Jeff,
The problem with your argument is that the type of social constraints you talk about are unconstitutional. Any teacher at any Lakewood School could be seen walking out of any bar, or maybe even the Mission or a porn shop for that matter and there is NO recourse. When I studied the history of education in my M.A. program, we went through the legal history. There was a time when teachers were not allowed to marry, there were times when teachers were not allowed to teach while pregnant. Some have even suggested homosexuals be restricted from teaching. So be aware that if you seek to impose morality on any teacher you must put it on all teachers. The courts have struck all of these arguments down.
Lakewood Employee Residential Restrictions
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Ryan Patrick Demro
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:34 pm
- Location: Lakewood
-
Jeff Endress
- Posts: 858
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
- Location: Lakewood
Ryan
You miss my point. We are in agreement. It is precisely because I understand the constitutional constraints that I suggested that we turn the discussion away from the educational direction on which it had veered. I expressed the examples by way of illustration of the underlying rational for constitutional protections as well as justification for teachers to absent themselves from the community in which they teach.
I am not at all sure that the same holds true for departmental heads, etc.
Jeff
You miss my point. We are in agreement. It is precisely because I understand the constitutional constraints that I suggested that we turn the discussion away from the educational direction on which it had veered. I expressed the examples by way of illustration of the underlying rational for constitutional protections as well as justification for teachers to absent themselves from the community in which they teach.
I am not at all sure that the same holds true for departmental heads, etc.
Jeff
-
Kevin Galvin
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:35 am
Prior to offering my thoughts on this subject it seems only right to disclose the fact that I currently work part-time for Lakewood. I retired from our police force five years ago and approx. one year ago I rejoined the city to coordinate the CERT program. CERT stands for community emergency response teams and is part of the homeland security program.
I lived in Lakewood from birth through 7th grade. I then returned to Lakewood regularly to attend St. Ed's. As an adult I returned to Lakewood and have lived here ever since.
All that being said, here are a few random thoughts.
I noticed Mr. Demro's comment about econ 100 and his "no free lunch" comment. I wanted to take that class a little further, to "supply and demand". A residency requirement would normally limit the number of applicants. As I recall, one of the reasons we were asked to vote for the last school levy was that we needed to increase the starting pay so that we could attract a higher quality candidate. I think the fact that this area has quality teachers being laid off has changed the dynamics somewhat.
My neighbor's daughter just completed her 2nd year of teaching at St. Luke's. Her position is gone with the consolidation of the three catholic grade schools. This is a very bright young lady who was being paid approx. 60% of the starting pay at Lakewood schools because it was all she could find. She is now looking at out of state options. It may be searching for the silver lining to Cleveland being the poorest city in the nation, but if new or laid off teachers were told that residing in Lakewood was required to be hired here I think that they would jump at the chance.
Comments regarding teachers being approached in a store or when around town carry no weight with me. If that is a concern, then the teacher doesn't have to work here.
My next comment is for the above as well as what follows.
I worked as a union rep. when I was with the police. Current residency requirements were negotiatied in good faith and are part of the contract. Any changes should exclude current employees unless they are negotiated away.(Something I can't see happening) In my opinion, if a current employee of either the school board or the safety forces wishes to rise to a command level position then they need to know that an offer for that promotion will require them re-locating to Lakewood.
I also believe that new employees should be told that they need to live here. Again I revert to supply and demand. If the economy was rolling along and a mediocre applicant could demand high pay in many different places we may need to change from that policy. The bottom line is that employees take advantage of a situation when things are leaning their way and the city needs to do the same. **I guess you can figure out where I get my republocrat attitude. A union supporter who watches out for the bottom line.**
On a more pro-Lakewood outlook for my thoughts I will say that having a city employee living here has many other benefits. First, there is no benefit from an income tax situation as employees also pay the city tax. The difference is that their disposable income is spent in Lakewood, supporting Lakewood businesses. Just as an estimate, I would guess that my wife and I spend about 75-80 dollars out of every 100 inside Lakewood. Those dollars clearly help Lakewood businesses. Obviously people spend most of their money near their home.(Groceries, medicine, dry cleaning ect.)
Another point that I feel is important, although much more difficult to quantify, is concern for the area where they live. An employee who doesn't live here leaves the city after eight hours and doesn't return until they have to work again. Years ago Mayor Harbarger started a Looking Out For Lakewood program. All employeess were taught about different ways to see and report problems in and around town. Employees that are on vacation or days off or time off see things that happen around their home. If that home is in Lakewood there is a benefit there.
Having said all that, I would prefer that employees lived here by choice. Someone a while back talked about Lakewood dollars. Perhaps there would be a way that Lakewood businesses could accept these and be re- imbursed by the city. These dollars could be used as part of a pay package. People smarter than I am would have to work out the details but I could see where the employees want a $20 a pay raise, the city could only afford a $17 raise. The employee is given $20 Lakewood dollars that have to be spent at a Lakewood business. The business agrees to take $17 from the city. OK, I have read some posts here from obviously educated people. Perhaps you folks could tweak these numbers a little or point out the flaws that I may be missing.
