One bad thing about having a mayor who wants to be the next Cuyahoga County Auditor is that he does certain things more for political gain than for practical gain.

Whether it’s standing in front of a TV news camera proudly touting essentially meaningless crime stats in an effort to bolster the perception his administration has made the city safer, or by breathlessly press releasing some blip of improvement about the rate of storefront occupancies, it all carries the same undeniable scent of political horse feces.

Mayor Edward O. FitzGerald will soon ask city council to approve certain changes to the ordinance dealing with tall grass abatement that will, in theory, speed along the process and provide a greater wallop to the wallet of banks who neglect their foreclosed homes.

Not so fast

You can bet your sweet patootie most council members, heading into summer recess, will approve the proposal without really even knowing exactly what’s being changed and without giving critical thought to understanding how the current system is administered. The mayor is requesting final approval after just one reading because it’s primetime grass growing season.

The differences between the proposed ordinance and the revised ordinance are not bolded or highlighted in the docket released by the clerk of council. To add further confusion, the wording of the original ordinance as provided by the clerk differs from the original ordinance that appears online with the rest of Lakewood’s ordinances at ConwayGreene.

A step in the right direction

The mayor’s suggested alterations are a decent start. It essentially requires the city to issue only one notice of neglect per property each growing season. So, if the absentee landlord next to you permits his grass to grow over six inches, he’ll receive a correction notice. Then, a month later, if the grass gets too tall again, the city can chop down the grass without having to issue another warning.

The mayor also added a section targeting banks and other corporations by holding them criminally liable and subjecting them to a higher bracket of fines ($1,000 vs $100).

These are all positive steps, but aren’t nearly as hardcore as they ought to be. And instead of waiting until the middle of summer, this issue should have been handled many months ago. It’s sometimes hard to believe the current mayor spent almost 10 years as a city council member.

5-day delay

As was explained on this blog a couple of months ago, the city has one person on tall grass and litter detail. Most of her actions are complaint driven. She investigates complaints, sends a correction letter, and, if necessary, issues a citation and calls in the yard crew.

For some reason, she must wait five days after issuing a correction letter before a city mowing crew can be dispatched to bushwack the overgrowth. I cannot find a single rationale behind this in the existing or proposed ordinance. It only says that if an owner doesn’t cut the grass within 48 hours after notice has been issued, the city has the right to swoop in and straighten things out. So, the 5-day delay is something a city administrator must have invented, because it’s not a law.

Even the preamble to the mayor’s proposed ordinance reinforces this apparent falsehood:

“Whereas, currently the time between a property owner is put on notice of a violation of Chapter 1775 of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances and the time that the City is able to abate the condition under the current ordinance can exceed five (5) business days.”

Huh, where does it say that that? No where.

Time to get hardcore

Lakewood’s tall grass ordinance should be the fiercest one in the county. We have too many rental properties and foreclosure situations for it to be anything less.

The fines need to be adjusted upward significantly. $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, etc. isn’t much of a motivator. I’d like to see $500 for the first offense, $700 for the second offense and $1,000 for the third offense.

The city also needs to put more enforcement muscle on the street. How can a single person be expected to effectively handle tall grass issues for the entire city? Not possible.

I’d like to see someone rolling through one city ward per day, looking for violations. What’s this business about sitting back and waiting for complaints to roll in? Nonsense! This is Lakewood, not Cleveland.

The refuse and police departments — who have personnel in the streets every single day — should be charged with the responsibility of radioing in trouble spots. I don’t believe that’s happening right now — not based on thorough observations of Wards 1, 2 and 4.

Radical therapy

If someone gets hit with a citation, the city should erect a modest-sized sign for a 30-day period on the violator’s tree lawn announcing that the property has been cited for tall grass. The sign would invite anyone to contact city hall in the event the grass again begins to get out of control.

Any citizen who submits a complaint that results in a citation and fine should be awarded $100.

People who neglect their yards and allow their grass to grow over six inches need to be severely punished. There’s absolutely no room for that kind of behavior in Lakewood. The existing and proposed ordinances are lax and need to be significantly stricter.

Here’s the proposed revised ordinance (changes in bold):

1775.01 WEED OR TALL GRASS REMOVAL.

(a) The owner, occupant or person having the charge or management of any lot or parcel of land situated within the City, whether the same be improved or unimproved, vacant or occupied, within forty-eight hours of mailing of a written notice to do so, shall cut or destroy, or cause to be cut or destroyed, any noxious or poisonous weeds, including but not limited to Russian, Canadian or common thistle, all wild lettuce, wild mustard, wild parsley, ragweed, milkweed, chickweed, wild garlic, quack grass, dodders, wild carrot, common cockle, docks, chicory, tall grasses or other undesirable vegetation, growing upon such lot or parcel of land, and prevent the same from blooming or going to seed, or exceeding a height of six inches, or spreading pollen which may be harmful to human health or creating a fire hazard or refuge and breeding place for rodents and other vermin.

