The Observation Deck

Christopher Bindel wrote:I could not find the what the enforcement of these laws will include, but I can assure you, they will be anything but Draconian.

Any violation of Chapter 741, now or under the proposed ordinance, is a minor misdemeanor, punishable by only a fine, which is imposed in the discretion of the judge up to a maximum of $150. And that's if the violator is prosecuted and convicted. See L.C.O. § 741.99.

A minor misdemeanor is the lowest-level offense on the books.

On the other hand, you have draconian laws ("The death penalty was the punishment for even minor offenses").

Kevin Butler wrote:On the other hand, you have draconian laws ("The death penalty was the punishment for even minor offenses").

Kevin

I was using it as is mentioned in Webster's 2nd definition.
2. ( often lowercase ) rigorous; unusually severe or cruel: Draconian forms of punishment.

But let's take a minute and illustrate it using Wikipedia's definition(!), and for the sake of this
let's say "Bobby's" father has a series of garage sales with large signs to pay for his
Dialysis treatment, the city comes in and not only shuts him down, and fine him $150,
I believe "Bobby's" dad just got a death sentence. As he could no longer pay for his life
saving treatment.

Draconian

or draconian

Well back to the bottle!

.

Chris

Perhaps we should start a different thread to talk about government waste and what I
believe is a massive transfer of funds from residents to businesses.

Again, I am not saying anything illegal was done here, it is mindsets, and beliefs. Many of
them come from the simple process of, if all you have is a hammer, and all you know how to
do is pound, then everything looks like a nail.

Since about halfway through the Tom George Administration, the major emphasis has been
placed on economic development, especially commercial economic development, especially
in a very small .8ths of a mile. It has taken way more of our tax dollars, manpower, and
volunteer power. I believe more than it share x 10(not an actual figure)

Let's use the Lakewood Observer as an example as it is a business, though AGS does not
believe in the use of government funds for private businesses.

The LO has an "Art Parade" like Parade on the Circle. We shut down Detroit from Bunts
to Manor Park, and charge $50 an entry, and sell T-shirts, and memberships at the event.
The city shuts down Detroit, by placing barricades on every street, the city cleans the
streets for the event, they place banners on all the poles. The schools put flyers in all of
the book bags, and put it on their websites. For the event the city sends in 20 police and
15 auxiliary police. After the wildly successful event, the street cleaners come back in, and
the police get traffic out of there, and everyone has fun, and the LO makes $5,000 dollars.

In Lakewood 59% of the taxes are derived from residents. So that the cost of all of the
city support is covered by taxes for the labor and materials. That means, in essence that
the residents may have paid $10,000 in labor, police, services, materials so that the LO
could make $5,000.

Now we could all talk about the brand building and the goodwill for the city, and that is
certainly worth something. But that doesn't not change the facts that a majority of the
cost was on the shoulders of the residents, and money that could have done hundreds
of other things. In Westlake with money to spare it matters little. In Lakewood with a
projected $3 million shortfall, it is a killer.

Add in the taxes that go directly to groups that prop up businesses, all seven of them that
I know of, The Lakewood Chamber of Commerce, LakewoodAlive, Mainstreet, Downtown
Business Alliance, Pillars, MAMA and now Dame, and it starts to add up, even if some of
them only get help with events and no actual tax dollars.

Then we have various other ways of funding through taxes like CDBG funds which can be
used for any number of projects from paving residential streets, to parks, to gardens to
paying for consultants to help businesses, etc, and you really start to get a mass of funding
that can be pushed or used for residents and/or businesses.

Again the mindset since halfway through the Tom George Administration has been angled
towards business and away from the residents. It is not illegal, it is not wrong, it just is.
Now our investment in time and energy for almost a decade has delivered Dollar Stores
and Pharmacies to the area we were promised was for high end stores. Meanwhile our
housing stock is falling apart, and the price of rent in Lakewood has fallen, when it should
be going up.