Well, that's my two cents..
I lived in Lakewood from birth through 7th grade. I then returned to Lakewood regularly to attend St. Ed's. As an adult I returned to Lakewood and have lived here ever since.
All that being said, here are a few random thoughts.
I noticed Mr. Demro's comment about econ 100 and his "no free lunch" comment. I wanted to take that class a little further, to "supply and demand". A residency requirement would normally limit the number of applicants. As I recall, one of the reasons we were asked to vote for the last school levy was that we needed to increase the starting pay so that we could attract a higher quality candidate. I think the fact that this area has quality teachers being laid off has changed the dynamics somewhat.
My neighbor's daughter just completed her 2nd year of teaching at St. Luke's. Her position is gone with the consolidation of the three catholic grade schools. This is a very bright young lady who was being paid approx. 60% of the starting pay at Lakewood schools because it was all she could find. She is now looking at out of state options. It may be searching for the silver lining to Cleveland being the poorest city in the nation, but if new or laid off teachers were told that residing in Lakewood was required to be hired here I think that they would jump at the chance.
Comments regarding teachers being approached in a store or when around town carry no weight with me. If that is a concern, then the teacher doesn't have to work here.
My next comment is for the above as well as what follows.
I worked as a union rep. when I was with the police. Current residency requirements were negotiatied in good faith and are part of the contract. Any changes should exclude current employees unless they are negotiated away.(Something I can't see happening) In my opinion, if a current employee of either the school board or the safety forces wishes to rise to a command level position then they need to know that an offer for that promotion will require them re-locating to Lakewood.
I also believe that new employees should be told that they need to live here. Again I revert to supply and demand. If the economy was rolling along and a mediocre applicant could demand high pay in many different places we may need to change from that policy. The bottom line is that employees take advantage of a situation when things are leaning their way and the city needs to do the same. **I guess you can figure out where I get my republocrat attitude. A union supporter who watches out for the bottom line.**
On a more pro-Lakewood outlook for my thoughts I will say that having a city employee living here has many other benefits. First, there is no benefit from an income tax situation as employees also pay the city tax. The difference is that their disposable income is spent in Lakewood, supporting Lakewood businesses. Just as an estimate, I would guess that my wife and I spend about 75-80 dollars out of every 100 inside Lakewood. Those dollars clearly help Lakewood businesses. Obviously people spend most of their money near their home.(Groceries, medicine, dry cleaning ect.)
Another point that I feel is important, although much more difficult to quantify, is concern for the area where they live. An employee who doesn't live here leaves the city after eight hours and doesn't return until they have to work again. Years ago Mayor Harbarger started a Looking Out For Lakewood program. All employeess were taught about different ways to see and report problems in and around town. Employees that are on vacation or days off or time off see things that happen around their home. If that home is in Lakewood there is a benefit there.
Having said all that, I would prefer that employees lived here by choice. Someone a while back talked about Lakewood dollars. Perhaps there would be a way that Lakewood businesses could accept these and be re- imbursed by the city. These dollars could be used as part of a pay package. People smarter than I am would have to work out the details but I could see where the employees want a $20 a pay raise, the city could only afford a $17 raise. The employee is given $20 Lakewood dollars that have to be spent at a Lakewood business. The business agrees to take $17 from the city. OK, I have read some posts here from obviously educated people. Perhaps you folks could tweak these numbers a little or point out the flaws that I may be missing.
Well, that's my two cents..
-
Stan Austin
- Contributor
- Posts: 2465
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:02 pm
- Contact:
Kevin---- I like your analysis but only partially accept your argument. Your argument has as one of its basis economics, the law of supply and demand as it relates to the supply of employees. As you present it I accept it.
However, I think there's an additional supply and demand argument. That one has to do with the supply and demand of housing. As I understand it, one of the primary reasons for a residency requirement in Cleveland was an excess supply of housing. People and their taxes and spending were simply leaving. Residency was a way of stemming the tide and trying to reoccupy some of the vacancies. And, presumably, the City of Cleveland employees would be of an "acceptable" caliber however you want to define that.
We do have the appearance of a slightly higher than normal For Rent signs in Lakewood. However, all census figures show that Lakewood's population has remained fairly steady for the last 10-20 years. And, Lakewood continues to attract the kinds of people we would all like to have as neighbors. The only exception is that bugaboo, the Section 8 folks. Presumably a landlord takes them because his rental offering isn't attractive enough for "regular" folks.
