Laura Hammel wrote:Why is decorative street lighting considered a necessity by the city? Street lights on Arthur are working just fine. While decorative street lights are attractive, there is no data that proves they will add value. The Arthur Avenue Enhancement Committee quoted a 4 - 6% increase in property value from the 13-15 lights that will be on the street. It would be great to see some examples of housing values in similar communities that increased after a project like this. Hard data also would make it attractive for other streets in Lakewood to do this considering our property values have not rebounded from the real estate crash in 2008/09. Also--no total cost is addressed in the resolution. BTW--a member of my family has been at every neighborhood meeting and we have read all of the letters circulated by the committee. I implore the council to make a fact-based decision on the correctness of imposing an additional property tax on 68 households in Lakewood.
Hi Laura--
This resolution is the one you're describing in your other post I assume? I'll quote it here:
Here’s a scenario: You live on a street in Lakewood with perfectly serviceable street lights that are paid for and maintained by the city using the taxes collected for this purpose. A handful of your well-meaning neighbors decide they want decorative street lights to beautify the tree lawns. They are able to petition the residents and lobby council to pass an ordinance forcing all residents on the street to pay for the decorative lighting—in this case, approximately $1831 per household for 13-15 lights. Of course, you can spread the cost over 10 years as a non-deductible tax assessment—while paying additional interest (this amount is tied to the city’s bond rates and can change). viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11709So a group of neighbors decided that they wanted to make the lighting on the street more decorative, and that all the residents on the street should pay for it, to the tune of $1800 a household-- even if all of the residents don't want it. And our City Charter has a provision that allows an ordinance to be written forcing all the residents to pay for this whether they want to or not.
This isn't something I knew about when we bought our house here in Lakewood, though I doubt the neighbors on my street would want to change our lighting. I live in the center of Lakewood also, an area hard hit by city assessments requiring all of us to bring our houses up to code or else. I understand the necessity (there's that word!) of this. When Ian Andrews spoke at the first LOKOL forum he stressed that for the city of Lakewood, our houses ARE economic development. The biggest "industry" in Lakewood, is people wanting to live here. In these houses. So money spent on roofs, rebuilding steps and porches, fixing cracked driveways, hanging gutters, painting and the foundation rebuilding that often goes with it-- is money well spent. And it is necessary. All of us ponying up and somehow replacing our roofs, doing total paintjobs and masonry, benefits all of us. We the homeowners, our neighbors and our city.
I imagine Arthur Avenue which is only a couple of streets away has also been hard hit by these assessments. Even harder given the fact that those houses are much bigger. A drive down the street will show you houses needing some work: paint, gutters falling, etc. Like any street in Lakewood.
So you see where I'm going with this? I'm going to assume very few have $1800 to just hand over, so most people will be assessed and will be paying about 30 dollars a month for the next ten years to get... prettier lighting? If those people had an extra 30 a month wouldn't they be using it on painting their houses or fixing their gutters? These things are necessary.
When your streetlights are working and in good condition, you have streetlights, you don't "need" streetlights. There is no necessity. The wording is insulting in a time when we have so many actual necessities. What is it again? I'll look again in Matt's post.
A RESOLUTION ... declaring it necessary to improve Arthur Avenue (from Detroit Avenue to Hilliard Road) by replacing the existing street lighting system and installing decorative lighting fixtures. Wow.
This doesn't seem like a good idea to me at this time when so many necessary repairs have to be made by the homeowners. I have read that 70 percent of the people who live on the street have signed a petition for this improvement. In this case, I don't find it that "democratic" that 70 percent can force 30 percent to pay money they may not have, and kind of imply that they "should" have it if they live on a nice street like Arthur. I know I don't have to spell it out for the families out there, but what would you do with an extra 30 dollars a month for the next ten years? What kind of vacation could you take with that $2000 + in ten years? If you could save it. If it wasn't for that pair of shoes, or the tires you were expecting to last but didn't, or maybe taking the family out to a family restaurant, or man! maybe just a quick night out for mom and dad. In our house it is literally being saved for a new roof.
I can't help think that the biggest cost, way more than 2K per household is the effect this has had on the neighbors' relationships with each other. "Hi neighbor, I'm forcing you to pay $2000 for these pretty lamps. Think of me, every month, for the next ten years. Enjoy the lamplight instead of the new shoes, dinner with your spouse, saving it for something you might use on your own house."
I think it would be more fair if the people who want the improvement pay for all of it.
No matter what, no-one can make the case that this "improvement" is a necessity.
In terms of returning the look of Arthur Avenue to a "former time of grace and beauty with antique period lighting," I think that possibility ended when the Detroit entrance of Arthur metamorphosed from the pastoral feeling of a blonde stone church with a beautiful steeple and stained glass, with big lawns and gorgeous old trees into a massive parking lot and drive-through drugstore, no matter how aesthetically pleasing that drugstore may be. (And yes, of course I know that that church was vacant. It probably wasn't when the antique lamp posts were first on Arthur. These are different times.)
In a time of limited resources, we have make really really good choices.
And I haven't mentioned the extra money each of us is being asked to set aside per month for the school levy. (Which many of us, including me, consider an actual "necessity.")
Betsy Voinovich
For more details and to see another point of view on this situation read the front page article in this week's Lakewood Observer, "Arthur Avenue Project Shines Light On Democracy"
http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/20 ... -democracy
That line about the "pretty hand basket" is pretty funny, Bill. I will most certainly add that to my repertoire.