The Observation Deck

Here's something that has been troubling me for some time, that was really brought to the forefront yesterday evening at the Council Meeting.



As I understand it, Lakewood has no residential requirements of its employees. Many other cities do, but not Lakewood. Thus, many of our hard working employees have no vested interest in the city, other than to assure that the monies in the general fund are sufficient to pay their salaries (which then get exported to Fairview or other more desieable cities in which to live).



Yesterday (5/2) there was a meeting of Council as a committee of the whole to discuss the current ordinance proposal to reduce permit fees, inter alia, which would have a huge impact on both the schools and the library as well as the YMCA. Hundreds of Thousands of dollars, which cannot be justified as costs incurred by the building department, and that can go into the civic projects, most of which are financed by taxpayer bonds.



There would also be a benefit realized by developers who would have costs more closely linked to reality and local community competition.



There was an informational picket outside City Hall and the President and Vice President of the Laborers Union spoke, essentially voicing opposition to anything which would (in the short run) cause a squeeze on the general fund, especially since they're in contract talks with the city. Neither speaker was a resident, and the jist of one message was "Don't put our jobs in jepordy". No thought whatever of the positive impact on the city, development, schools and the library.



Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, but it seems to me that if our employees had an ownership interest in the civic problems, beyond their paycheck, we might see a more cooperative spirit of seeking out the greater good. So, why is it that we export vasts sums of money to commuter employees whose only civic vision is limited to a paycheck from the city?



Jeff

Jeff,



I agree with you. Currently only the Mayor and the Law Director are required to be residents. I would love to see this as a requirement for at least some of the Department heads especially the Planning Director.



When we were working on the Charter, many citizens expressed the need for the Safety employees (Fire and Police) to live in the city and I thought they made an excellent case.



I think we would need to grandfather this requirement into place with new hires being required to live in the city. At least for some positions.

Talking with Professor Douglas W. Rae



Jeff



The loss of resident public sector employees by cities and urban cores is a fundamental issue concerning the erosion of civic engagement and economy not only in City of Lakewood, but also in many industrial cities and urban cores areas throughout the Northeast.



The very sustainability of public institutions and services in urban areas is the crux of the matter.



Today I spoke with Douglas W. Rae, Rich Ely Professor of Management and Professional of Political Science at Yale University about the critical situation involving the erosion of civic engagement and economic capacity in cities across United States, particularly in relation to the migration of public sector employees from the core to the periphery.



There can be no denying the structural economic pressures of global capitalism that are crushing the capacity of cities to sustain quality of life and public services. According to Professor Rae, the situation is ìacute.î



In conversation Professor Rae noted that cities across Connecticut and Massachusetts are facing the economic issues that stem from the adverse impact of public sector employees who do not reside in the urban space where their service is delivered.



Professor Rae suggested that to the detriment of cities departments are often "employee coops that hire the boss, the Mayor." He mentioned that Hartford is in trouble, as is Springfield, MA. He said Buffalo, New York is in receivership, due in part to this complex of issues involving economic structure and the agency of public sector employees.



Mayors in Philadelphia and Pittsburg took on this difficult and contentious issue. Professor Rae cautioned there is no win-win. He did say, however, that this is ìthe fundamental stuff.î



Jeff, you are onto an important matter.



The big question for Lakewood is how the community can communicate an effective message to public sector employees about the 21st economic structure, concerns over sustainability and the loss of the traditional urban ideal of civil service, wherein the public sector employee has a responsibility to the community for ìthe keeping of good order and civil respectî (30, Rae, The City: Urbanism and Its End).



High hopes for economic development need to be accompanied by effective conversation about such matters. As we strive to secure a sustainable economic future for the city of Lakewood, with high quality public services, it is imperative that citizens and public sector employees begin a conversation about incentives and strategies that will advance the convergence of interests in neighborhoods, schools and institutions.



Otherwise, given the force of the global economic structure, erosion, regional consolidation and privatization will re-define the quality of life in Lakewood. As Dr. Estrop says, ìItís Lakewoodís time.î



Kenneth Warren

Jeff / All



This is important. The thing that bothered me about Jeff's post was the call of, "taking money out of the city." I have heard this cry too much when it comes to other issues from casinos to malls.



