The Observation Deck

Jim,

I'm not saying you were lying about the youth fight. I'm saying in your previous post you only mention the youth fight and nothing the homeowner talked about. That's what I said.

I'm done.

Dave

Dave Sharosky wrote:Jim,

I'm not saying you were lying about the youth fight. I'm saying in your previous post you only mention the youth fight and nothing the homeowner talked about. That's what I said.

I'm done.

Dave

Dave


You are correct. when something happens on a street where I know people I like to ask them. The three that all live within 5 homes of each other knew nothing.

I was not calling anyone a liar, I just could not find anyone to back up the story. this afternoon I did.

.

Jim:

I want to acknowledge the fact that at the city council meeting Ms. Donahoe presented a credible and detailed report of the deteriorating safety and quality of life conditions on Baxterly.

I have read her remarks.

She was not conjuring a report of crime and fear-mongering in order to serve any political campaign. While noting good signs in Lakewood, she put the Mayor and City Council on notice about some bad ones. Indeed, she was serving all of us in Lakewood with a report that reflects twenty years of living as a good neighbor on one street.

While providing data from her street, her neighborhood and her experience, she provided a time-line with a cascading cycle of deteriorating events.

She identified apartment buildings on the North end where problems began three to five years ago.

She noted a 4 p.m. break and entry and police capture three years ago.

She noted a stolen car crash and chase with suspects fleeing into backyards. Her husband and neighbor found one suspect hiding behind a neighbor’s garage. Police came and arrested him.

More recently, she reported an elderly couple found a stolen car in their driveway. Two families from her church had home burglarized during the work day.

She noted graffiti across town, the take down of hoops at Roosevelt School, due to the effects of debris and unruly behavior on the neighborhood.

Then she cited incidents occurring in the most recent three months:

1. adult males chasing and assaulting another.

2. Her garage was painted with “gang taggingâ€Â￾ according to the police officer who advised her.

3. A 14 year old robbed at gunpoint by a 16 year old at the school playground at 6 p.m.

4. Gunpoint robbery on Brown around 6 p.m.

5. Recycling receptacle torched at Roosevelt School.

6. Punks in a car toss a half empty coke can at her children who had set up a lemonade stand.

7. Stone throwing teens toss at a passing motorcyclist and then harass a neighbor who tries to talk sense to them.

8. Loitering kids break into a fight with punches and skateboards hurled in the mix.

She noted that 5 families with 16 children moved off the street in the past three years.

She remarked that only one of the incidents cited happened after 9:30 p.m. – the attempted car-jacking on Wyandotte and Madison.

Yet some say there is need for more data.

Since when do we ignore field reports and observations from neighbors who have the courage to step forward and address Mayor and Council, calling all of us to our senses?

In the meanwhile, we prefer to parse politics, place blame, split hairs over statistics, await the coming of scientific proof and fool-proof statistical methods, or counsel that Lakewood has always been a little rugged.

Criminology literature is quite full of studies that raise substantial questions about bias, data contamination and errors arising from differences in both police presence and practice.

The factor of insufficient manpower may in fact be the cause that reported crime is dropping in Lakewood.

How does anyone know that all crime victims are included in the Chief’s data set?

I would not be quite so quick to discount the data set presented by Ms. Donahoe, or anyone else who can cite chaotic eruptions and criminal incidents that make people feel unsafe and their children at risk. Nor would I ignore her brave call for more police.

Smart people don’t take such chances for very long. Let’s not flatter ourselves with either nostalgia about Lakewood or an inflated sense that one’s own set on neighborhood informants can accurately capture the full scope of what is happening in any neighborhood.

Ms. Donahoe had the data.

She presented the occasion to learn what the Chief believes 30 more officers could do. That's enough data for the Mayor and Council to make a decision.

We need 30 more police. We need a police levy if we wish to attract and retain good neighbors like Ms. Donahoe. It’s really that simple.

We don’t need politicians telling us that in an election year such difficult matters cannot be faced. We don’t need campaign spinners trying to ride the issue one way or the other. The issue is hot. People know what they are experiencing.

