The Observation Deck

I have seen the density map and clearly understand it. As a part of my understanding of this density map is my conclusion that the statistical fact that density does not determine enrollment.

The focus on the density map, admittingly by myself as well as others, has taken away from the fact that the Community clearly focused their concerns with the economical factors of the decision, mostly involving what becomes of the building and land after decommission. I hope that we do not lose sight of what the Community wants and what the Community is concerned about most.

Corey

Corey, I worry that there are a large portion of children who are important members of this community have been under represented in these discussions. I do not worry so much about my children or the children of those who post on these forums and attend these community meetings. I worry about the children whose parents are afraid to be involved, do not know how to be involved or can't be involved due to various issues such as childcare issues, language barriers, etc. Are the vast majority of people in this community worried about them? Because the things that were said at my table disgusted me in that they felt this community would be better off without the poor, that the issues related to things such as title I services were unimportant to them, and that they said everyone has cars. I worry that this is about class division and that is truly a shame. This should not be about "possible" economic possibilities this should be about what is in the best interest of the children and if we lose sight of that what have we become?

Corey Rossen wrote:I hope that we do not lose sight of what the Community wants and what the Community is concerned about most.

I don't believe that room was reflective of "The Community" any more than I believe that the complete facts were openly laid out before it. It's absurd to say that a stacked group of people abuzz with pre-supplied verbiage of "site re-use" represents all of Lakewood. If re-use is really such a big concern, why isn't anyone selling us on the vision? Is it a secret?

What specific re-uses did the Building Site sub-group examine? Why is that not documented and made public? Are we developing a mall or something halfway up residential Elmwood? Since it was touted by the majority attendees as the #1 reason for the closure of Grant, I would think it more than reasonable that the specific re-uses imagined would be talked about openly. Is it really the case that the actual, whole community of Lakewood is really more concerned with abstract, future "re-use" more than the real needs of current school children?

If we were serious about wanting to know what all of Lakewood thinks about this, the complete facts would be laid out in a packet mailed out to all Lakewood households, including architectural reports that were suppressed and housing density maps that were marginalized. A postage paid mail-in card could be used to express each household's opinion with an opportunity for comments.

The architectural report strongly indicates that Lincoln is not viable for re-building unless additional properties are acquired. This acquisition is not necessarily possible, not a "given", since eminent domain is promised not be used. What if properties can not be acquired? Why were these issues not made public?

The community as a whole has, in fact, not yet spoken. It is only dimly aware, if at all, at what is going on in its name.

Mike, I agree the entire public has not spoken, just as what is mentioned at a certain individual table does not speak for the entire room/gym.

I also think that we are still getting ahead of ourselves...the land use has to go through other channels (after decommission) before it ever comes close to being used in the open market for profit. I think this could have been better relayed throughout the process.

Corey

I haven't weighed in here before because I am now. It sounds to me like there is an underlying message being sent out here, "if you aren't white or middle class, get out of Lakewood".

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Corey I know you are excited but are you only thinking of the benifits to your busines? Anyone with half a brain knows that they will redevelop their for retail.

Many of you forget, it's not just your Lakewood, it is ours.

sharon kinsella wrote:I haven't weighed in here before because I am now. It sounds to me like there is an underlying message being sent out here, "if you aren't white or middle class, get out of Lakewood".

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Corey I know you are excited but are you only thinking of the benifits to your busines? Anyone with half a brain knows that they will redevelop their for retail.

Many of you forget, it's not just your Lakewood, it is ours.

Wow! Bold and brass.

Whose underlying message are you reading into? The Community's? The BOE's? An individual's? This was a well civilized and respected discussion, I thought, until your post. These are the concerns that exist, as noted before your post.

What benefit to my business? The last discussion of developing land in Lakewood (the former Giant Eagle land) would have hurt our 70 year old Lakewood family business by soliciting to a larger chain that carries similar products. I do not see a benefit in that, do you?

