The Observation Deck

Gary, Gary, Gary,

You are the optimist. You always see the bright side of things. It indeed concerns me when you are down.

Let's try to put this into perspective. Our mayor and city council came in to a bad situation in NE Ohio economically which all of a sudden got dramatically worse as we are facing most likely the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. People are losing their jobs and getting laid off and the revenues to the city are going down, down, down.

They are working hard to keep the city afloat. The only way to do that is to raise taxes or cut expenses. This is not a time to raise taxes, so cutting expenses makes sense. They are trying to stay ahead of the curve and I don't envy them one bit - they have a very tough job. I'm sure that they are not making friends with the cost cutting.

I'm not a big fan of beating up on the landlords. There are many very good landlords out there that work very hard to take good care of their property and keep rates low for people and right now they are having a hard time too with their tenants who may have lost their jobs. Of course there are a few bad apples, there are in every group, but many and I would venture to say most of them are good people.

Anyway Gary, it isn't Lakewood that is going to h*ll it is our economy and if you believe our goverment it may get worse before it gets better. But I'm an optimist. Obama is going to try everything he can think of to jump start the economy. He is smart and he has a great team. He has inspired me that he will keep trying until we turn the corner and become economically successful again.

Likewise the last time I saw the Mayor, he looked a lot older than when he was elected. I know that he is working hard with the administration, city council and with lots and lots of Lakewood citizens to help keep Lakewood afloat.

I heard Obama speak in Cleveland before he declared and I was at the Mayor's ignaural. Both impressed me by saying they would try many things and they would fail at some of them, but they would keep trying until something worked.

In the meantime, call the building department for the apts that aren't taking care of their trash and help the elderly citizens that live near you. That is what is best about Lakewood - the people help each other.

Lynn,

Thanks sincerely for your concern.

Please rest assured that I am not down.
I am outraged.

There is a difference.

Although I love to play the role of the itinerant banjo picker, I have an honors degree in Political Science. I am well aware of economics, as well as the ever-changing face of political power.

It has not escaped my observation that other cities are also jumping on this garbage wagon issue (as opposed to a bandwagon)

Regardless of potential personnel savings, there are new trucks to buy/lease, and an ongoing and expensive pile of thousands of new rubbish bins to purchase and re-purchase that must exactly fit whatever truck's pick-up system is purchased.

Did you pick-up (bad pun inserted here) on the word...purchased?

There are potentially thousands upon thousands of resident trash cans to dispose of too, in more and more landfills.

This is saving money in bad times?

This is eco-friendly?

Excuse me.

This is spending money and wasting resources.

Ours.

And while I do appreciate this mayor in many ways, and I do understand that he faces many challenges....

If we have to save money by targeting the renters, the elderly, the disabled, the poor and those who are voiceless, in order to save this city...

Then I reiterate...

Yes, it seems that we are going to Hell in a handbasket.

I am indeed outraged.

Oh yeah, one thing more....

Just because I have that degree in Political Science does not mean that I have political ambitions of my own, or that I'm banging a drum for someone else.

It's no secret that I once supported Tom George, but I'm now supporting Ed Fitzgerald, at least with most of what he does. He is trying to do a tough job.

Look, when I was a kid, there were so many things I could not do with the rest of the group...gym, sports, singing, running down the sidewalk, etc... so now I tend to look at new proposals, with an eye to who might get hurt the most, or who might not be able to do what the rest can do, or might be left behind in the process....

That's my beef here...

Lakewood has to be for everyone, or it won't be fit for anyone.

Gary Rice wrote: Regardless of potential personnel savings, there are new trucks to buy/lease, and an ongoing and expensive pile of thousands of new rubbish bins to purchase and re-purchase that must exactly fit whatever truck's pick-up system is purchased.

Did you pick-up (bad pun inserted here) on the word...purchased?

There are potentially thousands upon thousands of resident trash cans to dispose of too, in more and more landfills.

This is saving money in bad times?

This is eco-friendly?

Excuse me.

This is spending money and wasting resources.

Ours.