If Bill Call needs justification from the literature of criminology about why hiring more cops doesn’t reduce crime, I would suggest reading “The Relationship Between Crime Reporting and Police: Implications for the Use of Uniform Crime Reportsâ€Â￾ by Steven D. Levitt from the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,

Thus Levitt:

“If the size of the police force systematically affects the willingness of victims to report crime or a police department's propensity officially to record victim crime reports, then UCR data will understate the true effectiveness of police in reducing crime. Victims may be more likely to report crimes to the police when the perceived likelihood of a crime being solved is high. Furthermore, the ready availability of a police officer at the scene of a crime may also lead to more crime reports, and it is easy to imagine that increases in police manpower will affect the likelihood that citizen complaints are officially recorded by police departments. If reporting/recording bias (hereafter referred to as "reporting" bias for brevity) is present, reported crime rates may increase with the size of the police force, even if the true victimization rate is falling. The fact that substantially less than half of all crimes covered by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports are actually reported to the police heightens concern over the importance of reporting bias. Reporting bias is frequently cited as an explanation for the failure to uncover a relationship between reported crimes and police presence (e.g., Greenwood and Wadycki, 1973; Swimmer, 1974; Thaler, 1977, 1978; Carr-Hill and Stern, 1979; Cameron, 1988; Devine et al., 1988). Yet while there is a large body of literature examining various determinants of the likelihood that crimes will be reported (Skogan, 1984) including the severity of the offense (Skogan, 1976), positive results from previous reports of victimization (Conway and Lohr, 1994), fear of reprisal (Singer, 1988), and the race of the victim (Rabinda and Pease, 1992), only one empirical study has addressed the relationship between crime reporting and the size of the police
force. While not his primary emphasis, Craig (1987) obtains substantively large (but only marginally statistically significant) point estimates of reporting bias using a simultaneous equations model applied to a data set of Baltimore neighborhoods that combines information from the National
Crime Survey and data from the Baltimore police department. There are, however, two weaknesses in Craig's estimates. The first is imprecision. The two-standard deviation confidence interval of the estimate covers the entire range of plausible magnitudes. Second, identification of the model relies on excluding a number of socioeconomic and demographic factors including the percentage male, the percentage married, the percentage unemployed, and income variables. There is no theoretical justification for those exclusions. Moreover, many of those variables are found to be systematically related to reporting in the empirical results of the current paper.â€Â￾


A footnote:

“In contrast, when crime is used as an explanatory variable, the use of reported crime statistics will induce two countervailing biases into the estimation. Underreporting will lead estimates of the effect per crime to be overstated. On the other hand, if there is noise in reported crime rates, then standard attenuation bias due to errors in variables will also be present. In sharp contrast, these same surveys find strong evidence of a negative association between crime rates and the risk of arrest, conviction, or imprisonment. Two recent studies do find a link between the size of the police force and crime. Marvell and Moody (1996), using a Granger-causality approach, find that police reduce crime. Levitt (1997) uses the timing of mayoral and gubernatorial elections as instruments for the size of the police force, obtaining similar results.â€Â￾

Source:

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/ ... me1998.pdf

Do we really believe we have the luxury of time and brainpower to muster the critical chops and debate intelligently the validity of crime statistics, the ROI for Lakewood with 30 more cops?

Do we really know the stats and reporting methods of Citi-stat will be valid?

I salute you Ms. Donahoe for your courage and determination.

All together, now, police levy please.

Kenneth Warren

I am sorry if anyone thought I was attacking Ms. Donahoe. I was not.


.

Thank you Kenneth Warren for posting the truth in what Sandy Donahoe spoke about at Monday's City Council Meeting.

I was there. She is not making up any of those stories. There are police reports to confirm each story. Just because three people who live on Baxterly did not know of some of the incidents that occurred does not mean they were being made up or blown out of proportion. Her courage to speak as she did was amazing. I thank her deeply for doing what she did.

I honestly don't think the residents of Lakewood who post on this site or any other site for that matter should be accused of bashing Lakewood because they find a forum to air their concerns about their safety in Lakewood.

I'm a stay at home mom. My husband and I are choosing to raise our 7 children in Lakewood. I am neither an alarmist nor do I ever want to be accused of being a Lakewood basher.

I don't listen to gossip. I look for the truth, the facts too. I see what I see happening around Lakewood. I am involved in organizations from the Lakewood Early Childhood Preschool PTA all the way up to the Lakewood High School PTA and Athletic Boosters. Just because I don't sit on any Board or take a pay check for the time I give, does not mean I am any less qualified to air my concerns regarding the safety of my family.

I am deeply concerned with the types of crimes happening in Lakewood and the frequency with which they are occurring.

Whether people on this forum agree or not, the perception that Lakewood is becoming unsafe is out there. Really out there. People are talking, people are moving, people are running scared to the burbs.

We all know the grass is not greener on the other side. I am fully aware that no city or 'burb' is immune to the very same problems Lakewood is facing.

I do know what people are saying about Lakewood and it is not good. We as Lakewood residents, those of us who 'bleed purple and gold', should really care what is being said. Face it head on and do something about it.

Whether you agree or not that perception is reality doesn't really matter. If the perception that Lakewood is unsafe prevents even one nice family, one nice couple, one nice single person, from moving into Lakewood, then we should all care because we all lose.

We lose the opportunity for vibrate people, no matter their race or ethnicity, to contribute positively to our community.

