The Observation Deck

Other cities have used nuisance ordinances to pressure landlords to police their property and pressure tenants into improving their behavior. Those cities have found that a properly enforced nuisance ordinance can put landlords and tenants on notice that there might be a problem at a particular address. The goal is not to generate income from fines but to change behavior.

Last summer one Clifton Prado address had 12 twelve calls in one month. One Athens address had 25 calls over a three month period. One Lake Avenue address had 71 calls over a three month period. Assuming it costs $100 for police to make a call, one Lake Address cost the City $7,100 in one three month period.

Recently, there was a drug bust at a Nicholson Avenue address. The neighbors are furious. They knew about the drug activity and the City new about the activity. Said one resident, "I have lived here for thirty years but I have about had it. People were lined up outside the door like it was a 7 Eleven." Said another, "...there was a gun on on the premises. This could have turned out like Brockley". Said another, " If I could afford it I would move."

Last year after much opposition the council past Ryan Demro's nuisance ordinance. As of now that ordinance is not being enforced.

Does anyone know why?

Bill:

This is a big topic for inquiry, one fraught with legal and tactical questions.

Do we know what really works?

How do we find out?

Do we know which cities have the best program? What the cost might be for Lakewood?

Is there political will to do so?

Many people own rentals, who might not see this as optimal for their interests.

For DIY civic problem solvers, inquiry into the ownership of the properties is the first step.

Obviously the situation is not unique to Lakewood.

What/where are the best practices?

Has anyone scanned for such?

I provide this capture from Green Bay, because it seems a fairly typical exercise in community frustration with deteriorating properties.

Are any such discussions as these occurring in Council Committees?

If so, are they different or the same?

“13. REQUEST BY ALD. THEISEN TO REVIEW THE POLICE CALLS TO 724 AND 728 CROOKS STREET.

Ald. Theisen appeared before the committee and said he has been hearing from some of the people in the neighborhood of problems at these two addresses. He spoke to Officer Swanson of the Police Department. He has observed the area from time to time and found there was a lot of activity and people hanging around. He contacted the County Supervisor. Little kids are running around without supervision. Maybe Social Services should take a look at it.

Officer Swanson, Community Police Officer, Green Bay Police Department, appeared before the committee and said there is a lot he would like to tell but can’t tell. He said it is long term solving. Ald. Theisen mentioned kids running the streets. Human Services is cutting their budget. We can’t look to them. We look for the parents or relatives and are lucky to get anything further out of that. It’s a sign of a growing community. As far as things going on, they respond to what they know about. They need in-put.

Officer Swanson continued to say they reviewed 722, 724 and 728 Crooks Street. The reviewed the complaints in an effort to see about nuisance. None met that criteria. If it doesn’t meet that criteria, they will not continue. There could be a nuisance and it would be handled as a Civil action. There is quite a variety of activity going on there. The landlord has already served an eviction at 722 Crooks Street. He said property owners need to screen tenants carefully so that there isn’t a constant turnover of bad tenants moving into these places. He said the search of the records goes back for about a year. Listed below are some of the activities.

Some activities going on at 722 Crooks Street are as follows:
July 10, 2003 – Complaint about loud music. When police arrived there was no loud music.
July 12, 2003 – Disturbance, two people arrested, underage problem, jumping out in traffic.
September 1, 2003 – Loud music, upper, issued written warning tickets. When they issue tickets later, they have this information.
September 4, 2003 – Suspicious, drug call, tenants being evicted.
September 12, 2003 – Partying, running around the yard yelling, alcohol was contributing factor.
September 12, 2003 – Male breaking windows, underage intoxicated juvenile, taken in.

Some activities going on at 724 Crooks Street are as follows:
April 21, 2003 – People running around yelling, officers found juveniles using alcohol.
April 22, 2003 – Children walking around, no parent available.
July 15, 2003 – Dog doing its job on somebody’s yard. Person came by later and picked it up.
July 29, 2003 – Disturbance, neighborhood children fighting.

Michelle Clemens, 806 Crooks Street, appeared before the committee and said Officer Swanson is not mentioning a lot of calls. Some of these complaints are not on the reports.

Officer Swanson said if they arrive at a wrong address, they will radio in to change the address to reflect where the activity takes place. If not, it is out of their control.

Some activities going on at 728 Crooks Street are as follows:
October 3, 2002 – Males arguing – looking to see if it is nuisance property.