If Lakewood were facing a serious population decline then a residency requirement might be a partial solution to stem the decline. As it is we still attract good residents. And, with the building of new, expensive condos we will attract even more with a higher than the average level of disposable income. So, residency is not needed in Lakewood as it was and is in Cleveland.
Your other line of argument, caring for the City on the part of employees who live here I agree with.
I would like to see a plan that combines your elements of negotiated contract changes with inducements with Mary Anne Crampton's plan to make Lakewood appealing enogh on its own so that compulsion isn't necessary.
However, I think there's an additional supply and demand argument. That one has to do with the supply and demand of housing. As I understand it, one of the primary reasons for a residency requirement in Cleveland was an excess supply of housing. People and their taxes and spending were simply leaving. Residency was a way of stemming the tide and trying to reoccupy some of the vacancies. And, presumably, the City of Cleveland employees would be of an "acceptable" caliber however you want to define that.
We do have the appearance of a slightly higher than normal For Rent signs in Lakewood. However, all census figures show that Lakewood's population has remained fairly steady for the last 10-20 years. And, Lakewood continues to attract the kinds of people we would all like to have as neighbors. The only exception is that bugaboo, the Section 8 folks. Presumably a landlord takes them because his rental offering isn't attractive enough for "regular" folks.
If Lakewood were facing a serious population decline then a residency requirement might be a partial solution to stem the decline. As it is we still attract good residents. And, with the building of new, expensive condos we will attract even more with a higher than the average level of disposable income. So, residency is not needed in Lakewood as it was and is in Cleveland.
Your other line of argument, caring for the City on the part of employees who live here I agree with.
I would like to see a plan that combines your elements of negotiated contract changes with inducements with Mary Anne Crampton's plan to make Lakewood appealing enogh on its own so that compulsion isn't necessary.
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
Stan
You have hit the nail on the head.
Mary Anne Crampton was right about making Lakewood the city people want to move to. But Kevin is also right that residency should be looked at as a way to hire new employees.
One of the reason the Lakewood Observer was created was to help with building the Lakewood Brand. A safe, fun city, that has a very engaged population, that celebrates the arts, sports, recreation, churches and community involvement. Some of the mail Ken Warren has gotten back from his search of "outside" social/urban planners has been very encouraging. Almost everyone is amazed at what is being attempted here by Lakewood Alive, the Observers, the Library, and the Schools. More than a handful think we have really stumbled on a way to save "inner ring" cities, whle not falling into the nightmare of regionalism.
Many ideas have come to the table that feed into what we are discussing here, each could/should be a separate thread:
Dennis Dunn's Lakewood Scrip: Still being worked on by a samll group. Current name is "Lakewood Grinders." This is seen as a way to keep money in Lakewood, while giving us a chance to reward city/school workers. It is a very exciting and dynamic idea whose time is quickly coming.
Steve Davis' Housing Grants based on education: A person with a college education would receive a loan of say $5,000 dollars, and MBA might get $7,000, and person with a doctorate maybe as much as $20,000 towards the purchase of a house they must live in. The loan could be transferred to any other house in the city they care to move into. If they move, the loan would be rolled back into the program. The program would not be based on age, race, religion, gender or lifestyle. The very simple idea is that people with college degrees tend to pay higher taxes, and seem to be more engaged in city/civic affairs.
Suzanne Metleko's CafÈ University: The idea as first explained to me was to get a "name" University to open a campus in Lakewood. Imagine what could happen if a "University of Bejing" opened a branch in Lakewood. It could be just the ticket for a small campus opening up and spurring some redevelopment. I know some have said University of Akron, but I personally think we go big and dream big.
Catholic CafÈs: Sprung up in a recent discussion with Ken Warren and Paul Nickels. using some fo the vacated Catholic Grade Schools, or public schools to bring in branches of Notre Dame, Williams and Mary...
This all helps build the brand and make the city one of the hot spots. It is all very positive.
Jim O'Bryan
You have hit the nail on the head.
Mary Anne Crampton was right about making Lakewood the city people want to move to. But Kevin is also right that residency should be looked at as a way to hire new employees.
One of the reason the Lakewood Observer was created was to help with building the Lakewood Brand. A safe, fun city, that has a very engaged population, that celebrates the arts, sports, recreation, churches and community involvement. Some of the mail Ken Warren has gotten back from his search of "outside" social/urban planners has been very encouraging. Almost everyone is amazed at what is being attempted here by Lakewood Alive, the Observers, the Library, and the Schools. More than a handful think we have really stumbled on a way to save "inner ring" cities, whle not falling into the nightmare of regionalism.
Many ideas have come to the table that feed into what we are discussing here, each could/should be a separate thread:
Dennis Dunn's Lakewood Scrip: Still being worked on by a samll group. Current name is "Lakewood Grinders." This is seen as a way to keep money in Lakewood, while giving us a chance to reward city/school workers. It is a very exciting and dynamic idea whose time is quickly coming.