But what did bother me is that these city workers have very little feel for the lifeblood of the city. They are more like the birds that clean the Hippos teeth are important to the Hippo, but do they really understand the hippo, or only look at it as a daily job for some food. Is there love for the Hippo?



I find it disturbing that "outside groups" would be picketing and trying to have say in the day to day running of our city.



Maybe it's time to say love us, live with us, work with us, build with us, or...





Jim O'Bryan

Jeff/All When I write my articles about council meetings I try to latch on to that night's theme. In my discussions with DL when I was writing she and I thought that the labor/mangament issue deserved another thread. And Jeff, you hit on it.

When Tom George took over as Mayor over a year ago he had over 16 years of experience in Lakewood government.

In his conversations with me during that early time he expressed his amazement and utter frustration with the intransigence and rigidity of the work rules which were stymieing his efforts to get action.

As a simple example he wanted the fire hydrants painted. The fire department said that isn't our job. Parks said it was the water dept. And water said we don't have enough people. Finally he said just put one of the summer kids on it. Water said what if it rains? Tom blew his stack and said just find something indoors for them that day! All this over a simple task.

There were no employee manuals outlining workplace procedures for things like funeral leave.

And this frustration from someone who has supported and received support from organized labor all his life!

At Monday's meeting Councilwoman Madigan proposed Lakewood Night Out--keeping departments open at night to serve the public that can't access them during the daytime.

Immediately, the secretary of the administrative employees union said that the contract didn't allow for any change of work schedule to allow for that.

And this was on top of the disquieting presentation that you referred to, Jeff.

I think that a very large issue will be public sector labor/management relations one aspect of which is residency. I don't think it's at a serious problem status yet. Unlike the steelworkers who had to face a nuclear winter in order to realize that things had to change.

Therefore, the LO has to keep this discussion ongoing and in front of everyone because its resolution is so crucial to the sustainability of Lakewood.

Union leaders in particular have to realize that they have many constituencies that extend beyond their immediate membership. Hopefully our discussion will lead to a larger public dialogue and bring into the daylight the previous darkened labor/management negotiations in OUR public sector.

Stan



Many of us lived in a time when the Unions could bring a country to it;s knees. But they have lost much of their influence and now seem to fight little wars with groups they can force to the table.



I think Tom's answer to the hydrant problem was perfect. When a group becomes unreasonable, work around them, while showing respect for the process.



I have spoken to the Mayor many times about shifting some of the burden over to the residents and civic groups that can work outside of city hall. Last weekend I was involved in a splendid gathering of about 20 people that cleaned up a very dirty section of town. No fanfare, no cameras, no egos, just garbage bags, gloves, coffee and doughnuts. The job got done. Odd as it seems after this group cleaned up and gathered over 100 bags of garbage they were turned away from the city dump. They were told to leave it on their tree lawn!



It is the wave of the future. We have to make simple choices. Raise taxes or get more involved. This year we are looking at going 100% volunteer at The Madison Village Car Show. Mark C. is working on a citizen watch group for the bars after midnight. Not to go around the police, but to help maximize their on duty hours, and give them support.



As these projects take flight and succeed, the city builds a stronger sense of community, and self esteem. This is good for all.



I was speaking with Paul Beagan at the last Lakewood Alive meeting and he was talking about ideas for Detroit and Madison. I proposed a very simple project practised all over Europe. Every morning a shop owner sweeps the area in front of his store into the curb. Then the city sends a street cleaner down Detroit and Madison. Poof! A clean city shopping area. The other spin-offs are just as great, as shop owners speak with each other, meet residents and customers on the street, build that sense of community.



As I have posted before, Lakewood has ills, but I can also see the light at the end of the tunnel. We have small developments popping up around the city, so the fears of 47 and 48 have not materialized. Now we must work on building the brand, Lakewood. The safest, cleanest most fun city in the county. It is all within our reach if we can continue to work together.



Here's a question, If the city workers do not want to make themselves available on night a week, why can't the bosses(residents) sit at those desks for the night?!



