The Observation Deck

If you've been following the public park -- Kauffman and Madison-- hours discussion, and are concerned about what will happen, attend tonight's meeting. If you read the notice below you'll see that both proposed ordinances have already received their first and second readings at Council meetings, and so are in line to be voted into law (or not) at the the very next meeting of the Council.

And if you attend, please share what happened with readers of the Deck who, while being concerned and interested, may not have time to attend this meeting, or may already be attending other meetings.

Thanks.

Betsy Voinovich

The Public Safety Committee will meet Monday, February 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM in the Jury Room of Lakewood City Hall, 12650 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio. The following items will be discussed:

Communication from Councilmember Powers regarding amending 506.04 & Corresponding PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 2-12 – AN ORDINANCE amending Section 506.04 of the Codified Ordinances, Exception, Registration and Fee, for the purpose of permitting temporary exceptions to the prohibition of pit bull dogs and canary dogs benefiting licenses veterinarians and animal hospitals and approved animal rescue organizations. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AT THE 2/6/12 REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL, PLACED ON 2ND READING AT THE 2/21/12 COUNCIL MEETING)

Communication from Public Works Director Beno and corresponding PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 16-12 Parks Closing Times - Public Works Director to control Park Hours by Season and Events in an effort to curtail vandalism (1st Read 2/6/12, 2nd 2/21/12)

Ryan Nowlin, Chair
David Anderson, Shawn Juris; Members
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

Betsy - I could be wrong (I am not a Master of Roberts Rules of Order), but I don't think it a done deal that these Ordinances will get voted on at the next Council meeting. These type of things often get hung up in and bounced around between various committees and subcommittees.

But your point is about getting involved is uber-valid.

30 minutes allotted for a public meeting with two fairly warm topics on the agenda?!?!?! I'm trying to be polite and non-judgmental ... but, really?!?! 30 minutes?!?!? Oy!

There was no motion by this Public Safety Committee to make any recommendation to Full Council at their March 5 Council meeting.

On item 1 on the agenda ... lots of good questions raised, particularly with regard to what the criteria for an "approved animal rescue" might be. I have to say though, based on what was presented tonight, this seems like an ordinance that would cover one or two instances annually (if the information presented is accurate). Councilman Bullock made, in my opinion, a good suggestion: that an MOU be drawn up between the City and any animal rescue, rather that legislating this issue.

One item 2 on the agenda ... oops, ran out of time!

Peter Grossetti wrote:30 minutes allotted for a public meeting with two fairly warm topics on the agenda?!?!?! I'm trying to be polite and non-judgmental ... but, really?!?! 30 minutes?!?!? Oy!

Peter

30 minutes is an eternity when you already know what you are doing.

It seems odd though that the city of Lakewood has spent so much time on Breed Specific
Laws, when the state is about to strike down their BSL because it is not legal, and that BSLs
have been declared unconstitutional all over the USA.

Do you know if they are even aware that BSLs are unconstitutional? Is Lakewood prepared to
take this through the courts?

Funny, during a period of time when Lakewood was considered the best, over the past two
years it would seem that City Hall has focused on telling us what we can no longer do.

Odd way to build a brand.

How about no guns in Lakewood Bars and Restaurants? That seems like it would make
the city safer. How about doubling the price for littering? How about instead of the new
meter maid that more than one person has said is both rude, and obnoxious, we go back
to Lakewood run meter maids who are polite and live in the city? Why is city hall so set
on making this city user unfriendly?

FWIW


.

ROUND 2:

Public Safety Committee Meeting
Monday, March 05, 2012 5:00 PM
Jury Room of Lakewood City Hall, 12650 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio.

The following items will be discussed:

1. Communication from Councilmember Powers regarding amending 506.04 & Corresponding PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 2-12 – AN ORDINANCE amending Section 506.04 of the Codified Ordinances, Exception, Registration and Fee, for the purpose of permitting temporary exceptions to the prohibition of pit bull dogs and canary dogs benefiting licenses veterinarians and animal hospitals and approved animal rescue organizations. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AT THE 2/6/12 REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL, PLACED ON 2ND READING AT THE 2/21/12 COUNCIL MEETING)

2. Communication from Public Works Director Beno and corresponding PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 16-12 Parks Closing Times - Public Works Director to control Park Hours by Season and Events in an effort to curtail vandalism (1st Read 2/6/12, 2nd 2/21/12)

Ryan Nowlin, Chair
David Anderson, Shawn Juris; Members
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

Peter Grossetti wrote:ROUND 2:

Public Safety Committee Meeting
Monday, March 05, 2012 5:00 PM
Jury Room of Lakewood City Hall, 12650 Detroit Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio.