Hi,
Mr. Warren said:

We need 30 more police. We need a police levy if we wish to attract and retain good neighbors like Ms. Donahoe. It’s really that simple.

In another thread I asked:

What makes anyone here think that even with a "Expand the Police" levy approved the City Administration would actually spend additional money on Police? We are all very familiar with how the Ohio lottery was going to save our schools with a huge influx of cash. It did bring in a lot of money for the schools. But the State then just dropped what they were putting into the bucket.

If our current Administration wanted to put more Police on the street they could have. They are very good at finding money when it's for something they want. Likewise, if we approve an "Expand the Police" levy, I'm sure they will gladly pull funds now going to the Police to use on their pet projects. My first guess would be on more shiny new trucks, but I'm sure there are other less visible items.

No candidate for Mayor has promised (that I know of) to work to place more Police on the streets.

Given that no candidate for Mayor has expressed support for more Police, I ask Mr. Warren why he thinks a police levy would actually place more police on the street?

Our City has an massive budget and current administration and council spend it as they see fit. If we need more police on the streets (which we very well may) we must have a Mayor and Council that shares that view before we give them more tax dollars.

Mr. Farris:

I appreciate and understand your skepticism about appropriation, allocation and accountability. Can I guarantee it from where I sit right now? Of course not.

I have voiced these concerns in various other threads.

Am I instigating and attempting to educate myself about the feasibility of achieving such a guarantee that the city's one large strategic bet on safety is not hi-jacked?

Absolutely.

I hope others more qualified and responsible for these matters than I can do more.

Kenneth Warren

Ken-

I'm convinced that crime is up in Lakewood. Apparently, so are you. Unfortunately, there is some denial going on with this issue. Whether the answer is a change in community policing tactics, re-directing resources, or raising taxes to hire more police, none of those things will happen if the official position is "crime is down." No tax increase would be seriously considered by voters if "crime is down" and it's just a perception problem.

I have been saying since the last administration that drug crime in particular is rising, and it's fueling a lot of the other incidents we're seeing in Lakewood. Is it going on in other communities? I'm sure it is, but that's hardly an excuse.

Every year, whatever administration is in office puts out an annual report on their departments, including the police department. Every year the police department includes statistics on reported crime in various categories. Every year since 1999 I've been asking them to provide drug crime statistics. Every year since 1999, those statistics have been left out of the annual report, and have to be provided later to Council. I have no idea why.

I concede your point that there are all kinds of variables within crime reporting mechanisms. Nevertheless, there is at least some value in these statistics. I'm at my office now, and don't have the most recent stats, but here are the statistics for drug crime from 1998 through 2005:

Total Drug Offenses:

1998 - 160
1999 - 198
2000 - 196
2001 - 263
2002 - 215
2003 - 261
2004 - 253
2005 - 358

The source of these stats was the Lakewood Police Department. And no, these aren't a bunch of marijuana joint arrests- the biggest statistical change was in cocaine offenses. Can these numbers be explained away? I'm sure they can be, and will be. The easiest cop-out, no pun intended, is to say that arrests are up because we're really cracking down. That's when you have to use your common sense and talk to people in the street who are living in the middle of these statistics.

One key statistic, that is not kept by anyone that I know of, is crimes related to drug crime. How many house break-ins are to support a habit? How many robberies are drug deals gone bad? How many assaults are rooted in a drug transaction? When I served as a county prosecutor, my colleagues and I once estimated that 75% of the felonies we prosecuted were inspired at least in part by drug use; for homicides and shootings it was even higher. I also believe that it is a truism that any effective approach must include the human services side of the equation as well as law enforcement.

I'm being honest with people when I say that I am skeptical of having a rational discussion in the middle of an election. But as I said the other night, we have to try. I happen to be friends with the Donahoe family, but their story, unfortunately, is not unique.

Councilman Dever and I will be holding a Public Safety meeting in a few days. I'm going to focus on data for now, because we must define our terms if we are to have any hope of a rational discussion, as opposed to a non-stop rhetorical crossfire.

The statistics quoted and comments made by Councilman FitzGerald are right on point and provide an excellent summary of what's going on in Lakewood, and throughout the U.S..

Knowledgeable and experienced residents who have personally observed and/or experienced crime in Lakewood have for years, as intimated by Mr. Dever at the Council meeting, often expressed concern informally. These observant citizens are truly experts whose opinions relative to the increase in crime are very credible. Mr. FitzGerald's important comments lend learned support to those who are expressing serious concern about crime - only to be viewed as alarmists and worse by skeptics.

The issues are not: whether we have an increase in crime; who is committing the offenses; whether we need more police: or whether Mayor George and/or the Department have done their jobs.(They have)

The questions are: how many more officers should we hire and how is it possible to pay for the added expense.