Ald. Theisen said a substantial number of police calls are not warranted, but when they are warranted a number of times they should take in the nuisance ordinance. Attorney Schimmel said a number of calls resulting in enforcement action constitutes nuisance. Whether warning, verbal or written, they are all enforcement action. Three calls within thirty days is considered a nuisance. Officer Swanson said he is applying written warning. Ald. Theisen wondered if verbal warning works if you can get it out of the record. Attorney Schimmel said yes, however right now there is difficulty getting information from the system at the Police Department. They are trying to find a way to do that better.

Ald. Theisen then wondered if in a particular instance there is a problem, if testimony of officer and neighbors would help. Attorney Schimmel said yes, but we need a program written where it pops up when there are three calls within thirty days.

Officer Swanson said 728 Crooks Street has a problem where people get kicked out. New people start coming in and they get calls again. Over a year you see patterns, but not for 30 days. On October 3 family members didn’t want to press charges, no citations issued.

July 14, 2003 – 8 year old driving a Saturn car around the block, no citation issued because parents would have to pay for it. Attorney Schimmel said this can be counted against the property owner as a nuisance. Officer can tell them to correct the problem or get a citation.

July 15, 2003 – 10 people outside and children, man running around and yelling, profanity, somebody aiming with hose.

July 31, 2003 – Disturbance – 20 people outside, kids on top of cars, screaming. When officers arrived, persons involved doing nothing at the time.

August 18, 2003 – Somebody tried to get through window, jumped into Lexus before police arrived.
August 20, 2003 – Suspicious.
August 22, 2003 – Male problems with children
August 25, 2003 – Loud music from car.
August 27, 2003 – Stolen bike.
September 1, 2003 – Flash symbols, said not gang related.

Ald. Nicholson asked Officer Swanson if he and other Community Officer Blindauer have been addressing this situation and getting with the neighborhood association. He wondered why he is communicating at this meeting. Officer Swanson said he can’t explain what they are doing as it could harm their investigation. They met with the neighborhood association out there and have been given ways to speed up the investigation. He advised that they write information and numbers down for them. Dispatch will give the information to officers to handle at that time. Instead of spending 12-16 hours a day trying to find out who the people are, if they could write it down would speed up the situation. They are acting on it and expect good results on this investigation. Lt. Nick said one landlord is very cooperative and the tenants are evicted.

Ald. Theisen said he understands what Officer Swanson is saying as far as what action is being taken. He talked to Officers Swanson and Belongia and believes this is a public forum that they can all hear at the same time as to what is going on. He said he understands the language of the law. If someone makes a valid complaint about loud music and there is no loud music when the officer arrives, it is not on record. Attorney Schimmel said there certainly will be a record that the complaint was filed. From the standpoint as one of three calls a month, no; citation, no; but in a full scale nuisance prosecution it can be used as part of the case. It is still important to report and make the phone call.

Ald. Theisen said this meeting was worthwhile to him. The neighbors have been asking him what is going on there. As aldermen, they are the middle person. They are not police or inspectors. They can’t order people to get out of the neighborhood. They get complaints and pass them on to the appropriate department. He thinks it is important when there is a severe problem that everyone sit down and find out what’s going on.

Lt. Nick said there can be meetings with the neighborhood associations and aldermen can be invited. His concern is that the information should not get in the wrong hands and harm the investigation. Ald. Theisen said that in the future, if taking anything to the committee puts things in jeopardy, to let him know. He has a couple people telling him there’s a serious problem in the neighborhood.

A motion was made by Ald. Wery and seconded by Ald. Nicholson to suspend the rules to allow interested parties to speak. Motion carried.

Judy Adamini, 122 S. Jackson Street, appeared before the committee and said she lives in that neighborhood. Officer Swanson has been good. They appreciate what they can do and there is much they can’t do. They go to neighborhood meetings. They write down license numbers. It is very frustrating. The City spent all this money and grants to turn this neighborhood around from what it was ten years ago. In the last few years, it started to go down hill again. If somebody was looking at property in this area, she would tell them not to. Isn’t that a shame?

Ald. Nicholson asked what they were doing ten years ago. Hartman said they were doing drugs but now they’re still doing drugs. Adamini said this keeps reoccurring. Ald. Kriescher said we have to make property owners more responsible. They keep renting to the same type of people.