The following items will be discussed:

1. Communication from Councilmember Powers regarding amending 506.04 & Corresponding PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 2-12 – AN ORDINANCE amending Section 506.04 of the Codified Ordinances, Exception, Registration and Fee, for the purpose of permitting temporary exceptions to the prohibition of pit bull dogs and canary dogs benefiting licenses veterinarians and animal hospitals and approved animal rescue organizations. (PLACED ON 1ST READING & REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AT THE 2/6/12 REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL, PLACED ON 2ND READING AT THE 2/21/12 COUNCIL MEETING)

2. Communication from Public Works Director Beno and corresponding PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 16-12 Parks Closing Times - Public Works Director to control Park Hours by Season and Events in an effort to curtail vandalism (1st Read 2/6/12, 2nd 2/21/12)

Ryan Nowlin, Chair
David Anderson, Shawn Juris; Members
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE

Hey Peter--

Did you go to this meeting? What happened? How did it make you feel?
(It really made me laugh, whatever thread that was when you said my questions made you feel that you were on the shrink's couch.)

So did you go?

Betsy Voinovich

Although I attended the Public Safety Committee Meeting that was adjourned after 30 minutes on 2/27, I was unable to make it to the next meeting held on 3/5.

Apparently the park hours change ordinance was passed by City Council at their meeting Monday.

Is surrendering to our problems the best we can do?

Meg

The short answer is yes.

From the report being filed with the LO Print edition, Councilman Juris was adamant that the
city police could not patrol the parks, and they needed to be closed at dusk.

Even when works Director Joe Beno, and others pointed out that 11 is a customary time
for most parks to close. Shawn still felt that the Lakewood Police were not up to the task it would seem.

Now I have done much work with Lakewood Police, and I find them to be very capable. I also
know that Kauffman is one of the easier parks to patrol, as the police can literally drive
through it, and look in a very open area.

It is odd that Shawn has decided that the only park in Downtown Lakewood is unsafe, so
that people cannot eat at Deagans and then go for a nice walk through the park, and stop
at The Root for an espresso or something.

I do not have the numbers, but if we look back to Joe Beno's orginal complaint it was over
graffiti, and loitering. Which in all of the photos I have of graffiti at Kauffman looked like
kids with Sharpies, and I can think of no reason why loitering would be considered a
problem in a park. Let alone a problem that council does not have faith in our police force
to counter.

This sends the wrong message to everyone in the city and outside of the city. It is the sign
that we are giving up and running for the hills. I have never read a book on parks or urban
planning that does not state, "busy areas are safe areas." To make them empty is counter
to everything that makes sense.

It also sends the wrong messages to residents, and the little punks doing it. Remember
when we were told after 9-11, "We cannot let this change the way we live." This is not
9-11 it is Sharpies and those annoying people sitting around parks. Why should we let the
little bastards win and take away our rights and parks!

But I guess Shawn knows how unsafe his Ward and Ward 2 must be. It's also a shame
that a certain councilman who ran on making Lakewood safer now appears to have given up.

Councilman Anderson was alone, in his concept that the city should do more to bring life
into the park than to give up and lock it up at Dusk, which, let's be honest,
is sometimes as early as 4pm!

Think of it, council is saying the parks in Lakewood are not safe after 4pm!

Nice message guys. A city's number one priority is to provide services and keep us safe,
does this mean council and the mayor have given up on that responsibility?

I would hope not.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Nice message guys. A city's number one priority is to provide services and keep us safe, does this mean council and the mayor have given up on that responsibility?
.

I thought they were doing this because they, as city representatives, said that they could not properly patrol these areas. I agree that the LPD are very capable people, but that does not mean they have the resources to perform the patrol duties. We could speculate but on this topic I will trust the city representatives over general opinion.

Sure people will always use these decisions as another way to "dig" at our elected representatives but it doesn't sound like this will change life in Lakewood for the worse. Heck, I would guess that most people in Lakewood (outside of the few who visit here) would not even recognize the change in hours. Of course this is only my opinion.