And while I do appreciate this mayor in many ways, and I do understand that he faces many challenges....

If we have to save money by targeting the renters, the elderly, the disabled, the poor and those who are voiceless, in order to save this city...

Then I reiterate...

Yes, it seems that we are going to Hell in a handbasket.

I am indeed outraged.

Gary,

Your father and all his friends and indeed all of Lakewood should be angry and asking why this...why now...who will gain from these changes...what was wrong with having one of the if not THE BEST gagrbage collection service in Ohio (and at a cheaper price then folks pay with less service), with one of if not the highest recycling percentage in Ohio...

The failure of privatizing the apartments is furture proof that these changes are not thought out, are not in the best intrest of Lakewood, have nasty sanitation consequences...and should never been done at all.

And it points blantantly to the fact:

GREEN is of little concren or the motivator in the decission process that is taking place in this City. We lost recyclers when we lost those apartments.



Returning the apartments to the City for collections needs to be done. It was not even that great of number that was privatized....but....that small number has had a large and very significant impact on how nasty Lakewood "looks" and adds to rats and other health and sanitation concrens.

Shelley,

Please figure out how to post these pictures of this "nasty" Lakewood because I'm not seeing it. Believe me, because of your posts, I've been looking.

No one has chosen to address yet why this service to apartments should be provided in Lakewood when it's not provided in any other city. Other cities seem to have figured out how to do this without this rampant pig sty happening which again, I don't see. My eyes are open and I'm looking, just not seeing it.

As for automated collection, don't know enough about it to say good or bad. I tend to agree with Gary about the expenditures but haven't researched the benefits enough to say one way or the other. Backyard pickup on the other hand, I'm good without and I'll even chip in and take out my 90 year old neighbors garbage. That's what neighborhood is all about.

Ed

I'm not weighing in on this discussion, just adding a point of clarification. The city continues to pick up recycling from the apartments.

Ed Dickson wrote:Shelley,

Please figure out how to post these pictures of this "nasty" Lakewood because I'm not seeing it. Believe me, because of your posts, I've been looking.

Ed,

If I can not figure it out.. will make sure the City Council gets to see them..then I assume you can ask for copies and post them your self.
Best I can do. I am not computer smart. I can barely do a de-frag

Jill Jusko wrote:I'm not weighing in on this discussion, just adding a point of clarification. The city continues to pick up recycling from the apartments.

But are the renters and owners continuing to participate?

I can't speak to what all owners and renters are doing anymore than a single homeowner can speak to what all homeowners are doing. I'm simply saying that recycling continues for apartments.

Now, on a pure guessing standpoint, and that's all it is, I believe that renters who recycled before probably continue to do so. Those who didn't likely continue not to.

Jill Jusko wrote:I can't speak to what all owners and renters are doing anymore than a single homeowner can speak to what all homeowners are doing. I'm simply saying that recycling continues for apartments.

Now, on a pure guessing standpoint, and that's all it is, I believe that renters who recycled before probably continue to do so. Those who didn't likely continue not to.

And making recycling mandatory would be GREEN, would save and make money for the City....makes ya wonder why that wasnt implimented instead huh?

Save experiments for more certain financial times...not during a budget crisis

Believe me....

I SIT on the CDBG committee (Community Development Block Grant Committee)

And you can WELL IMAGINE that THE NEXT TIME that we try to figure out what do do with these funds, I will have a few additional suggestions of my own...

That is, if we even get them. Cities below 50,000 population can lose their individual grants and committees, having them combined with other cities, and with our reduction in population, we seem to be nearing that critical population number.

Of course, with the policies we seem to be enacting that will impact our elderly residents, we could end up getting there sooner than later...

Yep, Hell in a handbasket, if we're not careful...

Gary Rice wrote:Believe me....

I SIT on the CDBG committee (Community Development Block Grant Committee)

And you can WELL IMAGINE that THE NEXT TIME that we try to figure out what do do with these funds, I will have a few additional suggestions of my own...

That is, if we even get them. Cities below 50,000 population can lose their individual grants and committees, having them combined with other cities, and with our reduction in population, we seem to be nearing that critical population number.

