The Observation Deck

You let your kid walk home/work/the Y at 11:00pm?

Colleen Wing wrote:You let your kid walk home/work/the Y at 11:00pm?

You don't?

Of course let's define "kids" again.


.

Keep everyone off the streets after 9?

first there's the smoking ban which cut the achillies of bars for a bit, now this. bars in lakewood would be crippled.

(i do support the smoking ban and curfew though)

I don't get what the big deal is here.
Know where your kids are, and if it's past their curfew, make sure they have a ride home before they even leave the house to go to that friends house.

It seems like whenever the government steps in and says "keep an eye out on your kids a bit more" or "try more parenting" there's an outrage.

"I don't need to parent my child! she's 10, she's old enough to make her own decisions!"

off to get my tooth pulled, peace.

It's dark at 9:00pm on the longest day.

You can walk anywhere in Lakewood in under half an hour.

Is it possible we wait to circle the wagons until AFTER we see if it helps some of the issues we are having?

Do we really believe that Council or the Police are getting their kicks harassing kids?


AMENDED CURFEW ORDINANCE NOW IN EFFECT
Pursuant to Section 509.12 of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances, children ages 14 and under are not permiteed on streets, sidewaks or any public property between the hours of 9:30 PM and 6:00 AM. Children age 15 are not permitted on streets, sidewalks or any public property between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Children ages 16 and 17 are not permitted on streets sidewalks or any public property between the hours of 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

Children out during these restricted hours will be subject to citiation for curfew violation. Parents are also subject to be cited for allowing their children to be out during restricted times.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:You don't?
.

I don't allow my 15 year old daughter to walk home after dark let alone 11:00.

Even though somebody here said my fear is unreasonable (*cough*cough*gary*cough*) I fear for my daughters safety.

Joe,

If, by chance, your reference is to me (above), I would invite you to please tell me where, exactly, I said anything in direct reference either to your parenting, or your opinions?

I simply did not presume to tell you anything about your fears, whether reasonable or not.

I know that we had a written discussion on this thread in general terms about what constitutes unreasonable fear, but that discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with the remark that I see posted above.

In fact, I believe that I would agree with you in that, were I a parent, I would want my son or daughter either to be with me, or with trusted friends, or adult leadership, when the sun goes down.

Complicating this general rule, there are a variety of activities that I am aware of, that might not end until 9:30pm. The DeMolay group, for example, is comprised of young men ages 12 1/2-21. At times, their meetings run late. Not having uniforms, as Scouts do, some of their members might run afoul of the new curfew law on the way home from the meeting.

This law, in my view, paints with far too broad a brush. In fact, as I understand the reading of it, I did not even see an exception written in, if the young person were accompanied by a parent, guardian, or youth leader!

I reiterate. I think this law needs a second look.

Gary Rice wrote:Joe,

If, by chance, your reference is to me (above), I would invite you to please tell me where, exactly, I said anything in direct reference either to your parenting, or your opinions?

I simply did not presume to tell you anything about your fears, whether reasonable or not.

Joe Ott wrote:

Gary Rice wrote:I've spoken off the record with several police officers, and those with whom I've spoken, agree; by no means is there a reason for unreasonable fear around here.

I did the same not too long ago. I got a different response.

Unreasonable fear? What's unreasonable. There's section 8 housing with what appears to be maybe thugs always hanging around, convicted rapists and convicted child molesters down the street so I wont' let my 15 year old walk by herself. Is that unreasonable fear? I don't want my 15 y.o. walking around downtown lkwd because an elderly women was beat up behind a bank, and man was robbed on Detroit near Alemeda blah blah blah. The list goes on. That's unreasonable fear? Please.

There is reason for fear. I don't know what unreasonable is though.

Colleen -

YES my kids worked many nites past 11:00 pm - they are grown now and know how to take care of themselves.

Violence also happens in the light - not just the dark.

This is the real world and if kids are not allowed to figure out how to navigate it while they are still at home and can receive guidance - how would you suggest that we prepare them for the real world. Lock them in the house?

Been there - done that - my kids are grown now and self-sufficient, confident and very well informed.

Just so people are aware, in the quotation box attributed to me above, ONLY the parts in the small boxes are mine.

I stand by those words. I was not, and would not ever wish to get personal in a general discussion.

As for fear?

I was merely repeating what I'd heard informally from several officers. I did not invent the "unreasonable fear" quote, I was merely passing it along.

And I agree with it.

The stats, as I so far have seen, seem to support the thought that we are a long way from a crime wave.

I just want to add to this discussion. I have a 16 year old daughter who was in an accident after 11 pm (not her fault). Frankly, she was more concerned about the curfew law then the police were. There was no mentioning of it at all to her. She did tell them that she was babysitting. I also think that the teenagers who are driving will probably not have many problems with the new time. Mainly because I think it works like the seat belt laws. As long as they are not driving recklessly they won't pull them over. Of course if the car is full of teenagers and they are hanging out the window that might be another story.

I suspect the goal of this curfew is to stop bad behavior from youth including things like noise, petty theft, grafiti, tresspassing etc. Don't we have laws on the books that allow the police to arrest people that are engaging in bad behavior?

Grace is right. The majority of problems in city - even the nuisance ones are created by older individuals - talk to the people that live around the bars - the noise, public urination, trespassing is caused by people over 21. I would much rather have the police spending time arresting people who were gettting into cars after a night in the bars and endangering people's life by driving under the influence than picking up students walking home from a high school football game a little late.

And the most serious crime is as well I would venture to guess.

Why punish everyone to get to the few bad eggs? My kids were pretty spoiled, I'll admit and we did pick them up - but if they had watched a movie at a friends house in the neigborhood for example on the weekend and then walked home - I would not think that was unreasonable.

I would have walked/driven home after working or babysitting after 11:00 when I was growing up and not thought a thing about it.

This reminds me of laws like not using a cell phone when driving or not eating when driving when we have laws against reckless operation already.

To me this is a redundant law - enforce the laws against bad behavior that we have and don't generate new laws that are against an entire segment of the population.

I think Hunter may be right about ageism in our society. See his article in the Lakewood Observer. http://lakewoodobserver.com/pdfs/Observer%20Vol.%2001%20Issue%2003.pdf Page 18.

I think there are some good points being raised here about redundancy, but it all goes back to Cleveland's curfew law going into effect. For Lakewood not to match Cleveland's curfew hours is an open invitation to troublemakers to cross the border at 10pm.

I'm all for kids having to carry some permission from work/parents if they have a legitimate reason to be out after curfew. That should solve most of the enforcement issues.

Yes, what about kids in vehicles?

The law states:

No child under the age of xxx shall be upon the streets or sidewalks or any public property...

So does this mean that a kid in a car is violating curfew if driving after 11PM?

It is very unclear whether a teen in a car is included in this curfew although I suspect many teens assume they're OK if in a vehicle.

You can't legislate morality or good parenting policies. you can only clearly, swiftly, and decisively deal with what society has determined to be criminal behavior.

We have laws to cover activities deemed criminal and we should apply them in an unequivocal manner.

I would imagine that this had to be asked by now but how many citations had been issued for curfew violation before the change? Sounds like many are trying to make a case that it's an overbearing, outrageous law but it's just a change of an hour or an hour and a half. The point about the Cleveland Curfew seems to make more sense than anything to justify the change.

The point about the Cleveland Curfew seems to make more sense than anything to justify the change.

Since when do we follow Cleveland's lead?

I wouldn't call Cleveland a paragon of a forward thinking city.