J Hrlec wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Nice message guys. A city's number one priority is to provide services and keep us safe, does this mean council and the mayor have given up on that responsibility?
.

I thought they were doing this because they, as city representatives, said that they could not properly patrol these areas. I agree that the LPD are very capable people, but that does not mean they have the resources to perform the patrol duties. We could speculate but on this topic I will trust the city representatives over general opinion.

Sure people will always use these decisions as another way to "dig" at our elected representatives but it doesn't sound like this will change life in Lakewood for the worse. Heck, I would guess that most people in Lakewood (outside of the few who visit here) would not even recognize the change in hours. Of course this is only my opinion.

J Hrelc

Opinions are nice, we all have them, and this project is built on sharing them and talking
about them, in the open, so that hopefully others can learn. Let's be honest not everyone
has the "stones" to jump into a mosh pit like this. Especially in a city like Lakewood where
many of the most sound, but out spoken people are afraid of losing contracts, support, etc.

With that said, this is not an opportunity to dig at officials. This is just bad policy.

We have sunk nearly $5 million into Downtown, in one way or another. We have poured
capital into LakewoodAlive in so many ways it cannot ever be accounted for. We have done
everything from flowers to pooch parades, to amplify Downtown Lakewood, and how nice
it is. Then things like this crop up which borders on pitiful.

To patrol Kauffman Park, and officer can drive in and out either gate. It is that simple. At
Madison they have to get out. At Lakewood Park they have to get out and walk all over
the place. While at Kauffman, a simple drive through.

Which brings us to the two reasons given. Graffiti, and loitering. Well we all got to read
about the great security cameras there, well are they not working? Did they ever work?
The graffiti we have documented, was a Sharpie. While it is a pain to remove, is it any
reason to give up so quickly on the park?

Then finally my pet peeve, Graffiti was nearly nonexistent in this city, well at least controllable
until one of Lakewood councilmen, did an interview in the FreeTimes over how cool
Graffiti was in his Ward. Every sane law enforcement person of city worker knows you
never show graffiti, you never amplify graffiti, you get rid of it as fast as possible. And you
can actually control it. To go into a regional paper and brag how much you like it, borders
on insane and childish at best.

So as I often ask are we creating the problem? I think we are.

As for people coming and not realizing, I am not one of the many that believe hamburgers
and economic development will save us. Matter of fact, those that push economic
development do not really believe it either, they just got tired of taxes. So while I mention
those eating at Deegan's I was thinking more of the couple on Lakeland that would walk through
the park for dinner. Not the out of towner.

A city's job is to deliver services and help oversea state programs on a local level. It seems
that for the past 8 years, we have lost city services, we have lost rights, we have lost many
of the wonderful things that had always made Lakewood, Lakewood and different from the
other communities, and I fear we are losing the PR battle now too.

So do you really think it pays to work and spend millions to bring people into "Downtown"
while saying you cannot patrol it or keep it safe? Or do you think that is counter productive?

WE MUST STOP shooting ourselves in the foot.

FWIW


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:... Councilman Juris was adamant that the city police could not patrol the parks, and they needed to be closed at dusk. ... Even when works Director Joe Beno, and others pointed out that 11 is a customary time for most parks to close. Shawn still felt that the Lakewood Police were not up to the task it would seem. ... It is odd that Shawn has decided that the only park in Downtown Lakewood is unsafe, so that people cannot eat at Deagans and then go for a nice walk through the park, and stop at The Root for an espresso or something. ...

I can think of no reason why loitering would be considered a problem in a park. Let alone a problem that council does not have faith in our police force to counter. ... But I guess Shawn knows how unsafe his Ward and Ward 2 must be. It's also a shame that a certain councilman who ran on making Lakewood safer now appears to have given up. ... Think of it, council is saying the parks in Lakewood are not safe after 4pm! Nice message guys. A city's number one priority is to provide services and keep us safe, does this mean council and the mayor have given up on that responsibility?

You weren't at city hall Monday, Jim. Your post about Council's deliberation on this issue invites correction.

The emphasis was not on whether the police can patrol the parks, or when they'll do so. No one suggested the parks are unsafe. The closing time for all but three parks in the city has long been an hour after dusk, except where organized activities are being conducted. This change merely brings Madison and Kauffman parks in line with the others. Lakewood Park, which has unique advantages such as extra lighting and onsite park staff, will remain open until 11.

