theater-- as other cities of our size and resources have been able to do, rather than a McDonald's. That would be the "cool city" we've heard about.

I don't think the City or the School Board are bad. We can all point to examples of good decisions, even consistent good decisions.

But Jim's idea of a coral reef is kind of scary and it bears out when we look at other cities that share our characteristics:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:I suggest instead of a glass a water, you think of Lakewood as a coral reef. A community
of various animals with completely different needs, that through natural organic means,
thrives for decades and centuries until they become truly upset by outside influences, and
then they die very quickly, like East Cleveland.

Group 2 is going to have to get a little more lively if we don't want to find ourselves gone.

When you say:

Gary Rice wrote:
"Residential, business, social, economic, and governmental interests of a city always contain changing and interactive dynamics. I always feel that the more constructively and open we approach issues regarding that interactivity, the better off we will be."

I think you are pointing the way. I read your great article about helping each other. (http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/20 ... -our-times)

Maybe we can add to what you are proposing some kind of idea about defining ourselves so that we are all on the same page. So we understand and value what we have and who we are--- all things that will help us stay healthy and happy and help each other.

What do you think?

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy,

Thank you for your wonderful thoughts.

You seem so much like your father.

In a world of political turmoil, his vision of kind, cooperative, and inclusive government is still one of the finest examples of American political service that I have ever seen. He just wanted to make things better, and he did so everywhere he served, and for everyone whom he met, whether they might have been liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between. His was, and still is, a positive societal example for all of us to emulate.

I chuckle when you suggest that I might be part of one of Jimmy's "groups". I am tempted to respond, as a good friend of mine would say...

that he would never be part of a group that would have him for a member.

I guess I'm not very big on "groups"; even groups of which I am a member, and I'll tell you why. As a youngster, it seemed that no matter what "group" I wanted to belong to, they were always having to make some sort of inconvenient exception for my particular disabilities. As such, I sort of was forced to either keep some of them at arm's length, or to abandon them altogether.

Instead, I try to look at people as individuals. People fundamentally, are either a part of solutions, or a part of problems. Sometimes, they can be both, but that's another story altogether. I do tend to appreciate positive people more so than the moaners and groaners, but sometimes, even the moaners and groaners have good points to make.

I can be very confrontational when I have to be. The one thing in life that an advocate having disabilities learns how to do is to be confrontational if the need arises. Knowing that about myself, and understanding about the devastating and unpredictable effects of confrontation and negativity, I do try to be a peacemaker as much as possible, but NEVER at a compromise with principles.

People who care about life, (whatever their religious or political persuasions might be) probably have a great deal more in common than people who just move from day to day in an uncaring daze. I look for that kind of affirmative passion in people's words and deeds, but I also admire people who use their ears to listen, as well.

We have much to learn from each other in this city.

Are we, as a city, on the same page? I'm not even sure if some people around here are even in the same library, or for that matter, even GO to a library once in awhile, but that's another story too.

Still, communication, as we have here, is at least a good place to begin.

I really do think that it takes all so-called "groups" who are, or should be caring individuals, to make a city work. Vibrant businesses, vibrant neighborhoods, attentive governance, good neighbors, interested citizens, and even a nice public forum like this tends to help keep people honest....

...oh yes, and good musicians too...

even banjo players...

Back to the banjo.

Gary Rice wrote:Betsy,

Thank you for your wonderful thoughts.

You seem so much like your father.

In a world of political turmoil, his vision of kind, cooperative, and inclusive government is still one of the finest examples of American political service that I have ever seen. He just wanted to make things better, and he did so everywhere he served, and for everyone whom he met, whether they might have been liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between. His was, and still is, a positive societal example for all of us to emulate.

I chuckle when you suggest that I might be part of one of Jimmy's "groups". I am tempted to respond, as a good friend of mine would say...

that he would never be part of a group that would have him for a member.

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the kind words about my dad. I agree, and I think citing his career makes your point that it's not the party it's the person. I'm with you. Having been raised in a political environment, I could never claim to be a member of either party. I liked my dad's answer; he was less of a Republican or a Democrat-- more of a pragmatist.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were "part of one of Jimmy's groups." I don't think that Jim was creating groups, just looking for a way to describe the different behaviors he sees around him. And clearly one can move from one to another. I was watching "Dancing With The Stars" (I thought Emmet Smith was very talented) with my first baby on my lap, never worried about representation of any kind until that same baby entered the school system. I slowly became part of the group that understood that Lakewood was a very good place. Before I never thought about it, because it was always comfortable here, and I think that's part of Jim's point.

I think the people who lived on the West End who were being told to leave because of eminent domain were probably pretty comfortable, and not necessarily active, before the roof above them became threatened for some pretty dubious reasons. At that point, those residents (some of them) became part of group that supported "good old Lakewood," not the one that would feed on itself for development. I imagine those people were surprised, they never expected that their homes themselves would be threatened in Lakewood.

I was surprised when the overlords in the Phase 3 group said, right to our faces, that they were going to tear Grant down for "re-use." NOTHING to do with our children's educational needs which was what all of us thought was the subject until that last meeting and all of our charts and numbers were pulled out of the presentation and hidden. At that point, you have to say, "Um. This is wrong. Immoral and dishonest, if not illegal."

I know you can be aggressive when you have to be; I've seen it. I read that and smiled. I'm not aggressive at ALL! People around here think I am because I write for the paper, because I've had to voice my opinion. It's hard! People get mad. My dad always taught me to stand right there and get yelled at and figure out why. Keep talking. Keep listening. No labels. You are right, so right. It's about individuals. "Why are you mad at me? What is it about I said that upsets you? What can be done about that?"