Steve Davis' Housing Grants based on education: A person with a college education would receive a loan of say $5,000 dollars, and MBA might get $7,000, and person with a doctorate maybe as much as $20,000 towards the purchase of a house they must live in. The loan could be transferred to any other house in the city they care to move into. If they move, the loan would be rolled back into the program. The program would not be based on age, race, religion, gender or lifestyle. The very simple idea is that people with college degrees tend to pay higher taxes, and seem to be more engaged in city/civic affairs.
Suzanne Metleko's CafÈ University: The idea as first explained to me was to get a "name" University to open a campus in Lakewood. Imagine what could happen if a "University of Bejing" opened a branch in Lakewood. It could be just the ticket for a small campus opening up and spurring some redevelopment. I know some have said University of Akron, but I personally think we go big and dream big.
Catholic CafÈs: Sprung up in a recent discussion with Ken Warren and Paul Nickels. using some fo the vacated Catholic Grade Schools, or public schools to bring in branches of Notre Dame, Williams and Mary...
This all helps build the brand and make the city one of the hot spots. It is all very positive.
Jim O'Bryan
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
I can understand that some may view a residency requirement as a means to force people to live in Lakewood. I prefer to turn the perspective around. I like to see the residency requirement as a way to reward Lakewood residents, by giving those qualified, the good jobs the City government and School system has to offer.
Why our City has a Planning Director (sorry to single that 1 position out) that does not live in Lakewood, I'll never be able to figure. Lakewood is full of qualified people that know Lakewood much better than an out-of-towner ever will.
If we have children that grow up in Lakewood, love it and choose to return, I would like for them to know they will get a teaching position, if thats what they want to do.
With this being grandfathered in, it would not be a drastic action. But in the long term it would help fill the vision that Lakewood is a great place to live AND work.
I can understand that some may view a residency requirement as a means to force people to live in Lakewood. I prefer to turn the perspective around. I like to see the residency requirement as a way to reward Lakewood residents, by giving those qualified, the good jobs the City government and School system has to offer.
Why our City has a Planning Director (sorry to single that 1 position out) that does not live in Lakewood, I'll never be able to figure. Lakewood is full of qualified people that know Lakewood much better than an out-of-towner ever will.
If we have children that grow up in Lakewood, love it and choose to return, I would like for them to know they will get a teaching position, if thats what they want to do.
With this being grandfathered in, it would not be a drastic action. But in the long term it would help fill the vision that Lakewood is a great place to live AND work.
-
Ryan Patrick Demro
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:34 pm
- Location: Lakewood
Residency Requirement
Jeff,
I think I did miss your point somewhere along the line. In reviewing the posts I think I get it now. I would only add that the argument that has been used for teachers not to be members of the community also holds for police. I have heared from a number of officers who do not particularly want to run into the regulars that they pick up. Be it the grocery store, the bank, a park, or on their own block, the same argument could be made in their case.
I think I did miss your point somewhere along the line. In reviewing the posts I think I get it now. I would only add that the argument that has been used for teachers not to be members of the community also holds for police. I have heared from a number of officers who do not particularly want to run into the regulars that they pick up. Be it the grocery store, the bank, a park, or on their own block, the same argument could be made in their case.
-
Kevin Galvin
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:35 am
Mr. Demro,
With all due respect, that argument is a copout for teachers and police.
They simply don't want to live in Lakewood. Clearly the risk of injury is higher if you run into someone you arrested in the past than it is if you run into a parent of a student, but both situations come with the job. I've heard from police and I'm sure you've heard it from some teachers that they wouldn't want their kids to have to go to Lakewood schools. It frosts me when I hear it.
I began arresting people in this city in 1978. I have lived here since that time. When I started, most Lakewood police lived in Lakewood. Although I have had an occasional unintended meeting with someone in town there has never been a physical confrontation. You may think I was just lucky, but I can't recall even a handful of occassions where ANY officer had a physical confrontation while off duty as the result of running into someone they arrested in the past. Besides, the police are not limited to arresting only Lakewood residents. Although it is probably less likely, it is still possible that a Lakewood officer could be off-duty in Westlake and still come across someone they have arrested.
All that being said. I still believe that the negotiated residency requirements must be adhered to or negotiated away. I'm hopeful that there is a way that teachers, police, fire, and any city worker who chooses to live in Lakewood are somehow compensated for that choice. Clearly more of their dollars support Lakewood businesses so they do help the city. Also, they ARE approached in the city, even if only by someone wanting to say hello or ask a question. (I'm sure you've been stopped on occasion
.) That to me is an additional reason why I think there should be some type of perk offered.
Well, that's my two cents.
With all due respect, that argument is a copout for teachers and police.