You are still skipping a step (as my point has been throughout) -- who will be on the land immediately following the decommision. I don't think that businesses or the City have "first rights of refusal." I believe that is bestowed upon Charter Schools and such - it may never even make it to commercial use.

All along I have never been pro or con either way, like many open minded citizens, I just want to learn and study the facts.

Thanks for the upper cut, though, it just keeps me on my toes and looking over my back.

Corey

Corey Rossen wrote:I also think that we are still getting ahead of ourselves...the land use has to go through other channels (after decommission) before it ever comes close to being used in the open market for profit. I think this could have been better relayed throughout the process.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Grant's "site re-use" was given as the #1 explanation by almost every moderator who spoke on behalf of his/her "Keep Lincoln" table. I agree that this issue should be secondary to educational ones, but that is not what happened. It is not reasonable to determine which site has better "re-use" potential without a discussion and evaluation of possible re-uses. Is it the case that Grant is a better site for a non-school re-use no matter what the re-use? I think Lincoln would be better than Grant as a new BOE home, for example. You might not agree, but it's not sensible to claim that one site has better re-use potential without a passing overview of probable re-uses.

What expressly didn't get put forward by the presentation is other more salient Building Site issues, like the current condition and expandability of current buildings and sites. I believe Lincoln would suffer under such light, and that is why that light stayed firmly off in favor of this whole "re-use" issue. It offers a convenient rationale, while begging more questions than it answers. Deciding that we're going to close this school because we seriously need this land for other things -- but we don't have a clue yet what for -- just doesn't wash. And neither does "we'll talk about it some time later". It can't be disconnected with any honesty.

Somebody wants to do something with this property, and some are only too happy to oblige because it serves their purposes. It has nothing to do with educating children, that is obvious. As is often said, it doesn't pass the smell test.

Mike - Exactly.

Corey, I'm not attacking you I'm just laying some cards on the table, that is what I do. This area is within the parameters of the Main Street area slotted for economic development. Go to the LakewoodAlive website and read about the goals for that area. That's the agenda I was eluding to.

If you don't think there is some back door wheel dealing, you are mistaken.

My experience with meetings like the one that has been described is that there is an agenda set before the process ever began. The sub-committee did a lot of hard work it seems. It also seems that many people went to the meeting thinking that there was going to be discussion when there was already a runaway train ready to run over everything. This is a slap in the face to the sub-committee work and the members of the community who actually thought they had a voice.

You were silenced, ignored and run over by a train. Information was deliberately witheld and it sounds like there may have been a power point presentation. I'm sorry, but it wouldn't work for me folks.

Strong suggestion for those opposed to what's being done about Grant school, strategize. Have a meeting and figure out what you're going to do to interrupt the project. It can be done but you better make sure you are all on the same page before you start. Don't let folks get overwhelmed during this project. Have someone with organizing experience help to get you all involved in the decision making.

Good luck folks.

Who started Lakewood Alive?

What is the "said" number of students per classroom if they close a school, if they are too hgh now?

I thought charter schools could only open in communities with failing report cards? Does anyone know if that is true? If not Lakewood schools will be in trouble with 30 or close to in young classrooms. I think parents will rush to smaller class sizes if given an option. Just my opinion.

Justine Cooper wrote:Who started Lakewood Alive?

I believe they're those same folks who brought us that West End Development a few years back. Could be wrong.

60 Minutes, remember that? (Not too shabby.)

Justine from what I understand it was Brian Powers and Jay Foran who started LakewoodAlive. Nuff said.

I thought they were funded by taxpayer money but if a private group started them, who funds the salaries, how many are paid employees and are others allowed at meetings?

What is confusing is to hear that they have a say as a group in the schools that close or stay open. Why would a private group have such a strong say?

Usually local political affiliation doesn't matter as much at a local level (I would vote for best candidate for mayor or council regardless of political affliliation) BUT is this a Republican only group? It may not seem to matter, but if they have such influence over schools closing and economic development, it does matter that all sides are represented.