Jim O'Bryan

Jim. You walk to the end of the tunnel. Start a big bonfire. Walk back to the beginning. The light, I guarantee you, will look different.

Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, but it seems to me that if our employees had an ownership interest in the civic problems, beyond their paycheck, we might see a more cooperative spirit of seeking out the greater good.

Professor Rae, who's work I am unfamiliar with, probably puts this problem in more social-scientific terms. That civic engagement underpins crucial features of community is uncontroversial.



However, the idea that civic engagement is itself underpinned by ownership interest and this in turn allows a cooperative spirit to seek out the greater good is, just on the face of it, at least, controversial as a matter of logical construction of such an argument.



It is enough to suggest that civic engagement does not come with being a resident. No matter where a police officer lives, in the community they work, their ownership interest in the civic problem of law breaking should be obvious.



Elsewhere, civic engagement can be minimalist. It is so in some ghettos, and, it is so in some of the toniest of exburbs.



But, I would plant my stake in a more rigorous understanding of what promotes civic engagement regardless of resident motive.



Lakewood exists in a shifting state day in an day out. Is it a community only for and engaged in the terms of the people who live in it?



-> very fundamental question because questions about 'civic-anything' are secondary with respect to the categorical answer.



***



As for whether classes of city employees should meet a mandatory residency requirement, my own opinion is the number of such classes should be kept very very small. I'm not a libertarian, but, broad residency requirements seem to compell non-choice precisely because choice would not otherwise be freely effected.



In other words, make the community attractive for city workers to live there.



Another way to look at this is simply as a proposition. Lakewood probably is a net exporter of civic employment. Lakewood obviously is a net exporter of employment. If all city employees had to live in the city they worked in, then Lakewood would shed the net difference. I don't know whether the idealization of the proposition would lead to across-the-board enhancement of civic engagement. BUT, if this proposition were idealized, one would hope Lakewood would be in the race to the top and not the bottom.



Tentative conclusion. Race to the top without the proposition.



***



Short of mandatory requirements, the twixt of the idea is to vitalize city employee engagement no matter where they live. Do we have any law enforcement officers on board?



Is the police chief open to better integration between law enforcement duties and the Observer's knowledge development mission?



I feel it would be great to take a walk with a policeman, show him the old indian lay lines.



***



This said, my own opinion, by way of my certain prejudices, is that a community is its organismic being at each moment. People come and people go.



Phenomenological (i.e. the community perceived,) community is different than "identity community", the community who's colors one wears, in effect.



The ideal is: one lives in an attractive community and one works in an attractive community. If you want to set the gold standard, think about Lakewood as place people live in, and, work in. They do not have to be the same people.



I offer this contrarian view for purposes of enlargement. The nice thing about a residency requirement is that it is a swift sword. The nicer thing about imagining what would cause Lakewood to be a magnetic locale is that magnetism likely has little to do with swift swords.

Not be confused with mere ìownership"



Stephen:



Not be confused with mere ìownership," the daily practice by human community members generates the affective, social capital that draws people to the good.î Thatís for sure.



However, I would guess that Jimís recourse to the term ìownershipî is more a semantic shorthand for a richer constellation of attitudes, behaviors, interests, orders and values implicit in his vision and practice for our city.



I want to register clearly the perception of an urban/suburban divide over the very nature of democratic experience.



The capacity of a suburban-minded public sector labor force to make a difference with other races and classes in urban space is increasingly called into question in regions across the nation.



In The City: Urbanism and Its End, Rae writes in a language that articulates the same sense of embodiment in the city you have been conveying.



Thus Rae: ìurbanism embodies some important ideals of a democratic society ñ one in which people are engaged with one another, where an individual who is a drill press operator by day may be a civic potentate by evening, where trust is earned through lifelong engagement. These ideals, bundled today under the flag of social capital, can be explored to good effect in the age of urbanism. Central to the democratic experience is contact with difference ñ other races, other nationalities, other economic classes, other language groups. And, too often, the end of urbanism has undermined that experience by promoting social homogeneity within municipalities, leading to the evolution of regional hierarchies in which ìpurified communitiesî (Richard Sennettís term) brings likes togetherî (30).