They simply don't want to live in Lakewood. Clearly the risk of injury is higher if you run into someone you arrested in the past than it is if you run into a parent of a student, but both situations come with the job. I've heard from police and I'm sure you've heard it from some teachers that they wouldn't want their kids to have to go to Lakewood schools. It frosts me when I hear it.
I began arresting people in this city in 1978. I have lived here since that time. When I started, most Lakewood police lived in Lakewood. Although I have had an occasional unintended meeting with someone in town there has never been a physical confrontation. You may think I was just lucky, but I can't recall even a handful of occassions where ANY officer had a physical confrontation while off duty as the result of running into someone they arrested in the past. Besides, the police are not limited to arresting only Lakewood residents. Although it is probably less likely, it is still possible that a Lakewood officer could be off-duty in Westlake and still come across someone they have arrested.
All that being said. I still believe that the negotiated residency requirements must be adhered to or negotiated away. I'm hopeful that there is a way that teachers, police, fire, and any city worker who chooses to live in Lakewood are somehow compensated for that choice. Clearly more of their dollars support Lakewood businesses so they do help the city. Also, they ARE approached in the city, even if only by someone wanting to say hello or ask a question. (I'm sure you've been stopped on occasion
.) That to me is an additional reason why I think there should be some type of perk offered.
Well, that's my two cents.
-
dl meckes
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Lakewood
It's one thing to require that certain city officials live here, but it's an altogether different proposition when you're talking about police, firefighters, ems or teachers.
I don't believe it's beneficial to force workers to live in their city of employment and I would strongly oppose any legislation to that effect. I don't believe that would engender any love for Lakewood. Jim O'Bryan isn't the first to tell the story of disgruntled firefighters (or cops) who were required to move to Cleveland.
If Lakewood residents feel so strongly about this, we need to find ways to make living in Lakewood more attractive. This may require incentives.
Our Planning Director may not live in Lakewood but from what I have seen during various meetings, he's doing a great job and I'm very impressed with his expertise. I see no reason why he should be forced to sell his house and move here. There are potential candidates for that job living in Lakewood who would, in my opinion, be poison. I think chauvinism can blindside us.
There are people who spent the greater portion of their careers living and working in Lakewood - some of whom grew up here - who have moved for a variety of reasons. Lakewood simply can't offer everything to everybody. These people still love Lakewood. I don't know that there are any incentives that would have kept them here or that would bring them back. Their pursuit of happiness is as important to me as is drawing people to Lakewood.
I don't have an opinion about negotiating a residential requirement for new hires (who are not presently homeowners), but I really advocate the carrot to the stick.
We can thump our chests all we like and posture about our greatness, but I find that highly unattractive. I think it's a huge mistake try to push people around when it comes to their living arrangements.
I don't believe it's beneficial to force workers to live in their city of employment and I would strongly oppose any legislation to that effect. I don't believe that would engender any love for Lakewood. Jim O'Bryan isn't the first to tell the story of disgruntled firefighters (or cops) who were required to move to Cleveland.
If Lakewood residents feel so strongly about this, we need to find ways to make living in Lakewood more attractive. This may require incentives.
Our Planning Director may not live in Lakewood but from what I have seen during various meetings, he's doing a great job and I'm very impressed with his expertise. I see no reason why he should be forced to sell his house and move here. There are potential candidates for that job living in Lakewood who would, in my opinion, be poison. I think chauvinism can blindside us.
There are people who spent the greater portion of their careers living and working in Lakewood - some of whom grew up here - who have moved for a variety of reasons. Lakewood simply can't offer everything to everybody. These people still love Lakewood. I don't know that there are any incentives that would have kept them here or that would bring them back. Their pursuit of happiness is as important to me as is drawing people to Lakewood.
I don't have an opinion about negotiating a residential requirement for new hires (who are not presently homeowners), but I really advocate the carrot to the stick.
We can thump our chests all we like and posture about our greatness, but I find that highly unattractive. I think it's a huge mistake try to push people around when it comes to their living arrangements.
“One of they key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”- 45
-
Mary Anne Crampton
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:34 am
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
Ms. Meckes as I read your post I was saddened that we didn't agree eye-to-eye on this. But then you said, "I don't have an opinion about negotiating a residential requirement for new hires (who are not presently homeowners), but I really advocate the carrot to the stick."
Well. I have always said that this would need to be grandfathered in so that it did not impact any existing employees. If someone is young and starting a fresh new career, I think a nice place like Lakewood would be an excellent place to start. And if we can dangle a carrot of a job that will not be taken off-shore I think people will take advantage of it.
Ms. Meckes as I read your post I was saddened that we didn't agree eye-to-eye on this. But then you said, "I don't have an opinion about negotiating a residential requirement for new hires (who are not presently homeowners), but I really advocate the carrot to the stick."