The idea of killing the messenger comes up over and over again. For example, Lincoln Elementary School is a school that is an area that is not densely populated with families. Part of this is because its northern border is Lake Erie. It's nobody's "fault." The school relies on open-enrollment to fill its spaces which means technically it's not a neighborhood school. The architect used by Phase 3 said that the condition of Roosevelt school was so bad that it wasn't worth rebuilding.

I have had people scream in my face because I did the job I was assigned to do, figure out the population density, and look at the conditions of the school buildings. That was my baptism in communication.

I was told that I only said those things because my kids went to Grant. I stayed right there and pointed out that my kids going to Grant couldn't have caused a less dense population around Lincoln, or the deterioration of Roosevelt, it didn't make any sense. What was the real reason the person was yelling at me?

Stay in there, my dad says. People are way more like you, than they are different. Especially people with children. We love our kids. We want to be safe. It's all true.

I could go on (and on, and already have as I see) but I just wanted to say that in one of your posts on this thread you said: "I am reminded at this point about how long it takes to build something, and how short the time would be for it to be torn down.

I view Lakewood as having much that has been generally built very well. Perhaps I might even be tempted to use Jimmy's 95% figure as a descriptor of how much of our city HAS been well-built, both socially and with its infrastructure over the years."

In other words, you are someone who likes Lakewood--- 95 percent-- as it is. And is supportive of it as it is, schools, parks, neighborhoods. There is NOTHING radical about that. (Not that you can't be radical when you feel you need to be.)

We have to talk to each other. We have to be on the same page in some ways. We love our kids. We think they should receive a good education. We don't want our homes taken away from us or our neighborhoods degraded.

Not radical. We love our kids. We chose to live here. Quality of life and living is important.

That's the middle group. It don't think it's a club, and I don't think Jim created it. He seems to trying very hard to figure out what the same page is.

The metaphor of a coral reef is a good one. There are not many cities like Lakewood in the whole country.

And there isn't one answer. As you have said several times, the ANSWER is talking to each other.

I'll end with quoting my dad: "Tell me what you're for."


Betsy Voinovich

Betsy,

Well said.

Thank you again for your kind words.

Your efforts did count. Grant remains open.

Back to the banjo...

Gary

Gary Rice wrote:Betsy,

Well said.

Thank you again for your kind words.

Your efforts did count. Grant remains open.

Back to the banjo...

Gary

Gary

As long as this thread has been completely hijacked from what it was actually about. A city hall that listens
and thinks and is trying to keep its best foot forward.

But I can weigh in on this.

So Gary, this explains so much and underlines Lakewood style.

Gary comes off the bench and freaks out, when told his father and he would be carrying
garbage to the curb but goes in and plays the banjo when it is not in his yard, and he
could care very little. After all it is not the homes blocking Gary's life of a well-lit all-night
parking lot.

So back to the banjo.

It is not any park Gary goes to that is now closed at 5pm this week...

So back to the banjo.

It is nothing that affects Gary's retirement pay, healthcare, or Gary's future...

So back to the banjo.

It your right, to fight for only what directly effects you. But the analogy is spot on, a city
is very much like a corral reef, and what effects one side will surely soon effect the rest
of the colony.

Pete Seeger did not change the world with his banjo, He used his voice and his talent to
give voice to others, and help and funding. He fought their fight, not just his fight. He
knew that voices together were always more powerful than a voice alone.

He got involved, he put his ass on the line, he put his money where his mouth and heart
was. He didn't sing about New York waterways, he formed group after group and then recorded to help fund them. He understood that even when he did not see the issue as
"personal" other people did, and the people need a voice, and very often help in organizing.

He did not just turn and go back to his house, closing the door on the reality around him.

He got involved.

And I never, ever remember him singing that people did not have a right, not a purpose in
asking government the simple question, why? Which is what is going on in this thread.

You keep playing the banjo, and you will soon be dragging your garbage to the curb in the middle of a mall.

Pete raised the voices of the people being wronged, he didn't tell them to shut up and move along.

So maybe you should mix in some joni mitchell into your songs of garbage protest...

Counting Crows did, and hit a home run, and it reads and sounds like Lakewood.



Of course I have always been a Woody fan myself, so...



Gary, Grant is open, and the School Board after "listening" to Superintendent Jeff
Patterson announced, "It is not going to close Grant School this year..." Of course they
never were going to close it this year, they couldn't. So even the announcement reads
like, hmmmmm what about next year?

I bet if Betsy, and those on Phase III who thought the schools should save $12 million dollars instead of throwing it away, should go back in time now and play banjo, knit, or maybe cook and clean? It might be possible that the dissenters-- what were they called by civic leaders? Ohhhh yeah, "The psycho moms of Grant"-- would soon wake up to a closed Grant school, and then what would they have learned in school that day...?

Pete performing the Tom Paxton classic.


Back on topic...
So Lorain tries a moratorium and Lakewood City Hall joins with the "value stores" fighting
the residents, also known as voters, in court. Not on Grace, but on Grace, Cohassett,
Nicholson, Giel, Woodward, Hall, Scenic, Carabel, West Clifton, and I am sure coming to a
street you live on sooner than later.

Hey Gary, can you picture Pete at the hearing, singing songs of praise for City Hall while
they sue to throw people out of their homes?



.