My exploratory challenge to Professor Rae, again whose book is entitled The City: Urbanism and Its End, entails whether or not a beginning is possible in the post-industrial urban space of Lakewood, with its regenerating cadre of home-based ìcivic potentatesî and skateboarders such as Vince Frantz.



Of course, I do see a beginning, something more fully equipped than the design gambits in New Urbanism. So I wanted to explore practical tactics needed to sustain that beginning.



As you must realize, I hold a great deal of respect for the tactics in your phenomenological and constructivist tool kit. Under your instigation those dimensions will make Lakewoodís civic engagement smarter than the average bear.



As you suggest, the magnetic powers of local agency (persons in human community) are important to the span of the civic engagement. There is no argument here.



From a theoretical perspective of political economy, however, the matter of structure (global capitalism) cannot be overlooked; it bears down on the very ground of local agency. This issue needs to enter into the consciousness and conversations of taxpayers and public servants, who are joined together in Lakewoodís extraordinary civic and quality of life commitments.



I think Jeff and Jim are looking not for "swift swords" to be raised but rather for evidence of a shared commitment to Lakewood civic and urban vision.



Again, easy, informal communication with the policeman, with the Cushman driver about Lakewoodís mission, about the city that knows itself is a very good suggestion that can bring everyone to the center of a common ground.



It cannot be denied that the divergence between economic structure and local agency of public employee base diffused across a sprawling region creates increasing estrangement from the democratic ideals that inform the positive commitment to urban life. The situation is more acute in other cities across the nation. But this divergence cuts to the center of many sustainability issues as well.



From the policy level to daily practice, complex questions about civic space, economic development, public employment, sustainability, taxation thresholds, residency and quality of life are looming large in Lakewood.



In considering the design strategies of New Urbanism, Rae writes about life conditions that have both devolved and evolved in Lakewood over the course of the past century.



Thus Rae: ìThe extend to which the New Urbanismís design strategy can be integrated with cultural, economic, and governmental requirements for success in real city neighborhoods remains largely for the future to decideî (31).



My sense is that we have the capacity for robust civic engagement with those ìcultural, economic, and governmental requirementsî needed to sustain the city and its economy over the coming decades.



Lakewood is well on its way to mastering the practice of a True Urbanism in the 21st century. Motivating commitments of public sector employees to Lakewoodís civic and urban practice is the heart of the matter.



Kenneth Warren

Steve



This has always been a tough one for me. I think for certain things a wide net might be better. Teachers would be a perfect example. You want the best, not just the closest. This is why my comments are so mild and guarded.



I do not like outsiders, trying to change a community. This is about the "riots" outside the council chambers, not the city workers.



An outsider brought in for assessment, or opinion is far different from invading the city from afar with a political or social agenda. One is an ally, the other an invader, or carpetbagger.



In an era when some of us are trying to draft dome of the brightest minds, into Lakewood, I think it would be consistent to ask the workers to believe and buy into the idea of a better Lakewood.



I mean would you drive a Subaru to the Chevy plant?



Your equation almost works, BUT, my neighbor the Cleveland Fireman had to move to Cleveland to be a fireman. Not only is the area out one fireman/emergency worker. We also have an empty house for sale.



It cannot be mandatory, but every effort should be made to see if they believe they are doing a good job(good enough for their home), or an OK job (9-5 getting a check).



Jim O'Bryan

Ken, I'm cognizant of some of the economic factors as best I can be, given how much economics stresses the p*ss out of me. Other $$ factors I have constitutional reasons that cause me to be resistant to them. Ironically enough, at about $45,000, I'djump to become the Police Department's Community Relations 'fficer! Or, Lakewood's Personal Development Knowledge Manager! Ummm...tomorrow. I'd move. ':wink:' Mercenary...



Allow me to mix metaphors: slow sword, fast snake dance.



But, I'm under no illusions, Jim. The warrior mentality is apt: someday soon the advanced karass will be literally fighting to create knowledge, and to sustain its creation.