Well. I have always said that this would need to be grandfathered in so that it did not impact any existing employees. If someone is young and starting a fresh new career, I think a nice place like Lakewood would be an excellent place to start. And if we can dangle a carrot of a job that will not be taken off-shore I think people will take advantage of it.
-
Ryan Patrick Demro
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:34 pm
- Location: Lakewood
Residency Requirement
Kevin,
I agree, it is a "copout" and I am not trying to excuse it. I am just sharing what I have encountered. I run into former students all the time. In fact, I ran into your son about a month ago. It is never really a problem. I think in many ways it helps students to understand that teachers are real people and have real lives. I think that is a great benefit for the police in terms of PR also.
DL,
I agree, Tom Jordan does a good job. He is a Cleveland resident in case anyone wondered. He was also a former employee of the city of Cleveland. Can any of us make the argument that Cleveland and its schools do not need his income tax? To Mary Anne Crampton's point, why should he leave his home? He clearly has an interest in the health of Lakewood besides his paycheck.
I agree, it is a "copout" and I am not trying to excuse it. I am just sharing what I have encountered. I run into former students all the time. In fact, I ran into your son about a month ago. It is never really a problem. I think in many ways it helps students to understand that teachers are real people and have real lives. I think that is a great benefit for the police in terms of PR also.
DL,
I agree, Tom Jordan does a good job. He is a Cleveland resident in case anyone wondered. He was also a former employee of the city of Cleveland. Can any of us make the argument that Cleveland and its schools do not need his income tax? To Mary Anne Crampton's point, why should he leave his home? He clearly has an interest in the health of Lakewood besides his paycheck.
-
Lynn Farris
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
- Contact:
DL, you said "Our Planning Director may not live in Lakewood but from what I have seen during various meetings, he's doing a great job and I'm very impressed with his expertise. I see no reason why he should be forced to sell his house and move here."
I guess I see this as akin to a salesmen who doesn't use his own product. Sure they may be a good salesmen, they may even be very intelligent, but if they don't use their own product, how can they truly convince others that they should use it? How can they tell others that they should move to Lakewood, put their businesses in Lakewood if they won't do it? It is good enough for you, but not for me is the message I would get.
My dad worked for GM and we always had a GM car, because he believed that he helped to make the best cars. We use the products we sell. I try to learn and know every aspect of them, so I can better serve our clients. If I won't use the products, I won't recommend them to my clients.
Jeff, I agree with you on baby steps. First step is the city. And I definately think this should be grandfathered in with new employees.
I guess I see this as akin to a salesmen who doesn't use his own product. Sure they may be a good salesmen, they may even be very intelligent, but if they don't use their own product, how can they truly convince others that they should use it? How can they tell others that they should move to Lakewood, put their businesses in Lakewood if they won't do it? It is good enough for you, but not for me is the message I would get.
My dad worked for GM and we always had a GM car, because he believed that he helped to make the best cars. We use the products we sell. I try to learn and know every aspect of them, so I can better serve our clients. If I won't use the products, I won't recommend them to my clients.
Jeff, I agree with you on baby steps. First step is the city. And I definately think this should be grandfathered in with new employees.
-
Kenneth Warren
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:17 pm
The Residency Connection: Norms and Values
The Residency Connection: Norms and Values
Citizens and public employees of 21st century Lakewood are faced with the challenge of sensibly negotiating norms and values that will sustain a progressive urban municipality within a sprawling regional marketplace that propels the middle class to the periphery.
Critical to the successful living of Lakewood citizens and public employees alike is the intelligent management of suburban perceptions of urban disorder, deviance and pathology among a public sector labor force that over the past two decades has been increasingly differentiating itself through middle class market choices that buy into residencies that sprawl away from the city.
From the perspectives of economy and sociology, this is not a sustainable situation.
Clearly there is a tension between the values of the free choice Neoliberal marketplace and the social democratic norms required to sustain a municipality such as Lakewood, especially in an era of state and federal policies hostile to urban populations.
More broadly speaking, Lakewood is, like other places, up against the neoliberal agenda that cuts taxes on capital (which then moves overseas), while pushing the cost for socialized public sector work downward on the local property tax duplicate. This creates fertile grounds for tax revolt from property owners below. Hence the need for an elaborate conversation about norms and values, about market and municipality.
Today a great emphasis is placed on professionalism in public employment. It is necessary to recall, however, that a civil service/public sector job is enfolded in a socialized middle class employment program underwritten by the community with the expectation that employees will be engaged in civilizing creation strategies that bring middle class norms and values to institutions, real estate, shops and streets.
In Lakewood these professionalized and socialized jobs may appear somewhat secure at the present time, the tension not especially pronounced. However, the communityÃÂs expectations concerning civilizing creation strategies in the face of an increasing urban core are completely justified.
Public employees must recognize the brutal fact that today is an era of increasing economic insecurity and privatization.