Our public works officials advocated this change, not our police, because public works employees have the task of removing graffiti and fixing damaged equipment. This was never an issue involving police or public safety. It does not merit being taken so far out of context.

Kevin Butler wrote:You weren't at city hall Monday, Jim. Your post about Council's deliberation on this issue invites correction.

The emphasis was not on whether the police can patrol the parks, or when they'll do so. No one suggested the parks are unsafe. The closing time for all but three parks in the city has long been an hour after dusk, except where organized activities are being conducted. This change merely brings Madison and Kauffman parks in line with the others. Lakewood Park, which has unique advantages such as extra lighting and onsite park staff, will remain open until 11.

Our public works officials advocated this change, not our police, because public works employees have the task of removing graffiti and fixing damaged equipment. This was never an issue involving police or public safety. It does not merit being taken so far out of context.

Kevin

Yes I was not at the meeting, there are many meetings I cannot make it to, as with many
Lakewoodites, and Lakewood Business owners. So I have to go by what was reported and
said. The quote was Joe Beno, Director of Public Works said, "because of graffiti and
loitering." As the term "loitering in parks" in nearly laughable when talking of parks, lets
deal with graffiti. To my knowledge, the "problem" stems from a report we had made
about graffiti at Kauffman Park. Where it looks to me, and I could be wrong that 95% of
it was one 10-13-year-old person with one Sharpie.

Now Joe Beno is a capable director, and I find it hard to believe that with as many crews
as we have, that they could no longer keep up with graffiti on two slides, one jungle gym,
and 4 swings. Especially, when there is a security camera directly next to this area.

Now I know that you believe that graffiti is a crime, not some cool art form to be
celebrated like the Councilman from Ward 2. And that as a crime it is enforced by police
and building department. (Though it does seem that City Council, the Building and Law
Departments have given up on the 24 hour rule for graffiti.) I am sure that it is
because that we are talking of crime that brought police and patrolling were brought into
the conversation.

Kevin, we have spent more time talking about this than it took to clean the graffiti. Do you
really believe that this is an optimum solution? Do you really believe public works cannot
keep up with one, or maybe three 10-13-year-olds? Really? City Hall is that backed up to
the wall on this? Are we going to let one or ten children take away our rights as tax-paying
citizens in Lakewood? Is that our future, a non-stop cutting of services and benefits for
the so called high taxes we pay? We will continue to get less, and less? Has this city bought
into the Morrision philosophy of all we can do is desperately try to manage our decline?

I for one, do not believe it is the case, and I think if the city took one chance to look at
solutions that work and build communities you would see that one of the secrets to a safe
city, is an active city using their parks and streets.

Then there is this troubling bit, of why is South Lakewood always getting punished while
North Lakewood's park, which also has graffiti, and loiterers allowed to stay open later?
Would it not seem to make sense to close ALL parks "1 hour after sunset"? Or, is this
another step in alienating the city from this important central park so that it can be
eventually closed and turned into another enlarged strip mall?

As always I appreciate, the conversation, and the knowledge dump. I am just hoping that
City Hall will reconsider this ill thought out over reaction to graffiti and loitering.

.

“The more successfully a city mingles everyday diversity of uses and users in its everyday streets, the more successfully, casually (and economically) its people thereby enliven and support well-located parks that can thus give back grace and delight to their neighborhoods instead of vacuity. ”
― Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

A good read, available at the Lakewood Public Library.



.

I didn't post, Jim, to rehash the discussion, which I observed. I posted to correct the report of statements you attributed to councilmembers whom you did not observe.

Kevin Butler wrote:I didn't post, Jim, to rehash the discussion, which I observed. I posted to correct the report of statements you attributed to councilmembers whom you did not observe.

Kevin

Of course you did not post to rehash.

The comments were attributed to Joe, but the actions based on those comments to city
hall, city council, and I suppose the law department. I have to believe that council agreed
with the statements and the position, as their actions seem to underline that position.

I believe without going back, that the characterizations of the discussion by Ward 1
councilman, and Ward 3 councilman are correct, would you agree?

Kevin, I have zero interest in beating this to death. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe
the law department and council would reconsider this ill-conceived over reaction to loitering in parks.

As always thanks for taking the time.

.