What I don't know is what economics is realized through the implementation of a high order of complex community intelligence. My operative hypothesis is partly a fantasy: the creative/warrior/economic vibe will attract to it what it needs (among which is what it needs to sustain its integrity,) what wants to kill, wound, soften it, and, what gets off on it.



Do more people live in Lakewood than work there? What's the answer to this basic structural query?



Transitional rather than terminal possibilities abound. I don't know of any cities which provide its civil workforce with higher order community 'training and development,' yet, this is lemonade you could make with the current lemons you have.



Also, I hope we think smartly about people who come to work in Lakewood and live elsewhere. Certainly it would be true that in any inquiry made on the street, we'd be encountering outsiders who are quasi-insiders while they're in Lakewood. They don't wear the colors, tis true! But, someday, they may want to.



This gets very knotty because already their is a well developed sense that it is economically and socially preferable to not orient lakewood around peeps who 'merely' live in Lakewood.

the daily practice by human community members generates the affective, social capital that draws people to the good

a richer constellation of attitudes, behaviors, interests, orders and values implicit in his vision and practice for our city

Where does this leave the distinction between residents and all others?

The capacity of a suburban-minded public sector labor force to make a difference with other races and classes in urban space is increasingly called into question in regions across the nation.

I do get this. Project possibilities right now? Should we be asking?



(When I wander about the question of local school boards chilling humanist curricula enforced by carpetbagging biology teachers...hmmmm.)

Central to the democratic experience is contact with difference ñ other races, other nationalities, other economic classes, other language groups. And, too often, the end of urbanism has undermined that experience by promoting social homogeneity within municipalities, leading to the evolution of regional hierarchies in which ìpurified communitiesî (Richard Sennettís term) brings likes togetherî

Economic hegemonists take over. Gated communities. Privatized security services. Suspicion. Something like: inbreeding. Saks. (Small scale version: turn key faith-based new age evangelical super churches with Starbucks in the lobby.)



More reasons to put different heads together.



Possible imponderable nut to crack? When demand outpaces supply...

Motivating commitments of public sector employees to Lakewoodís civic and urban practice is the heart of the matter.

There are a lot of modalities possible. This drills up to buy-in at the top echelons of city governance. In Shaker Hts. the bicycle patrols come out when the weather gets warm.



What's the Chief of Police like?

Stephen Calhoun wrote:

What's the Chief of Police like?

Why most of us living and working in Lakewood think he is a swell guy!



This is a very tough subject, especially if we bring in the work of others to create a city manager position in Lakewood's City Hall.



In a perfect world, Lakewood, Berkeley/Chautauqua of the 2000s, would not only draw city workers, but also create city workers the time honored way, through breeding.



But a city like Lakewood, very much on the edge, MIGHT have to look to other ways to pump up the civic volume when t comes to living in the city that they work in.



That edge is very much a sharp edge with slippery slopes on both sides. When forced to move into a city, the person sometimes takes on a prisoner mindset. My neighbor that is forced to live in Cleveland instead of his beautiful home overlooking Metro Parks rarely has anything nice to say about the city he now is forced to call home. This only hurts the brand. One would also have to wonder if his heart is really in the job, 24/7.



At the same time I have heard Lakewood City employees blast Lakewood and it's residents, this employee of the city and the residents does not live in Lakewood now, and truly believes the city he lives in as the best on the Westside. Does this barnacle in the wheels of progress help or hurt the process of reestablishing the city? Would it be cured by making him move here? Would it merely spread the cancer to another area of the city?



Does the city gain by having trash collectors live in the city? Would they pick up more trash, or take more breaks at home? Would they eat at home instead of The Diner, The Place to Be, or McDs? It is a complicated issue. When we move outside of that to police or fire the gain can be seen easier. Not only would they gain from knowing the neighborhoods they patrol, but it increases safety forces 24/7.



The job ahead of the residents of this city is to make is so nice, that only a fool would live somewhere else.



Until then what do we do?



Jim O'Bryan

How about much more presence, collaboration, integration?



I have no idea about crime, specific police-community methodologies in LW (beat walking? etc.) or what are the basic law enforcement challenges.



How much does the citizenry, first KNOW, and, second ACTIVATE because they know what they know.