The point I try to make is even if we can get the scale to business paying 59% of our
taxes and residents only accounting for 41% which would be a huge success for the
commercial development believers, it does not make Lakewood better. Commercial
economic development is much more costly for a city to maintain with services, than
residential or parks, which are some of least inexpensive things a city can have.

If I remember correctly it goes from least expensive to most expensive for a city to
maintain. Community Gardens, Parks, Residential, Office space, commercial, industrial,
malls, vacant homes, empty malls, empty industrial being the most expensive on city resources.

I believe, if I remember correctly Mayor Summers is a bigger fan of office space than
retail, at least he was last time we talked about it.

Make sense?

FWIW


.

Not to start this conversation back up, but I just wanted to clarify something. I'm sure you know this Jim, but for anyone else reading this who isnt fromiliar, just wanted to make it clear.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Then we have various other ways of funding through taxes like CDBG funds which can be
used for any number of projects from paving residential streets, to parks, to gardens to
paying for consultants to help businesses, etc, and you really start to get a mass of funding
that can be pushed or used for residents and/or businesses.

CDBG funding is a great tool for the city to use on many different projects, however, as it is federal money it comes with lots of restrictions and red tape. One of those restrictions is that no more then 15% of what the city receives can go towards human services programs. This includes the PAINT program as it is run through LakewoodAlive and several other housing and welfare programs for citizens. As a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, which makes the recommendations to council as to how these funds should be spent, I will tell you it is really hard to get that number down to 15%. I would much rather give that money to Lakewood Community Service Center, or North Coast Health Ministries, or toward housing programs then to streets (they always ask for too much), but with shrinking grants and that threshold it is not possible.

Christopher Bindel wrote:Not to start this conversation back up, but I just wanted to clarify something. I'm sure you know this Jim, but for anyone else reading this who isnt fromiliar, just wanted to make it clear.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Then we have various other ways of funding through taxes like CDBG funds which can be
used for any number of projects from paving residential streets, to parks, to gardens to
paying for consultants to help businesses, etc, and you really start to get a mass of funding
that can be pushed or used for residents and/or businesses.

CDBG funding is a great tool for the city to use on many different projects, however, as it is federal money it comes with lots of restrictions and red tape. One of those restrictions is that no more then 15% of what the city receives can go towards human services programs. This includes the PAINT program as it is run through LakewoodAlive and several other housing and welfare programs for citizens. As a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, which makes the recommendations to council as to how these funds should be spent, I will tell you it is really hard to get that number down to 15%. I would much rather give that money to Lakewood Community Service Center, or North Coast Health Ministries, or toward housing programs then to streets (they always ask for too much), but with shrinking grants and that threshold it is not possible.

Christopher

It can be a great tool for a community, and this city depends on it. However within the
guidelines, are many, many things than can offset residents cost.

At the end of the day, 100% of the city bill has to be paid, by law.

So from a real example, funding that could have gone to streets, was passed over to fix
up a building downtown. The argument, valid or not was, "The new storefront will make up
for the money we are spending." Meanwhile the residents over on Lake were assessed and
had to pay for the streets not through grants money but tax money.

Yet another way to transfer money from residents to business in Lakewood.

Again, there are people that can make a wonderful case for commercial development, as
they can for regionalism. I suppose the way many of us see various projects is how they
affect our lives. My very over simplified thought for this is, "With 59% of the taxes
coming from residents, why not give back 59% of the funding for keeping things clean
and moving in the right direction? Even over ten years.

When you look at all of the ways residents get to fund "Downtown" it is staggering as
compared to how many different ways neighborhoods are funded.

Seven different lobbying groups for business, barely one for residents.

As I have said many different times, we have been sent down this road of Downtown, so
lets do it , and do it the best we can. Like the schools, it would be foolish to stop before
we are finished. At the same time I would like to know as a taxpayer how much we have
spent and how much we are going to spend to reach the end of the project, aka the
promised land.

.