Public sector jobs are part of the New Deal social welfare dynamic that is under increasing attack. In this region especially, public sector jobs are the final island of economic security. Under such circumstances, it does not make sense to turn a blind eye to public sector employees who choose to break from the municipal community. Buying into sprawling consumerist values of the Neoliberal agenda is one thing. Negotiating to obtain purchase on such values by way of New Deal industrial strength labor power is a contradiction no intelligent community can tolerate over the long term.
Fortunately, Lakewood citizens are becoming increasingly prepared to take the necessary steps and make creative adjustments to the structure, whether through incentives, exchange systems, requirments, etc.
An once of prevention in advance of a crisis is worth the considered attention and effort.
Lakewood is a mixed economy. The structure of a mixed economy in an inner ring suburb is under immense pressure. The macro-economic forces bearing down on the local economy cannot be greeted with complacency.
Some might argue that the quality service that flows from public sector employment is simply a commodity. If such is the case, with the commodity sprung from a regional agent estanged from the municipal ground of the residents, then privatization is the next logical step.
Caveat emptor.
As I traveled urban sites in the east coast, I noticed public sector jobs are under financial and political pressure. People with stagnant and declining wages are not served when year after year public sector wages grow faster than the inflation rate. In this light, the conversation and common sense, which Mr. Galvin has brought to the forum, are critical elements to the success of Lakewood.
Even on the economicallly robust east coast, then, the gap is widening between the haves and have-nots.
The housing affordability crisis and immigration influx create stresses not evident in Lakewood. Nonetheless economic insecurity increases along with these stresses. The haves build their gates and send children to private schools. The increasingly insecure have-nots revolt over the local property tax burden and run from the influx of immigrant extended families that pay dearly for housing. Neoliberal think thanks push for the dismantling of defined public pension benefits. That's the skinny on political economy today. These forces will, no doubt, surface here. Hence it is essential that the conversation about norms and values proceed.
Can Lakewood's public sector employees realize the trend and act in a way that helps to establish a sustainable municipality?
Can Lakewood's public sector employees take a lead in advancing exchange mechanisms that can preserve Lakewood's civic traditions and high quality living in mixed economy?
Are public sector employees part of the solution or part of the problem?
Perhaps these are the questions buried beneath "the chest-thumping?"
While these are urgent matters for Lakewood, I do not believe hasty action is the answer. As we stare into the sprawling maw of the beast, I believe we need to look carefully at the issues on both macro and micro economic levels.
Ethical, hopeful and thoughtful planning and discussion are needed to overcome consumerist class prerogatives and resentments, while building a sustalnable municipality over the long term.
It must be recognized that with a growing urban core Lakewood is not served by mechanisms that serve appetites that grow sprawl. Lakewood is served even less when public sector employment policies and practices fail to raise the matter of the community's interests in progressive municipal governance of its urban space.
Middle class jobs and the conditioned values that children of the middle class bring to public schools will need to work hand in hand to effect civilizing forces in public space.
If a democratic, urban space such as Lakewood's is to be given half a chance in a globalizing economy born from the Neoliberal agenda, there must be a middle tissue that joins haves and have-nots, compelling investment in civic, public, socialized institutions.
Where are the middle class jobs that create such civic tissue?
At least for now, public sector jobs are the middle class jobs that create civic tissue.
These are vital matters of structure and local agency. It is important to process our perspectives together to create the proper atmosphere for a sustainable economy in Lakewood.
I believe public sector jobs must play a role in any municipal effort to establish a sustainable economy. Clearly residency is a critical value in the sustainable economy.
Kenneth Warren
Citizens and public employees of 21st century Lakewood are faced with the challenge of sensibly negotiating norms and values that will sustain a progressive urban municipality within a sprawling regional marketplace that propels the middle class to the periphery.
Critical to the successful living of Lakewood citizens and public employees alike is the intelligent management of suburban perceptions of urban disorder, deviance and pathology among a public sector labor force that over the past two decades has been increasingly differentiating itself through middle class market choices that buy into residencies that sprawl away from the city.
From the perspectives of economy and sociology, this is not a sustainable situation.
Clearly there is a tension between the values of the free choice Neoliberal marketplace and the social democratic norms required to sustain a municipality such as Lakewood, especially in an era of state and federal policies hostile to urban populations.
More broadly speaking, Lakewood is, like other places, up against the neoliberal agenda that cuts taxes on capital (which then moves overseas), while pushing the cost for socialized public sector work downward on the local property tax duplicate. This creates fertile grounds for tax revolt from property owners below. Hence the need for an elaborate conversation about norms and values, about market and municipality.
Today a great emphasis is placed on professionalism in public employment. It is necessary to recall, however, that a civil service/public sector job is enfolded in a socialized middle class employment program underwritten by the community with the expectation that employees will be engaged in civilizing creation strategies that bring middle class norms and values to institutions, real estate, shops and streets.
