The Observation Deck

Shelley Hurd wrote:

Ed FitzGerald wrote:Most of us in Lakewood use the lower number of square miles because we don't count the portion of the lake we control. We mentioned that to the Auditors, and they preferred to use the larger number. They felt it did not affect their overall conclusions.

Mr. Ed Fitzgerald, Mayor of Lakewood

You are, at minimum, being disingenuous


"Lakewoods worst finacial crisis"??

I don't think the Mayor is being disingenuous and yes Lakewood is facing a fiscal crisis.

In this case the difference in square miles seems completely irrelevent.

Here is what is important:

Table 4-x: Sworn Officer Comparison
Lakewood Euclid
Sworn Officers FTEs 90.8 100.0
Citizens Reported in 2006
Census Estimates 52,197 48,717

Per 1,000 Citizens 1.7 2.1
Calls For Police Service
86,169 54,634

Calls for Service per Officer 949.00 546.34

Calls for Service Per 1,000 Citizens 1650.8 1121.5


Police Reports Written 11,420 17,657
Police Reports per Officer 125.77 176.57
Total Arrests 13,675 19,347
Arrests per Sworn Officer 150.6 193.5
Square Miles of City 6.70 11.57
Sworn Officer per Square Mile 13.6 8.6
Reported Crimes per Officer 15.26 19.91
Response Times - Priority One (dispatch to arrival on scene) 3:35 3:35
Violent Crime Statistics 108 203

Lakewood's police department is more efficient by any measure.

Our violent crime is less than Euclid.

Lakewood has more service calls and fewer arrests. I think that means more of Lakewoods calls are non criminal calls like "my neighbor's dog is barking".

Lakewood has more calls per officer. I think that means our police department works harder.

This argument about square mileage seems much ado about nothing.

I'll go out on a limb and say I think Lakewoods population is increasing and is likely to be more than 52,197 in 2010. When you get your census form add one person to your household. That will mean more money for the City. I don't know why no one thought of that before.

Shelly, why don't you find some information on the DROP program?

Bill Call

This argument about square mileage seems much ado about nothing.

I beg to differ, as do our elderly, disadvantaged and everyday residents who saw the cuts and guts to city services to pay for this unnecessary bloat.

And remeber, Mr. Fitzgerald says he needs 2 more million...More cuts and guts and outsourcing to come.

The milage is much ado about something, or the numbers would not of been skewed.

Ed Fitzgerald’s City of Lakewood which comprises 6.7 miles, has the number of police at, 13.6 officers per square mile (based on number of police being 90.8, see A5a.7). Is a high number in comparison to other cities for sure.

But a more familiar Lakewood, one that encompasses and consists of 5.66 square miles, reveals Lakewood has 16.04 officers per square mile. A even higher number of police officers compared to other cities.

And these number are before Mr. Ed Fitzgerald hired 10 more police officers.

“Lakewood Increases Police Force By More Than 15%”
“Since January of 2008, the city has hired 4 new full-time officers and 6 part-time officers.” (Lakewood Life, A Community Newsletter from the City of Lakewood, Summer 2009)

Adding 10 officers to the afore mentioned number of police, 90.8, would put us at 100.8 officers?

In Mr. Ed Fitzgerald’s Lakewood, which encompasses and compromises 6.7 miles. The current number of police would be 15.4 per square mile (math is not my thing…double check it). Again this is ridiculously high compared to other cities.

But, if we return Lakewood to encompassing and consisting of 5.66 miles….Lakewood now has 17.8 police per square mile.(math is not my thing…double check it)

Do we now have enough police?

Apparently not in Mr. Ed. Fitzgerald’s eyes no. No we don’t.

Bill Call Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:26 pm
“The Mayor recommended that the City be allowed to laterally hire police officers who have been laid off by other cities. “

At roughly 18 police per square mile haven’t we reached beyond the ridiculous and into the absurd?

Bill Call wrote:
I'll go out on a limb and say I think Lakewoods population is increasing and is likely to be more than 52,197 in 2010.

Dont be sitting on that limb too long Bill:


http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=Lakewood+&_state=04000US39&_county=Lakewood&_cityTown=Lakewood&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph

View population trends...

2008 50,704

2000 56,646

1990 59,718

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Population Estimates, Census 2000, 1990 Census

The 2008 population estimate for Lakewood city, Ohio is 50,704.

Shelly, police per square mile is dubious at best.

I'd wager there's less police per square mile in Wyoming than New York City. Does that mean the NYCPD is bloated?

No offense, but it looks like you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. We're one, if not the most densly populated cities in the region.

Bob Mehosky wrote:Shelly, police per square mile is dubious at best.

I'd wager there's less police per square mile in Wyoming than New York City. Does that mean the NYCPD is bloated?

No offense, but it looks like you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. We're one, if not the most densly populated cities in the region.