Todd Dehn, Country Haven Estates LLC, 5079 Edgewater Beach Road, Green Bay, appeared before the committee and said he owns 728 Crooks Street. Many things that have been said are incorrect. There are problems, no question. He took this property as a special project to rehabilitate. He took it on because he saw the Navarino thing on TV and thought it would be something nice. He only received one phone call from a lady about a complaint from this property. He bought it because he wanted to make a difference there. Regarding a number of the complaints, he didn’t take it over until just recently. He said it does take Section 8 and SSI. He said he paid more taxes than most people. There are issues with tenants. An officer called him one time. He returned the call with two messages and nobody got back to him. He told the neighbors who were present that he is on their side. There are a lot of issues. The landlords need to be contacted. He doesn’t know why he hasn’t had any calls.

Ald. Nicholson wondered how many families are living over there and suggested that somebody from Inspection Department go there. Dehn said the number of people are not living there now. Ald. Nicholson asked if these tenants were in the building when he took it over. He then asked Dehn if he did a good background check. Dehn replied he did good checks. He has many, many apartments and they do background checks. Michelle Clemens said there is a constant turnover of tenants, the house has gone down hill, things are broken down there. Dehn said it is not true. As of yesterday the windows were taken care of. There were 13 calls since September 1; one was wrong person; one was legitimate. Divided by two properties equals 1.6 calls per month. Hartman said they want his phone number where they can reach him in the evening. Dehn said nobody ever called him about drugs going on. He called the drug enforcement hotline. They said it would be a week before somebody could get back to him. He said he has cleaned up the place. He has spent $44,000 to revamp the place. Two tenants were no good so he kicked them out. He has new tenants in there and did background checks. He said at 728 Crooks Street it is not the landlord. He said he needs their help. They are not communicating. However, he said at 1:00-2:00 A.M. in the morning not to call him, but they should call the Police Department. At this time he can’t do anything about it.

Ald. Nicholson asked Dehn if he is open to working with the community police officers. Dehn replied he will work with evictions. The upper apartment was a problem and he is in the process of evicting them as we speak. Ald. Nicholson asked him the last time he was there. Dehn said he was there at 1:00 P.M. today. Clemens asked when he was there before that. Dehn said he was there yesterday or the day before. They drive by on the average of every other day.

Hartman said she put garbage pails out there and now it is fine. Dehn said it’s a combination of so many things in that area, it’s very difficult and frustrating. He thought he could fix the place up and get good people in there.

Ald. Theisen told Dehn he is glad he came to this meeting and that he will work to be a good landlord. He said he knows good landlords in the area who have no problems. What are they doing different than Dehn? He said he is open to whatever Dehn can do to improve the situation. Dehn said he is limited about what he can do legally. Ald. Theisen said when he was a landlord, he could tell by the type of car people were driving, asked them where they work. They were always careful and successful with no problems.

Attorney Schimmel said the landlord should use a written application form for background and suggested they use a written rental agreement so it tells clearly what they can do. Monthly rent is easier than a yearly agreement where eviction is concerned.

Ald. Graves told Dehn he failed with the background check and now he wants to evict them. Dehn said they passed the background check. It’s his problem, it’s the City’s problem, it’s ICS problem, it’s the neighbors problem. He’s trying to do what’s right as a landlord. Ald. Graves told Dehn to give Officer Swanson his address so when there is a complaint, he can get the information to him.

Attorney Schimmel said it is important to note that it is not the City’s duty to report problems at the property. It is not a defense that you did not get notice of problems. It is your duty to be aware of that.

Ald. Graves wondered why Dehn did not notice the broken window if he drives by every other day. Dehn said the broken window was boarded up for about two weeks. A glass company came and measured and it had to be special ordered. It is now fixed.

Ann Hartman said Dehn can do all the background checks he wants, it is the friends that come there that Dehn never sees. When kids get out of school between 4:00-8:00 P.M. is when problems occur. He is never going to see the bad people and no record. Regarding the nuisance ordinance, she said the nuisance should go with the people, not with the building. She said she would never go through ICS. Somehow the word is that Green Bay has let up. It is not just drugs, it’s underage drinking, children running up and down the street. If Dehn does not drive down his street at 4:00 P.M. in the afternoon, he will never get the people.

Attorney Schimmel said you cannot define a person as a nuisance. Nuisance by definition is use of a property. But if there is a problem, you can notify the police that people are hanging around. You can tell them to leave and if they come back, they can be sited for trespassing. You can’t have people who stay there for more than a couple days without the knowledge of the property owner.

Ald. Theisen said we could refer the problems on Crooks Street to the police to work with the landlords and neighbors. He will hear about the progress. He thanked the committee for their time.