In Lakewood these professionalized and socialized jobs may appear somewhat secure at the present time, the tension not especially pronounced. However, the communityÃÂs expectations concerning civilizing creation strategies in the face of an increasing urban core are completely justified.
Public employees must recognize the brutal fact that today is an era of increasing economic insecurity and privatization.
Public sector jobs are part of the New Deal social welfare dynamic that is under increasing attack. In this region especially, public sector jobs are the final island of economic security. Under such circumstances, it does not make sense to turn a blind eye to public sector employees who choose to break from the municipal community. Buying into sprawling consumerist values of the Neoliberal agenda is one thing. Negotiating to obtain purchase on such values by way of New Deal industrial strength labor power is a contradiction no intelligent community can tolerate over the long term.
Fortunately, Lakewood citizens are becoming increasingly prepared to take the necessary steps and make creative adjustments to the structure, whether through incentives, exchange systems, requirments, etc.
An once of prevention in advance of a crisis is worth the considered attention and effort.
Lakewood is a mixed economy. The structure of a mixed economy in an inner ring suburb is under immense pressure. The macro-economic forces bearing down on the local economy cannot be greeted with complacency.
Some might argue that the quality service that flows from public sector employment is simply a commodity. If such is the case, with the commodity sprung from a regional agent estanged from the municipal ground of the residents, then privatization is the next logical step.
Caveat emptor.
As I traveled urban sites in the east coast, I noticed public sector jobs are under financial and political pressure. People with stagnant and declining wages are not served when year after year public sector wages grow faster than the inflation rate. In this light, the conversation and common sense, which Mr. Galvin has brought to the forum, are critical elements to the success of Lakewood.
Even on the economicallly robust east coast, then, the gap is widening between the haves and have-nots.
The housing affordability crisis and immigration influx create stresses not evident in Lakewood. Nonetheless economic insecurity increases along with these stresses. The haves build their gates and send children to private schools. The increasingly insecure have-nots revolt over the local property tax burden and run from the influx of immigrant extended families that pay dearly for housing. Neoliberal think thanks push for the dismantling of defined public pension benefits. That's the skinny on political economy today. These forces will, no doubt, surface here. Hence it is essential that the conversation about norms and values proceed.
Can Lakewood's public sector employees realize the trend and act in a way that helps to establish a sustainable municipality?
Can Lakewood's public sector employees take a lead in advancing exchange mechanisms that can preserve Lakewood's civic traditions and high quality living in mixed economy?
Are public sector employees part of the solution or part of the problem?
Perhaps these are the questions buried beneath "the chest-thumping?"
While these are urgent matters for Lakewood, I do not believe hasty action is the answer. As we stare into the sprawling maw of the beast, I believe we need to look carefully at the issues on both macro and micro economic levels.
Ethical, hopeful and thoughtful planning and discussion are needed to overcome consumerist class prerogatives and resentments, while building a sustalnable municipality over the long term.
It must be recognized that with a growing urban core Lakewood is not served by mechanisms that serve appetites that grow sprawl. Lakewood is served even less when public sector employment policies and practices fail to raise the matter of the community's interests in progressive municipal governance of its urban space.
Middle class jobs and the conditioned values that children of the middle class bring to public schools will need to work hand in hand to effect civilizing forces in public space.
If a democratic, urban space such as Lakewood's is to be given half a chance in a globalizing economy born from the Neoliberal agenda, there must be a middle tissue that joins haves and have-nots, compelling investment in civic, public, socialized institutions.
Where are the middle class jobs that create such civic tissue?
At least for now, public sector jobs are the middle class jobs that create civic tissue.
These are vital matters of structure and local agency. It is important to process our perspectives together to create the proper atmosphere for a sustainable economy in Lakewood.
I believe public sector jobs must play a role in any municipal effort to establish a sustainable economy. Clearly residency is a critical value in the sustainable economy.
Kenneth Warren
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
Re: The Residency Connection: Norms and Values
Kenneth Warren wrote:The Residency Connection: Norms and Values
Today a great emphasis is placed on professionalism in public employment. It is necessary to recall, however, that a civil service/public sector job is enfolded in a socialized middle class employment program underwritten by the community with the expectation that employees will be engaged in civilizing creation strategies that bring middle class norms and values to institutions, real estate, shops and streets.
Kenneth Warren
Could this be one of the problems in a city like Lakewood? Where certain things should be handled professionally but many things really cry out for HOME TOWN participation?
I find myself torn on this issue, but usually fall on the residency side.
As much as I understand casting the large net, I think the city is quickly approaching a crossroad it might be hard to get away from. This would be characterized by GWB's, "Either you are with us or against us."
I cannot help but think that teachers, police, fire and others that work in the city might serve all of us better if they lived in the city.
Incentives would seem the sane way to go about it.
Jim O'Bryan