The proposed solution likely cannot realistically be ready for introduction by the end of the year. For those member(s) of Council who may view this issue as needing an emergency fix, please recall this problem(crime) has existed since you were elected but has not formally been addressed until now. Let's not cynically make this important matter a election year politician's toy.

Remember Chief Malley stated if there are more police patrolling there will be more arrests resulting in the need for more jail space. The jail is often over crowded. He also referenced numerous other costs which result when a department adds personnel.

Contrary to what was suggested by one Councilman, the Council should not rush to ascertain a solution. There needs to be a good bit of discussion regarding adequate staffing, the nature thereof, a general sense of the manner of deployment, funding, and the impact on the Court.

The City is apparently going to be faced with the necessity of significantly increasing the number of police on patrol. This must be accomplished in a reasoned, deliberate manner devoid of election year rhetoric.

I am one of the five families that just moved from Baxterly, only because we needed a bigger house. We actually moved east of Bunts against some opinions telling us not to (and are very happy). For the seven years we lived on Baxterly it was a really nice family-oriented street, but Ms. Donahoe is accurate in describing the crimes that occurred there.

As a parent of young children, it is not possible to minimize any crime when your children are subject to all of it. The apts. on the corner on Baxterly take section 8 and have house many criminals, as well as the Dairy Mart on the corner that employs sexual predators. The problems are real and Ms. Donahoe was a teacher before she became a full-time mother of five and is an asset to the community. These are the families Lakewood wants, taxpaying, law-abiding, good role models. I hope her concerns are taken seriously as this is going on around Lakewood whether we love Lakewood or not.

Is it illegal to require landlords to do background checks? Can the city give them any money back for doing that? How much of the crime being committed in the city is done by people who live in the city and/or renters? I hate taxes but would support a police levy just for the sake of the children. It only takes one time to get victimized to be too many and more police awareness can only help prevent that. I hope something is done, with money already there or otherwise.

Thank you, Councilman Fitzgerald, for an informative post.

In your oversight work with Council are you provided with monthly police logs, which might contain such information as Date Time Report; Date Time Occurred; Location; Incident; Disposition, Comments; Report Number?

A review of monthly polices logs will provide a clear sense of manpower deployments into zones of services, reports, citations, arrests not necessarily captured in crime statistics.

If these monthly police logs are presented is there any degree of analysis and interpretation? Any trends? Ebbs and flows? Does Council have a sense of the patterns, the flow states of crime, chaos, psychiatric service?

Are there compilations of monthly information reports, which can provide a deeper picture of the drug-related quality of life deterioration in neighborhoods.

Mr. Murtaugh is correct to caution against haste in our efforts to ascertain a compelling and effective solution to safety concerns. But we cannot waste time or become confused in campaign spin. As Mr. Murtaugh says, “This must be accomplished in a reasoned, deliberate manner devoid of election year rhetoric.â€Â￾

That's why participation on the LO Deck is, I believe, a sign of good faith in the civic and intellectual powers of our community to come to terms with critical issues of concern.

As we set out with hope that important work to improve safety can be undertaken effectively, the first issue for all of us is to understand - not through a spirit of blame but rather one of intense critical scrutiny and civic education in safety concerns - how data, reporting and statistics can be products of bias, contamination and omission.

Kenneth Warren

Requiring landlords to do do back-round checks is probably not realistic. We don't need beaurocrats involved in the rental of private property.

However, it would be interesting to know what the city can do to make available information about how to obtain back round checks in an expedient, economical manner. This information may already be provided at seminars that are sponsored by the city. There are property owners on this deck who are able to share knowledge about how to obtain back round checks.

how data, reporting and statistics can be products of bias, contamination and omission.

Really Ken, you're getting over the top. You are exhorting the people here come to a conclusion and act on a serious issue without first quantifying and iexamining it.

Do you make decisions at the library based on feelings and anecdotal information? Do you think library circulation is up if you suddenly see a lot of people in the library?

Come on, you use your records, your facts and figures, to see how the operation is running and what needs to be done in the futture.

So why the aversion to real numbers here? Why the repeated admonition to not wait for facts or to be wary of facts in this crime issue?.

Grace O'Malley wrote:

Come on, you use your records, your facts and figures, to see how the operation is running and what needs to be done in the future.

Last time I checked, that's exactly what Ken does.

Grace

I don't doubt, for one moment the need for figures, facts, etc. Always useful tools. But, I think that observation, especially of someone who is tuned in, are equally valuable, and in many cases can catch the crest of the wave before the hard data and studies demonstrate the need, which frequently is after that wave has already crashed.

Tracking your gas fillups, miles driven, etc. will demonstrate how far you can expect to go on a tank of gas. But, notwithstanding everything the data may tell you, when you observe the car sputtering to a stop, it's time to buy more gas.

Jeff