(b) The owner, occupant or person having the charge or management of any lot or parcel of land situated within the City, whether the same be improved or unimproved, vacant or occupied, within forty-eight hours of mailing of a written notice to do so, shall cut or destroy, or cause to be cut or destroyed, any limbs of trees, branches, shrubs, briars or vines that project over any sidewalk so as to interfere with or deprive pedestrians of the tree and full use of such sidewalk.

(c) If the owner, occupant or person having the charge or management of any lot or parcel of land does not cut or destroy, or cause to be cut or destroyed, noxious weeds, grasses, limbs, branches, bushes, shrubs, briars or vines as provided herein, the Mayor, Director of Public Safety, or his or her designee is authorized to cause to be cut or destroyed such noxious weeds or grasses.

(d) When any such noxious weeds, grasses, limbs, branches, bushes, shrubs, briars or vines are cut or destroyed by the City, as provided herein, then after such work is performed, the City shall give five days’ notice by regular mail to the owner, occupant or person having the charge or management of such lot or parcel of land, at his known address, to pay the cost of such cutting or destroying of noxious weeds or grasses, which notice shall be accompanied by a statement of the amount of cost incurred. If the same is not paid within thirty days after the mailing of the notice, such amount may be certified to the County Auditor for collection as other taxes and assessments are collected in accordance with Ohio R.C. 731.54, or the City may seek recovery of such costs by civil action against the property owner involved.

(e) If the violation of this section consists of uncut and growing grass and weeds, only one (1) notice to the property owner or other responsible party shall be necessary in any one calendar year and the Director of Public Safety may cause such nuisance to be abated or removed more than once in any calendar year as conditions may require.

(f) When it is deemed necessary to cut and destroy weeds or grasses on private property, in accordance with the provisions of this section, the owner shall be charged at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per hour or portion thereof, or the actual cost of such work, whichever is the larger. Actual costs shall include administration and supervision, transportation of equipment, equipment use, equipment operator, incidental labor, contractor charges, and any other costs and charges associated with mailing and/or publishing notices. The minimum charge therefor shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00). The minimum charge for each required cutting or destruction of weeds or grasses within any 12 month period shall be as follows:

First offense…….$100
Second offense…$200
Third offense……$300

1775.99 For Failure to Compy with a Notice or Neglect of Maintenance

(a) Whoever refuses, neglects or fails to comply with an order to cut or destroy weeds or grasses or to remove nuisance vetation or growths over sidewalks shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than five-hundred ($500). Each day such violation occurs or continues shall constitute a separate offense.

(b) Organizations shall be held criminally liable pursuant to Lakewood Codified Ordinance section 501.11 and be subject to the penalties outlined in Lakewood Codified Ordinance section 501.99(b).

Here’s a link to a story in the Chicago Tribune about tall grass problems some Chicago-area suburbs are having.

Food for thought
- It seems like in the rush to keep the Social Security office in Lakewood, the city is getting stuck with a building whose aesthetics don’t blend very well with the existing neighborhood.

- It’s unfortunate the city didn’t go the extra mile and keep the residents of Spring Garden and Roycroft in the loop about details of the building’s design. At one point during the meeting, residents were crowded around a drawing of the project. It was clear they hadn’t seen it beforehand. At minimum, the Ward 1 councilperson should have requested a copy of the drawings and shared them with his constituents earlier. It’s never good to see angry residents at a meeting like this.

-The city needs to put all of its Architectural Board of Review documents online. I’m sure if the material was more readily available, there would be much greater scrutiny of the design plans and a happier outcome for the neighborhood.

Quick notes from the 7/9 Board of Building Standards/Architectural Board of Review/Sign Review Board meeting

INA Building/Bailey Building (14701 Detroit Ave.)

- Panera Bread hopes to open in the INA Building around October.

- An agreement for an unnamed tenant to move into the Bailey building fell through. As a result, funding to remove the ugly pre-cast concrete from the brick exterior of the building is not available. The city is very unhappy about the situation because it was told the pre-cast was definitely coming down.

Proposed Social Security Building (17513 Detroit Ave.)

- This project is tricky because the federal government has a strict floor plan and building template that doesn’t allow for much divergence. Even though the original building and landscape design has been modified somewhat so that it better blends in with its surroundings, there remain several unhappy nearby neighbors and critics.

- Lakewood Christian Church, which is currently on the site, will be demolished because it could not be retrofitted to meet the federal government’s building standards, which includes a deeper setback from the street for security reasons. Three nearby houses will also be razed. Demolition will begin in 90 days.

- The new one story building, which will be leased to the government, will span the entire length of Detroit Rd. (176 feet) between Roycroft and Spring Garden.

- The building’s biggest flaws are that it will be built with its back to Detroit Ave and have only one entrance. Imagine if the Detroit Rd. Lakewood Library was flipped around so that the columned front entrance was in the rear parking lot and there was no entrance on Detroit.

