The Observation Deck

Hi,
Councilman Fitzgerald, I read that you are not for the 33% general income tax increase that the Mayor is calling for. Where do you stand on a police levy?

You said,

" I have seen the statistics "

Would you be able to present all of them here or direct us to a web site where we can see them all? And since his may be different, (Mr. Mayor, is property crime really up approximately 134%) I ask the same of our Mayor. Is crime statistics something one should have to ask for?
Shouldn't that be part of running our City?

Mr. Mayor, you said,

"My administration brought security cameras to both Madison and Lakewood Parks nearly three years ago."

So, may I ask 2 questions. 1). Why were the basketball hoops removed? 2). How many tickets or police calls have been to the parks based on those cameras?

I hear this Administration making claims regularly that are based on information of unknown origin. Would CityStats force this data out to the public?

Our City government should operate openly with us and work to present the information they have. That does not seem to be how they were schooled on governing.

Since we now have a City radio station, would it be possible to air public meetings (Council meeting, Finance Committee meetings and such) on the radio station?

Ed FitzGerald wrote:Jim-

I posted in another thread some comments about Section 8 and crime- I really think the more data we have out in the public domain, the more rational our discussion will be.

Ed


Agreed. This is one reason we are trying to process as much as we can lay our hands on. In the LO Office, down the hall from the Owl Werks, home of the files for the Visionary Alignment for Lakewood(VAL) we are starting to process Raw police calls, as this will show more than anything else, where and why the police are called, and how thin they are stretched.

Your two safety meetings reassured me that my streets walks and scanner nights were correct. "Quality of Life" issues are hot, and they need to be addressed. It is a slippery slope for someone like Kathy Curran at Goddess Blessed, how long does she stay and put up with overturned newspaper boxes and broken planters, or move.

Safe and Clean or Clean and Safe are major issues for this city. Since the paper was founded, all we have asked is that the city concentrate on those two issues, and we can motivate the residents to worry about the fun side of life. In the end EVERYONE wants to live where it is clean and safe, and even fun.

Thanks again for stepping into the harsh light of the Observation Deck.

Don

The Peninsula has seen the eyes of more council people than the police levy has. We have been working the streets and backrooms to find out many of the numbers needed. Maybe we are following the lead of your daughter. Do the hard work, the years of info gathering, then present a plan to the people and see what they think, THEN ask city council to do the work of the people. We can only hope our hard work and vision reach the perfection of Savannah's. It was the single best idea I have ever seen submitted to this city. I still cannot believe it was shelved.

One of the amazing things about the process, as I am sure Savannah encountered with her amazing work on the peninsula, is that every time you talk to someone and ask for information or an opinion you end up with more information than wanted, but it takes you in a different direction then you might have wanted to go. Again this is the strength of the VAL, the ability to turn on a dime, or spring off other ideas and projects. With only one true agenda, "making Lakewood the best city in the region for the next 50 years" we have more agility than many groups that are looking to build consensus around a single thought or project. We have worked on things for three years to find one glitch near the end, and that glitch becomes a nightmare, and the whole thing is dropped or shelved until an answer can be found. As we witnessed with the number thingy, many times others will not slow or stop when those glitches are found, which creates a nightmare or potential black hole for funding and human hours.

I believe Kevin Butler was the only member of council to hear enough about the police levy to make any assessment. From the conversation, he seemed against it from a cost point of view. I think in a political season it is much easier for residents to talk of these things without politicians. Of course all members of the VAL are free to openly talk about 99% of what is going on, that is how we vet our ideas to the residents and public. In the end it is all residents and businesses that must be served by the findings and projects set out by the VAL. So others on council may have heard it from others members.

In the end, the brand I believe we all want starts with Clean and Safe followed by whatever.

FWIW


.

Hi,
You are so right, Jim. I just want to know, in general, what Ed Fitzgerald thinks of the idea of a police levy. While I know you and I differ on this, I think a Police levy could never be effective if our Mayor did not support the idea.

Donald Farris wrote:Hi,
You are so right, Jim. I just want to know, in general, what Ed Fitzgerald thinks of the idea of a police levy. While I know you and I differ on this, I think a Police levy could never be effective if our Mayor did not support the idea.

Don

As we tend to agree about 30% of the time you will not be shocked to know I disagree on this. It is unfair to ask any of the people running for mayor to comment on things they do not know about. Maybe in general terms.

The police levy is very solid idea with some nebulous variations, and some other very interesting thoughts coming out of it. One of the most exciting variables is ways to fund it.

The simple concept of the police levy out of the VAL: Put enough police on the street to make a name for the city of Lakewood as the safest city in the region. To go back to the 60s, and 70s when no "career criminal" or "semi-intelligent punk" would come into Lakewood with the thought of causing trouble, mischief or committing crimes. While speaking with police, media, criminals, and others the number most associated with this is 30 more police. the levy would also bring police up-to-date with equipment, and a strong residency incentive to get current police, teachers and fire employees to move into Lakewood.

Of course this would tie together with other VAL concepts like LEAF, Community Currency, Housing Units, Wack-em-all, etc. to present a cohesive package to help make the small corrections needed to steer Lakewood in the right direction for the next 50 years.

As for needing the mayor or any politician on your side for this, the peninsula or other visionary ideas. It helps, but much of the VAL is not dependent on city hall, but instead on the will and serving the residents. In the end, the power must always be with the residents. I think the single biggest shortfall in Savannah's Plan, was going to council too early. Look at the major parts of that you found after the presentation. Funding, examples, developers dying to get their hands on the property, etc.

.

Hi,
Lynn and my concern is taxpayers approving money for one thing, more police on the streets and having the money used other places as happened with the State lottery and the schools.

Donald Farris wrote:Hi,
Lynn and my concern is taxpayers approving money for one thing, more police on the streets and having the money used other places as happened with the State lottery and the schools.

Don

Two edge sword, but you should not worry. In the current version, any extra, and their could be extra goes towards residency incentives. I do not want to fall into the lock-box mentality, BUT in our version it would not be sucked away.

The best way to insure this would be a charter amendment for this money. We believe it would be enough to secure it, but Lynn could answer far better than I. Ask her if a charter amendment could do this.

At the same time we are not so foolish at to throw taxpayers money away. If an era came where the police were not needed, and it is possible I suppose, there would have to be a way to cut back on costs to taxpayers.

.