I am tired of politics in general, whether it is the democrats profiting off of Cleveland in the worst time ever or Republicans and their agendas and scandals, but in a town with all sides, all sides must be represented fairly in MAJOR decisions such as schools. If not, "they" will not see white flight. They will see "right" flight. Why in the world would so many keep fighting for Lakewood, paying high taxes in Lakewood, volunteering countless hours in Lakewood, only to be shut out of major decisions involving our most precious commodity-our children and their education?

[b[b]]Unbelievable and pitifull[/b]. Here you go again on this Deck[/b]

This conversation about the Schools Community Forum does a real disservice to the 300 or so people that took time away from their jobs or family to listen and participate in an important community forum. Thanks to all that made the sacrifce to attend.

For the record, the moderator requested that those tables verbally reporting their results, were asked to not repeat supporting reasons that had already been given. In addition, we were not asked to rank our supporting reasons when identifying them. Many tables did not verbally report their results because they would just be repeating what had allready been communicated by a previous table.

My table had a very interesting and engaging discussion - to imply that there was a back room conspiracy to skew the results of the evening is an insult to all of us in attendance!

The reason that this Deck routinely only has 10-20 participants and 1,000s of readers is because the rest of us are just rubber necking and watching the TRAIN WRECK. This Deck conversation does not come close to furthering the discussion that I was a part of at LHS on Tue. night.

Justine Cooper wrote:What is the "said" number of students per classroom if they close a school, if they are too hgh now?

Presumably, the "re-built" schools (Roosevelt and either Grant or Lincoln) will be built to accomodate extra students from the closing of the 7th school. (As, I'm hoping the 4 re-done schools already were.) Because, you're right, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise, with some classes over 30 right now.

Grant has the greatest postential without additional land to expand its service. Lincoln takes up too much of its land plot already, and so will accomodate more students only with additional land acquisition, a fact that is being generally obscured.

Mike Davis wrote:The reason that this Deck routinely only has 10-20 participants and 1,000s of readers is because the rest of us are just rubber necking and watching the TRAIN WRECK. This Deck conversation does not come close to furthering the discussion that I was a part of at LHS on Tue. night.

Mike Davis


Thank you for putting out what I would consider a valid point, from your point of view.

I have only one dog in this fight, no kids, and always back the schools, 100%.
As I have said, no matter what happens here, I will support the schools at the voting
booth, and would encourage all to promise the same. We have invested heavily
in our schools, and it is paying off.

The reason that the Deck only has 10-15 participants, as opposed to the 2-3 at
Cleveland.com, or 6 people using 20 fake names elsewhere is the FEAR of owning
words, actions, beliefs in the light of day. If you and as many people as you want using
real names want to open up a discussion on how you see it, dream it, want it, post it.
Take your 3 minutes in the mosh pit of dialog. If you think it is negative, push it
positive. You have as much control or more as any other participant, in this, and any
other discussion. I can also promise you that most in this discussion, vote, have
children, and also support the schools, many were participants as well. Why is their
perceptions,thoughts or comments less important than others? One could then ask
why Sharon's, Bill Call's, or my comments or questions any less worthy? We pay taxes,
own or rent homes in this community?

I am so tired of people telling me that ONE NAME/ONE VOICE is some sort of "train
wreck." It is called, open, unbiased, fair, equal, discussion.

I had the pleasure of watching the new publisher of the Collinwood Observer speak to
a young man running for council. He had told her, the Collinwood Observer was nothing
more than a tool for Mike Polensak. Her answer nailed it, "Only if you sit on the side silent
and complaining. But remember, it is then YOU making it so. Take part, express
yourself, take ownership."

I have seen no one attack 300 participants, nearly 1/200th of Lakewood. That gave up
a lot of time, and for that I am thankful. I have seen and read some troubling things about
a process. Let's be honest, as stated, I will support any bond or levy,and this ultimate
decision, but this district does have a history of let's say interesting processes.

Ken Wilder, if nothing else has the best quote/signature. (Ken you can make that
permanent underyour user control panel)


.