Mr. J. Lochman, Lochman Enterprises LLC, P.O. Box 834, Green Bay, appeared before the committee and said he owns the property at 722-724 Crooks Street. On August 13 he received a phone call from Officer Belongia regarding kids playing basketball in the street. He said the court is not in his property. Tenants at 722 Crooks Street are going to be evicted due to drinking problems. He gave a 5 day warning to kids playing basketball. He gave a 14 day notice to tenants to be gone regarding drug paraphernalia.

Lochman further said he has been a landlord for thirty years. He said he screens tremendously but no landlord can pick a good tenant every time. He said the downtown area is getting tougher and tougher. Nobody from the neighborhood association ever called him. He said he would give them his phone number.

Officer Swanson said in the past years cocaine has soared. We must fight it or it will be a big problem. It takes a while to do things right. All city services are being billed to the property owners.

A motion was made by Ald. Wery and seconded by Ald. Nicholson to return to the regular order of business. Motion carried.

A motion was made by Ald. Wery and seconded by Ald. Nicholson that the request by Ald. Theisen to review the police calls to 724 and 728 Crooks Street be referred to the Police Department to continue working to correct the problems at these addresses. Motion carried.

A motion was made by Ald. Wery and seconded by Ald. Nicholson to adjourn. Motion carried."

Source:
www.ci.green-bay.wi.us/mins_agd/minutes ... 2MN34.html -

Kenneth Warren

Bill,

One of the things that I noticed, not just here - but in Parma as well, was that the police would tire VERY quickly when repeatedly called to a house.

But is was the caller that was made to feel as if they were being an intrusion - or were inconveniencing the police by making them come to speak to the same neighbors night after night.

Even more interesting is that now that we own a single home, instead of renting a double, the police are much more responsive to us when we call.

With a disparity in treatment such as I have encountered, can you wonder why? And then is it any further wonder that we will not likely stay in Lakewood outside of the years required for my daughter to finish high school?

I was born and raised in this city. My family goes back MANY generations and has served this city and its residents for decades. I love Lakewood and truly think I was very fortunate to have been brought up in such a rich and wonderful place.

I was recently told that people that dont own homes in Lakewood cant be expected to have very much vested interest in the city. Interesting, because from what I recall - the people that didnt own homes used to BE Lakewood....

However, when the air becomes elitist, biased, and uncompromising, it is time for me to accept that the city I grew up in does not exist any longer. It has faded away with the demise of the five and dime on Madison, or the little butcher shop on Dowd... with the wooden floor and that squeaky door that would announce your arrival with a whine and a bang while you ran up to the counter with your quarter burning a hole in your pocket....

In those days we werent so worried about what colors Madison avenue merchants were going to use, or whether someone's hand painted sign (in the window) was attractive enough.

And yet this is the Lakewood we hear about and yearn for.

The one where it meant something when the police showed up and told you to keep it down - and the police thanked you for bringing them out to do it...

FFT

~Charyn

Times have changed, for sure. Back to high school days, if my band was playing too loud, a police car came by, told us to turn it down. We did. If we didn't, it costed my parents a pretty fair amount of money in fines.

Small things were attended to. I DO have to say that Lakewood Police Dept is a fine department. How can it be improved?

First, I think the city should have more officers and more cars on patrol, especially 2nd and 3rd shift. I know, someone said on this board that the PD didnt need more officers. In my opinion, there is no such thing.

Second, it seems we can't talk to the officers like the "old days". Most of us knew the names of half the dept. They would wave, cruise by slow, get out of the cars and talk with the people, especially in the evenings in the summer.

We KNEW the guys in blue. We felt good about them. As far as I know, it's not that way now.

The motorcycle officers could stand to be used alot more. Maybe they are, but just not in my area of the city. Parma uses them quite a bit, and quite effectively.

Brookpark and Parma uses Auxillary officers effectively too. or they did. My info is a bit old. The Auxillary officers augmented the officers, in those 2 cities, rather than just do "guard duty".

We have a excellent police dept. with excellent response times. If anything, maybe we just need a few more officers on the payroll, more visablity in evening and nite shifts, a few more detectives. Give them the equipment they need to do the job as they know it should be done.

And just in my humble opinion, the guys in blue could make a point of being friendly with the citizens, and not so friendly with those who make themselves a thorn in the rose of a city called Lakewood.

FWIW

Mark

As you come from a law enforcement background I am sure that more means better.

I was one that said we didn't need more police officers. But that info was gotten when my I was making my inquiry into taxes, citizen patrols, and general well being of the police department. I was shocked to hear the answer but the person who should know a policeman went into details why. The biggest was first they have to utilize better the police we have now. I have to say this was over a year ago, but problems listed were by this officer; Software upgrades. At the time the computers in the cars had trouble and would crash. This meant officers would have to still fill out reports by hand back at the station.