Of course, with the policies we seem to be enacting that will impact our elderly residents, we could end up getting there sooner than later...

Yep, Hell in a handbasket, if we're not careful...

Can you tell me if the actions taken already have jepordized any of our funding?
I have asked and asked but no one will answer.

It should be a simple Yes or No question

Will Lakewood's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other funding will be affected by 2008 "budget" cuts made to Human Services and Office of Aging?

All CDBG recommendations are a part of public record. I would think that City Hall would quickly provide that information for anyone asking for it.

That is a transparent process. In fact, I've encouraged the public to attend those deliberations. In a number of years on that committee, (sadly) very few of the public ever show up.

There are special and particular purposes and parameters under which block grant federal dollars must be applied to.

There was indeed an allotment for senior services.

The city acts on recommendations made by the committee. If there is a substantive funding variance needed later in the year, the CDBG committee must be called back into session to review further actions needed for those funds.

I'm sure that the Mayor's office will have the accurate numbers as to the CDBG allotments. CDBG concludes it's normal business in the fall, so it's been a few months since I've seen the totals.

In a sad good news/bad news personal commentary, I should add that Senior Center West building apparently did receive a new heating unit, BUT after volunteering for several hours today, Dad came home like an iceberg. Supposedly, for the unit to properly function, the fans have to be left on!

I did check it out personally.

It was like a windy Siberia in there for those seniors...

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable....

I hope they can fix this "improvement" soon.

Maybe, instead of Hell in a handbasket, it will simply be "North Pole in a nightmare" for those seniors.

Gary Rice wrote:All CDBG recommendations are a part of public record. I would think that City Hall would quickly provide that information for anyone asking for it.

Gary,

One would expect it to be as easy as to merely ASK.

But I have asked...no answer

I sent an email on January 5th to the Office of Aging:

This is a public informatiion request: http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/AuditSea ... yahoga.pdf

"Phase 1 Performance Audit 2008 states:Department of agingPage 1-22“the SBTFR links this recommendation to the city providing more services then surrounding cities, which have resulted in higher operating costs, However, many of these programs are partially funded through Federal and State grants. Reviewing the grant requirements for each specific program would ensure that the city does not lose future grant monies as a result of the revision."
Did the city review the grant requirements? Will the city lose ANY future grant monies due to any of the revisions made? Did the city develop and complete a citizen survey to explore cost sharing with citizens via fees?Please provide a complete list of all funds/grant monies the city will lose and/or have reduced due to the changes made to both the department of aging and all Human Services.

... they did not answer

They ( I assume)sent it to the Law Department who emailed me back on 1-13-09"

"The City of Lakewood, pursuant to Public Record Laws is required to provide copies of public records requested at cost. The requests that you are submitting to the City of Lakewood are information requests, not requests for specific records that we can readily produce."

So I emailed my Councilman Kevin Butler who earlier in the day I had asked about returning apartment collections to the City as the privatization has been a failure. He responded to the apartment issue promptly and stated
" It’s not as if we make these decisions in a vacuum."

So,.... I emailed him back again:

"Kevin, Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I have one other perhaps you can answer.

http://http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/A ... yahoga.pdf
Department of agingPage 1-22
“the SBTFR links this recommendation to the city providing more services then surrounding cities, which have resulted in higher operating costs, However, many of these programs are partially funded through Federal and State grants. Reviewing the grant requirements for each specific program would ensure that the city does not lose future grant monies as a result of the revision."

"Was a review of the grant requirements done and by who? Will the city lose or see a decrease in ANY future grant monies due to any of the revisions made? Did the city develop and complete a citizen survey to explore cost sharing with citizens via fees before making the cuts?
Thanks Kevin.
Shelley"

Since these "decisions" were not made "in a vacuum.", one would think a prompt reply would be made. And the answers should be easy.

Yes is Yes and No is No.

Since yours is the only answer given and it was not a clear answer ...

What other is left for residents who wonder, but to question what is the truth? What we will lose? What have we lost? How can we trust?