- The one and only entrance will be on the south side of the building, in front of the 63 spot parking lot. The rear of the building (the part facing Detroit) will have a door, but it will be an exit only. There is an effort underway to improve the appearance of the rear door so that it has the aesthetics of a front door.

- One member of the Lakewood Heritage Advisory Board (LHAB), who was at the meeting for another issue, called the proposed metal rear door “an abomination” and “an insult.” Another LHAB member disagreed with the position of the building and said, “I think it’s the wrong way to go.”

Richard Sicha, West Clifton resident and LHAB member, was very displeased with the situation. “This looks like a bad joke,” he said. He called it “the most unfriendly pedestrian building in Lakewood.” He wondered if anyone had conducted a foot traffic study or taken into consideration the distance of nearby RTA bus stops. Sicha noted that many elderly and physically disabled people will be walking to the building and the lack of benches and protective coverings could be an impediment. “There has to be more work done,” he said.

- Lakewood resident Bob Clark, who owns a four unit building on Spring Garden, was concerned the parking lot’s night time lights would disturb his tenants. Project architect, John C. Waddell (who recused himself from the board responsible for judging the building’s design), said there would only be two light poles in the center of the parking lot. A board member asked that photometic measures be taken to determine if there will be a lighting problem.

- John Graham of 1434 Roycroft was seriously perturbed about the proposed close proximity between the building’s fence and his driveway. “I thoroughly object to that,” he said. “I find it totally unacceptable.” The board agreed his concern was legitimate. Graham was also worried about the inevitable increase in traffic on his street since it runs through to Madison Ave. A city representative said a sign would be posted in the parking lot discouraging traffic from traveling down side streets. Graham also noted that there is a terrible drainage situation in the street during heavy rainfall and worried this construction would only make it worse. The project developer said the problem would actually be remedied through construction.

Graham’s wife, Linda, was unhappy that the building’s dumpster was scheduled to be placed directly next to their house. “There’s no concern for us,” she said. The project developer said the dumpster could not be repositioned because it would come at the expense of a parking spot.

- Nearby resident Gretchen Hurley was concerned the parking lot would attract skateboarders, late night traffic and overflow parking from area bars. Hurley’s family owns one of the homes on Roycroft scheduled to be demolished. The project developer said the Social Security office closes at 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. at the latest, so there wouldn’t be any late night traffic to the building.

The Architectural Board of Review approved the building proposal with the stipulation that the project developer provide more details about photometrics, the design of the south side residential buffer and possible bench construction. The board also wanted to see some kind of landscaping concealment around a proposed super-sized AT&T lightspeed box scheduled to replace smaller existing boxes.

There was a point during the last Lakewood City Council meeting where Mayor Edward O. FitzGerald briefly made mention of a situation in which the city and the labor union representing refuse workers were discussing a solution to avoid potential layoffs due to the transition to automated front yard garbage collection.

The mayor’s comments came during Councilwoman Nickie Antonio’s (At-Large) panic and anxiety about the possibility of having Public Works Director Joseph Beno administer rules allowing leashed dogs into Lakewood’s parks.

At the time the mayor made his remarks, I thought I heard him say the city had reached an agreement with the union and the jobs were saved. The city’s law director later notified me that was incorrect. No agreement was reached. The union was going to vote on the matter July 1st.

Today Ann Tanner, staff representative of AFSCME Ohio Council 8, said Local 1043, which represents members of the city’s division of refuse and recycling, voted against accepting the concessions the city requested.

As a result, three refuse workers will be terminated today, and three more will get their walking papers tomorrow, July 3rd.

The rough outline of the proposed deal was this: If the union agreed to switch to a 90/10 healthcare plan, the city would stay the layoffs.

Tanner did not know what the final vote total was, but said the city’s offer was rejected because of concern over details of the plan, including the absence of a guarantee the refuse workers would have employment.

The city would have transferred the refuse workers to city jobs funded by a source other than the general fund — the pot of money where most of the city’s workers are paid from. The union was concerned that there was no guarantee the mayor would actually post the six jobs, and that even if they were posted, the six refuse workers might not have the qualifications to be hired into the slots.

Each of the city’s seven collective bargaining agreements will be up for renegotiation at the end of 2009.

The Plain Dealer posted a story about the latest Cleveland-area population statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau. The numbers can be sliced, diced and explained a half-dozen different ways.

Bottom line — and this is no great surprise — Lakewood is on course to drop below 50,000, which will make it harder to access certain federal funds reserved for cities 50K and larger. You can bet city officials will be scurrying around trying pump up the population numbers for the next official federal census in 2010.

2000 56,647
2001 55,812
2002 55,072
2003 54,277
2004 53,639
2005 52,835
2006 51,919
2007 51,255
2008 50,704

Change 2000-08 - 5,943
Percent change -10.5%
U.S. rank (size) 685