Another thing this officer said was loyalty. This was not loyalty to the department. Our police department is extremely tight when on the street. During the stand off there was only one police officer talking, Chief Malley. No one else was saying anything, including the mayor, the law department, and city workers. I believe this is how it should be in the middle of a crime scene. At the car show the police love to talk, show their motorcycle, cars, etc.

This was loyalty to the city. In other words they did not live here. Something most Lakewood Police officers did in the good old days. Now this is something you have openly spoken out against in the past Mark. Have you changed your mind? If 75% of the police officers live outside of Lakewood that would mean at any given time the "city" is light 15-20 police officers. I am not for residency requirements, but I am for residency incentives.

Let's look at another problem; Litigation. Back in the old days we love to talk about police were rarely sued, nor were they under the scrutiny they are now. An easy lawsuit to throw would be a police officer accusing or saying someone had committed a crime before their day in court. Little things like this make it difficult for police officers to be talkative while working. The world is sue happy and the easiest possibly deepest pockets in this city are the police and city workers.

Charyn

I too grew up in this city and have two questions.

1) Do you listen to the police scanner? I do, all day and most of the night. Even my wife has grown tolerant of this behavior. We have at least 5 other people on the board that are equally addicted. Stan and DL are two that come to mind. There is absolutely no difference in a call to rental or owned. I have NEVER heard them mention or make reference to this. Mark listens too I believe has anyone else heard mentioned rent/own etc. The response time to calls is completely based on who is around and the rating of the call. Any weapon or fight or injury gets first attention, from there the fall off is pretty dramatic based on kind of complaint. Our dispatchers do an incredible job. when called to a "trouble establishment" they will often wait for backup before running in. I would have to think that this might be true for troubled living units as well. Mark can correct me on this, the easiest way for a police officer to get injured on the job is domestic violence calls.

Now the police do know the troubled addresses and people. I overheard one police officer at the situation on Granger mention they had been to the house before, and that more than once he had to be talked to before allowing himself to be taken in. This was early in the afternoon, and would underline all information that came out later that he would not go back to jail, that he would not be taken alive and that something bad was going to happen that day.

Signs - What time period are you referring too in the city not caring about signs? Sometime between 1972 and 1975 the most restrictive sign law I have ever seen was put in place and the city enforced them to the max. No neon, no over hanging signs, no two names of the business, one sign per building, the frames that are still on many stores were part of this movement. So maybe before 72? I do remember a "relative" complaining about being cited for his grocery store before that. But to be honest as a kid I paid very little attention to the sign laws, just the signs, and that was only on the stores I went to.


FWIW

I don't think the police have a bias against renters, but plenty of other people do.

When I was a renter (the majority of my adult life) I heard that renters don't have a "stake" in the community. I felt differently about it.

I would expect the police to tire of repeatedly coming to the same place. I would expect anyone to feel that same way. We hope that people will clean up their acts, but they don't.

I've witnessed a few street fights. Two were when I was renting and one as a homeowner. The police responded immediately to each of those calls.

The dispatchers do an amazing job of prioritizing calls. Some folks do have to wait for quite some time before their calls are answered because there's something else going on.

However, we have a friend who is regularly harassed by children in the neighborhood and there's really nothing that the police can do. It's a "civil matter." Unless our friend collects her own evidence and presses charges against the kids, she's out of luck and that path is frought with repercussions as well. I wish there was a better resolution for her.

I HAVE changed my mind on the residency issue, so yes I feel there should be incentives for the police officers to live inside the city borders, and to carry their I.D, badge and firearm at all times.

Btw, yes I'm a scanner addict too. I listen to many of the west burbs, tho that reminds me to bug my wife for a new scanner, since mine has seen more durable days". *grin*

1) Do you listen to the police scanner?

No, I have neither the time nor the desire. Mind you if I conveyed the idea that there was an issue with response time that was NOT at all my intention. The difference is how I was spoken to and treated when I didnt live on the more highly regarded 'west' side of Lakewood as a home-owner instead being an east-end renter.

..and we all know that there ARE differences (real or perceived) between the west-enders and the east-enders. To deny this division within our own city is to be either blind or foolish.

What time period are you referring too in the city not caring about signs? Sometime between 1972 and 1975 the most restrictive sign law I have ever seen was put in place and the city enforced them to the max.