The correct mileage was there for the auditor- page 2 of 7(A2b CoL

If the number/miles dont matter...Then WHY were the numbers/milage skewed?

Why?

Bill Call
Lakewood has more service calls and fewer arrests.

Calls For Police Service 86,169

Those call numbers …are those a per incident number? Or a per response number?

If five officers respond to ONE call.. Are all five being counted in the over all number (86,169) call for service numbers?

And on a side note

Nice to know that it is seemingly OK and cool with you guys if fuzzy math/disingenuous
milage was used in a State Audit

Shelley Hurd wrote:Dont be sitting on that limb too long Bill:


The 2008 population estimate for Lakewood city, Ohio is 50,704.

I stand by my prediction. If I am proven wrong the less said the better. If I am proven right then I'll post something about it.

Anyway you are forgetting my "Add A Person" program. If everyone in Lakewood adds just one more person to their census form we can really cash in.

Shelly, I'm not indifferent to playing with numbers if that is what is going on.

If your point is that we have too many police officers there are better ways to make the point.

Bill Call wrote:
If your point is that we have too many police officers there are better ways to make the point.

Our police officers are honorable and hard working. This is an indisputable truth. The beef is not with them. Nor is there anyone begrudging them. Quit they contrary.

Seemingly any call for service results in 2-3-4-5 officers showing up. These men and woman are eager to help, anxious to serve our community and carry out their duties with due diligence and professionalism

This is where the issue lies. It has been reported to me that they are, and have been for quit sometime, verbalizing that they have so many officers they “are tripping all over each other”

A truth which is evident in this video:






I spoke to the woman who said her and her son called for “an Ambulance”. She said she thought her husband had a heart attack- turned out to be drug related/drug interaction she says- The man is ok after a few days in the hospital she reported.

5 Police Cars --- 5 Police
1 Engine Truck --- 4? Firemen
2 Ambulances --- 6? EMTs
____________________
@ 15 Public Safety personnel (give or take a few)

The spectacle of this response had the neighborhood TERRIFIED. Everyone was on their porches horrified at what catastrophic emergency would require this many safety forces. Moms were screaming at children to get in the house- fearful for the lives and safety of their kids. Old folks were pale and shaking, needing to sit down, begging for any information on this catastrophe. And most other residents were seen clutching each other, hands at their mouths anxiously awaiting news of some horrific danger and/or emergency.

After I informed them there was no danger. That a man was thought to have had a heart attack.... Relief.

Then concern for their neighbor.

Then confusion over why this response.

Then, in the words of a local business man who’s car was trapped by this spectacle,...
A lot of them were angry and wondered aloud, "this is why my taxes are so high?" "This is why services were cut" and gutted? "This is why overtime for these departments are so obscene?"

Maybe, just maybe, this is why the Mystery mile matters.

I'll go out on a limb and say I think Lakewoods population is increasing and is likely to be more than 52,197 in 2010. When you get your census form add one person to your household. That will mean more money for the City. I don't know why no one thought of that before.

Bill,

I think it is interesting that you feel this way. Not to stray too much of the subject of this thread, but there was a lot of discussion on population trends in Lakewood during the Phase III process. All of the data we were given pointed to the continued trend of Lakewood losing population, thus the recommendation to close an elementary school. Not everyone was convinced on the Phase III committee that closing a school based on the data we had on population decline was a good idea. There were many who thought Lakewood was poised to attract new residents in the future. The last thing we want in our schools are large class sizes or crowding. Small class sizes was determined by those attending the Community Forums to be one of the top concerns about closing a school. It would seem to me that once a school is closed it would be really hard to build a new one in the future.

Kristine

Kristine Pagsuyoin wrote:

I'll go out on a limb and say I think Lakewoods population is increasing and is likely to be more than 52,197 in 2010. When you get your census form add one person to your household. That will mean more money for the City. I don't know why no one thought of that before.

Bill,

I think it is interesting that you feel this way. Not to stray too much of the subject of this thread, but there was a lot of discussion on population trends in Lakewood during the Phase III process. All of the data we were given pointed to the continued trend of Lakewood losing population, thus the recommendation to close an elementary school.

I think that there will be an increase in total population and an increase in the number of students over the next two years. I don't know if that increase will be enough to convince the State to change its projections. I don't know if it will be enough to cause the school board to challenge those projections.

Sometimes closing schools accelerates the decline in the number of students.

I'm sure that everyone involved in Phase III worked very hard and took the process very seriously. Ultimately I think the board will make whatever recommendation they intended to make all along. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

This kind of thing happens in private industry. When two companies merge together there is always a big hullabullu about where the new headquarters will be located. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours are spent in an open and inclussive process that decides to relocate the new headquarters where the new CEO lives or wants to live (read CEO's wife). If you knew where the wife lived or wanted to live before hand you could have saved all that time and money but then people would have felt they were left out of the process.