In Cleveland Hts. the big push from Chief ML is to get his policemen law, forensic, law enforcement, graduate degrees.



Whereas, with the magic wand I'd push in LW for degrees in sociology, social psychology. Or, something better...



Over time, the ideal is to drive stuff from advanced and complicated intelligences in advanced interplay at various "cores". Ken has been pushing hard for a wholistic and integral perspective on quality of life; mission critical.



Lakewood Observer Workshops Pod

I can hardly believe I am about to try to enter into a discussion with you "brainiacs"..because I know I can't keep up with you students of socio-politico-economics.



I am in full agreement with Stephen, that we need to make Lakewood a desirable place for people to work AND live here. One simply cannot expect to be able to force civic engagement on anyone. I am sure each of us knows dozens of residents who are not involved in civic issues. Many of these terrific human beings choose to spend their energies elsewhere....family issues, job issues, charity issues, etc. I think that is OK. It is up to people like us to solicit their involvement...while we ignore our families, our jobs, etc! (just kidding!).



I heard the union reps speak on Monday night. Someone failed them miserably by not providing members with the complete story behind the permitting/license fee restructuring proporsal. Their ignorance on the issue was appalling. Their anger was totally justified, based on the limited information they had.



I can only speculate as to who/what is responsible for the failure to engage the union employees on this issue. Was it a hostile relationship between the union and the city that prevents communication from flowing? Was it the city's failure to recognize the need to provide the union with more info? Were the union leaders looking to pick a fight with the city, and to do so, simply failed to do any research? I have no idea. It was sad. Those of you who stayed to the end heard my remarks on the subject. (Two trash collectors approached me afterwards to thank me! I was worried when I realized they were waiting for me, because I am a huge supporter of the restructuring. Imagine my surprise when they told me how much they loved the city and wanted to support it.....and that they would be at my house at 6:15AM the next morning.. somebody/something failed these great guys!).



Giving hiring preference to those who do/will live here...I'm all for that. But requiring employees to live here? Nope. Think of the lost opportunity if we had the chance to hire a high caliber prospect with a family circumstance that prevented him/her from moving here. It is not like we have nice relocation packages to go along with the high wage/salaries city employees make! Why would we paint ourselves into that corner?



The answer is creating such an accessible, inviting, stimulating and vibrant community that people WANT to live here and act in a manner that will protect it. Those in leadership roles throughout the community need to make sure employees understand the complex issues concerning the city's evolving future, and encourage them to get involved either for personal reasons or the community good. But, an employer cannot force goodwill. Anyone familiar with a corporate United Way campaign effort can testify to that!



There is so much more that can be done to move our community forward before we mandate residency for city employees. Such a move, in my opinion, would only escalate tension between people that need to be working together.



Mary Anne

Getting Back To Ownership



Getting back to ownership, I would like to propose a rather startling idea, which may not even be possible, in order to assess whether or not such aims can be accepted as an ecological, economic, humane, and rational way to imagine an incentive that might compel public employees to reside in Lakewood and bring critical issues in sustainability and the resident's tax burden to a head.



1. Convince Lakewood citizens to pass a 5% income tax on all public sector wages earned in Lakewood ñ i.e. Lakewood City Employees, Lakewood City School Employees, and Lakewood Public Library Employees. The tax would only apply to these public sector wages.



2. Use the revenue to tear-down doubles and dilapidated housing in targeted blocks or neighborhoods, constructing in their place high performance (green) housing at, say, a $225,000 price point.



3. Provide opportunity to buy these high performance houses to Lakewood City Employees, Lakewood City School Employees, and Lakewood Public Library Employees as ìa housing benefitî at a reduced cost, with a progressive pricing and longevity structure that provides affordability and eventual ownership.



I need help working out the details here. But to get minds rolling, letís figure a $30K employee gets a $60k mortgage, with each year of satisfactory employment performance generating a $7k credit toward eventual ownership.



4. Imagine if between 5-10 high performance houses could be constructed each year.



5. If public employees choose not to exercise the housing benefit, these high performance houses could be sold and proceeds used for infrastructure improvements.



Kenneth Warren