Yes, I recall. I was referring the the handwritten 'in the window' signs (as noted in the parenthetical). The sigh ordinances for the exterior of the building I do not, nor have I ever, objected to. As a matter of a fact, I think that the introduction of neon (thank you BK) was a hideous nightmare...

But that ship has long since sailed so I accept that it is here to stay.

I have no desire to enter into a debate about what the sign rules were thirty years ago. My post was loosely framed based upon my perceptions and memories of a Lakewood that (in my opinion) has clearly disappeared when it comes to unity and community fellowship.


Regards.
~Charyn

Charyn

Not to drag this discussion out longer than needed. but don't you think the division that in the 10s into the 80s that was strongest was the railroad tracks? Of course that division has taken on the persona of the east west division too, When someone names a street that is two or more streets east of them and say, "I'm glad I do not live east of __________!" The other night I was working on a table for the paper that had a sliding scale for east/west north south division.

It was funny a couple nights ago I was speaking with Robert Buckeye who had just returned from his 45th reunion I believe. He mentioned that instantly although he is published, works at a respectable college was singled out as "from Birdtown" so it would seem the division goes back awhile if we are talking about a time frame.

But it is so hard to look back, yesterday I was speaking with a friend about how much deeper the snow was when I was a kid. He mentioned me being 6'4" now might have something to do with that perception.

FWIW

So.....

Does anyone know why the nuisance ordinance is not being enforced? Is it a political decision, a practical decision, a timing decision or pique?

Bill,

I don't believe that we established that it was not being enforced - only that there were possibly barriers for residents who wished to call under that ordinance.

Is it verifiable that the city, faced with adequate information and evidence, is not enforcing this ordinance - or is that your perception based upon the number of complaints or homes that are seemingly unattended to?

Peace,
~Charyn

I was told by a city mediator that my building was "no the list" for being watched after a few noise compliants within a few weeks.

Charyn Varkonyi wrote:Bill,

I don't believe that we established that it was not being enforced - only that there were possibly barriers for residents who wished to call under that ordinance.

Is it verifiable that the city, faced with adequate information and evidence, is not enforcing this ordinance - or is that your perception based upon the number of complaints or homes that are seemingly unattended to?

Peace,
~Charyn

john crino wrote:I was told by a city mediator that my building was "on the list" for being watched after a few noise compliants within a few weeks.

Charyn:

I lived on Nicholson for 15 years and still have friends in that area. I wrote the post in response to their concern about the activity in the area and what they perceived as a lack of action on the part of the city.

I was told by two people with the City the decision was made not to enforce the ordinance. They had no idea why.

John:

I think most landlords are really unaware that there might be a problem with a particular tenant. If no one lets you know that your tenants are bad neighbors you have no way of knowing.

Of course part of the problem with this type of ordinance is that a loud group of people on a front porch or in a back yard could be seen as a "problem" by a neighbor.

When we lived on Nicholson we had some great times on our front porch. I could have been a nuisance without knowing it. (Yeah, I know, even now).

On the other hand when an apartment on Madison has 60 calls in one 90 day period maybe its time for stronger action.

Bill:

If that is what you were told then I would have to join you in asking - why?

Why was a decision made to not enforce the ordinance?

I would also try to determine who the homeowners are - if they are the same family, same commpany (if apartments) etc, or possibly who the tenants are if they are rentals. This would assist in determining if there are particular links to public or private leaders, or any other patterns that would be cause for concern.

I would also urge your friends to contact their council person to discuss the situation with them.

Best of luck and let us know if you find anything out!

~Charyn

When the nuisance ordinance was originally proposed, I had expressed some reservations about the effectiveness. Part of the problem is what Bill pointed out

Of course part of the problem with this type of ordinance is that a loud group of people on a front porch or in a back yard could be seen as a "problem" by a neighbor.

When we lived on Nicholson we had some great times on our front porch. I could have been a nuisance without knowing it. (Yeah, I know, even now).

So, a large part of the enforcement problem is a lack of an objective measure of "nuisance"....Bill's loud front porch discussion? A once a year backyard birthday party....clearly not what the ordinance intended to target.
Part of the problem is putting the Lakewood Police in charge of determining if the behavior is question rises to the level of a pattern of activity that creates a violation of the nuisance ordinance. Or is it just a crotchety neighbor who doesn't want to hear picnic lawn games every weekend? Unless you got a crack house or after hours joint, the judgement is entirely subjective....
I certainly agree for the need to abate a nuisance....I just doubt that this ordinance will lead to that result.

Jeff