Anyway, for a few years Lakewood will have more people and students than current projections predict.

I'm sure that everyone involved in Phase III worked very hard and took the process very seriously. Ultimately I think the board will make whatever recommendation they intended to make all along. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

Bill,

I will only say that if the BOE really did know which school they wanted to close all along then I would have appreciated not to have my time wasted. If the Phase III Committee was only created to appear that they were including citizens in the process then that is a "bad thing". Unlike a corporation, we weren't paid. Committee members sacrificed a huge amount of family time--many of us have small children. I think it is insulting to me and the people of Lakewood to put us through a process if there was never any intention to change a predetermined decision. I would be more respectful of a board that made a decision (including transparent discussion) backed with facts/research. I don't need to be included in any process as part of a show. I, as many other citizens, are adults. We can handle tough choices if we feel decisions are fair.

It will be interesting what the State will say if it does appear that our enrollment will increase over the next couple of yeaqrs. I would support keeping 7 schools in the State went with the original plan to fund rebuilding/renovating Lakewood's last 3 elementary schools. Not just to support the growth, but to make sure that more of our elementary students have the opportunity to attend a school within a reasonable walking distance--something that will change significantly if/when we go to 6.

In his address to the city video 2 ,Mr. Ed Fitzgerald, Mayor of Lakewood speaks solemnly of “hard choices” he had to make. Mr. Fitzgerald speaks of how departments had to “justify why vehicles are necessary“. Mr. Fitzgerald spoke of how he “got rid of repetitive and redundant vehicles“ Proudly proclaims he was interviewed by a local paper because he hired police officers who were laid off in other cities. Proudly recounts how he had to “cut things so that we could invest in things. “We chose, even under difficult circumstances, to cut things so we could invest in things. …”We didn’t just add bodies to the police department“….

Mr. Fitzgerald gleefully recounts how this budget was unanimously passed and done so three month before any budget in the history of Lakewood.

Maybe Lakewood would of been better servered by a Council who asked questions instead of rubber stamping. Listened to residents instead of refusing to hear and see. Or maybe Council should of taken the needed time to investigate on their own instead of promoting themselves by going along with Mr. Fitzgeralds agenda.
Mr. Fitzgerald speaks to why we are in such a budget “crisis”

Why are we in this budget “crisis“ Mr. Fitzgerald and Members of Council?




Mr. Fitzgerald and Members of Council, why does an engine truck accompany every call for an ambulance? Why do two police cars normally accompany every ambulance and the afore mentioned engine truck? Or, 5 police cars, 2 ambulances and and engine truck to a call for A AMBULANCE? Does this not fit your view of “repetitive and redundant” vehicle use? Are these just not "add(ed) bodies" to a call for an ambulance? How do you “justify” this Mr. Fitzgerald and Members of Council?

Shelley Hurd wrote:Mr. Fitzgerald gleefully recounts how this budget was unanimously passed and done so three month before any budget in the history of Lakewood.

It was the first time where we had a budget prior to the start of the year. What a concept, know what your going to spend prior to spending it. I commend the Mayor, Council and Finance Director for putting in a lot of hard work to put a balanced budget together prior to the start of the year.

Shelley Hurd wrote:Maybe Lakewood would of been better servered by a Council who asked questions instead of rubber stamping. Listened to residents instead of refusing to hear and see. Or maybe Council should of taken the needed time to investigate on their own instead of promoting themselves by going along with Mr. Fitzgeralds agenda.

Council doesn’t rubber stamp any budget. If you ever attended budget hearings you’d know that. They ask lots of questions.

Shelley Hurd wrote:Why are we in this budget “crisis“ Mr. Fitzgerald and Members of Council?

Read Mike Summers on the state of our finances from the July 28, 2009 Observer (front page). He is spot on.

http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/issue ... sue_15.pdf

Shelley Hurd wrote:Mr. Fitzgerald and Members of Council, why does an engine truck accompany every call for an ambulance? Why do two police cars normally accompany every ambulance and the afore mentioned engine truck? Or, 5 police cars, 2 ambulances and and engine truck to a call for A AMBULANCE? Does this not fit your view of “repetitive and redundant” vehicle use? Are these just not "add(ed) bodies" to a call for an ambulance? How do you “justify” this Mr. Fitzgerald and Members of Council?

Rumors have floated around for years that fire sends extra unneeded vehicles to pad their numbers for when it comes time for contract negotiations. Also, there are minimum manning requirements (how many people per vehicle). These requirements are negotiated with the City.

Coincidently, all seven union contracts expire at December 31 of this year, including fire.

I don’t have an answer for the police. But they might have heard the fire dispatcher call for all those fire vehicles and thought something serious was happening so they responded. Did all the vehicles for both police and fire stay the entire time? Or did some leave when they figured out it could be handled by fewer people?