In this day and age, racism is one of the ugliest accusations that one person can make against another person. It is, therefore, particularly distressing to read the details of the dispute between the City of Lakewood and Hidden Village, LLC, the owner of the Clifton Blvd. apartment complex that houses a youth re-entry program.

The primary events at the core of the lawsuit occurred almost five years ago, but they remain relevant for a couple reasons.

First, the youth re-entry program is still operating at Hidden Village and its members continue to run afoul of the law. A 19-year-old male, for instance, was arrested and convicted of disorderly conduct after a January 4th incident. The same male was charged with inducing panic on January 10th after program personnel spotted him with a handgun and called police. Current and former Lakewood officials maintain that while the program is a worthy endeavor, it is not located in an area especially conducive to its mission.

Second, although many of the people involved in the matter are no longer employed by the city, it is worth examining the city’s response to the conflict and consider how to best deal with similar situations in the future. The recent Mental Health Services zoning dispute on Bonnieview Ave., for example, shares more than a few commonalities with the Hidden Village case.

In addition, some of the events described in the lawsuit were the basis of a 2008 racial discrimination investigation of the city conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. The city turned over 5,000 pages of documents to the federal government in the course of the process, but no charges were filed.

The lawsuit’s accusations

The lawsuit was originally filed against the city in federal court on December 1, 2008. The plaintiff then withdrew it on July 31, 2009 in order to conduct more research.

Hidden Village, LLC, re-filed the suit on April 23, 2010 against the City of Lakewood, former Mayor Thomas George, retired Building Commissioner Charles Barrett, and retired New Lakewood Project Administrator Edward E. Fitzgerald (not to be confused with the former mayor of the same name who succeeded George).

Police Chief Timothy Malley, Sergeant Edward Favre, and recently retired Fire Chief Lawrence Mroz were named as defendants at various times, but have been removed from the complaint.

Hidden Village, LLC, owner of the Hidden Village apartment complex located at 11849 Clifton Blvd., accuses the city of subjecting its African-American residents to “a pattern and practice of government intimidation and coercion based on race” with the intent to “diminish, interfere with and/or otherwise make unavailable equal housing opportunities on account of race.” (see complaint .PDF)

Among other things, the plaintiff also accuses the city of unlawfully taking actions “designed to result in the loss of the income and frustrate its business.” Hidden Village initially alleged the city had interfered with its contractual relations with the youth re-entry program, but retracted the claim.

Hidden Village uses strong, sometimes sensational, language in its legal complaint to describe certain events that they believe support their claims. The city has thus far denied all wrongdoing.

City asks to have lawsuit thrown out of court

On December 10, 2010, the city asked the judge for a summary judgment and dismissal of the case (see .PDF). Hidden Village responded with a brief in opposition on December 27, 2010 (see .PDF). Then on January 3rd, the city filed an item clarifying some information it felt Hidden Village misconstrued (see. PDF.). Taken together, these documents provide a good overview of each side’s perspective of the case.

Newly appointed United States District Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson hasn’t ruled yet on the city’s request to dismiss the case. The discovery phase of the case is scheduled to be complete by February 14th. The pretrial conference will be held on February 17th, and a jury trial is assigned for February 21st.

A background on the conflict

The depositions of many of the key players were filed and made public last month. The testimony adds some color and depth to the key events of the story, but is by no means comprehensive.

There are a lot of facets to this situation, probably enough to fill a book. What follows is a sketch of the story based on the information contained within publicly available depositions and e-mails.

For the purposes of simplicity and clarity, the three main groups at play in this conflict are the City of Lakewood, Hidden Village, LLC, and the Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry’s youth re-entry program.

At their core, they are each well-intentioned groups, but in hindsight it is easy to find fault in their actions in terms of leadership and communication.

Two guys who wanted to protect their investment in Lakewood

Pepper Pike lawyer Gary Lieberman has had an ownership stake in Lakewood apartment buildings since 1986. At one time, he owned The Shorehouse on Edgewater Dr. and The Clifford on Lake Ave. as well as three buildings on Clifton Blvd, including The Cynwyd, The Sheffield, and The Drake.

Lieberman’s real estate partner is Michael Priore, who operates the Euclid-based real estate management company Windsor Realty & Management, and oversees their Lakewood assets.

The Drake was one of their best performing properties, but they found it was losing good tenants because of a trouble-making next-door neighbor.

Lakewood Gardens, as it was then known, was owned and operated by the Ohio Diesel Technical Institute. The four apartment building complex served as a dormitory for its students, and had the kind of atmosphere where a rooftop couch and beer can-clogged gutters were not out of place. By most accounts, it was party central.

Lieberman and Priore purchased Lakewood Gardens in 2001 for $1.4 million in order to protect their investment in The Drake. They renamed it Hidden Village, gradually removed the diesel school students, and made $1 million in extensive renovations to the property. There were 97 units in total; all but 12 of them were efficiencies.

Demand was tepid when the refurbished units went on the market in 2003. One city building official thought it would have been wiser to convert the efficiencies into single or two-bedroom apartments. Hidden Village struggled to find the right price point. When $400 per month leases didn’t draw enough interest, they lowered the price to $375, but Lieberman recounted, “the quality of the applicant was very low and unacceptable.” They boosted the price to $425 and found better success, but still had a high vacancy rate.

A group who believed their program would flourish in Lakewood

The Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry (LMM) is a church-related social services organization funded by two local Lutheran church groups. One of its programs focuses on transitioning young adults between the ages of 16 to 21 into an independent lifestyle. This includes providing life skills training and temporary housing.

The program was composed of two distinct groups: children who were on the verge of aging out of the Cuyahoga County foster care system and kids who were released from Ohio Department of Youth Services facilities – basically prison for juvenile felons. Members could be in the program for as little as one month, or as long as a year and a half.

After operating the program for six years out of a building located in Cleveland, near the intersection of E. 100th St. and Cedar Ave., LMM decided it was time for a change. They wanted to relocate to a safer neighborhood and a larger facility, one capable of offering private residences for each program member, who had been living two and three to a room.

Marilyn Watts, the leasing agent at Hidden Village, was visiting an affiliated property in Cleveland and had a chance encounter in late 2005 with a youth re-entry case manager who was in process of helping his client sign a lease. Watts learned about the program, and, more significantly, got a hot sales lead. She thought Hidden Village would be a great fit for the youth re-entry program.

The city raises its first red flags

The city first caught wind of LMM’s interest in Hidden Village in January 2006 when Reverend Mark Brauer, LMM’s director of youth programming, reached out to an acquaintance, Mary Hall, assistant director of the city’s Division of Youth. He wanted to meet with Lakewood city officials to explain the program.

Hall forwarded the request to her boss Dorothy Buckon, director of human services, who began to arrange the event. In preparation for the meeting, Buckon distributed an informational pamphlet describing the youth re-entry program. It raised the first red flags with some city hall officials that there could be problem.

Sergeant Edward Favre, who was in the first month of a special assignment designed to assist the mayor with the inter-departmental coordination of housing and nuisance-related issues identified by the Grow Lakewood report, was concerned with what he saw.

Building Commissioner Charles Barrett testified Favre told him that he was concerned that some of program’s juveniles had criminal backgrounds. Barrett said Favre also mentioned that, “There are some blacks in the program.” Favre denies making the comment.

On February 14th, 2006, several members from LMM and Hidden Village met with city representatives in the mayor’s conference room on the second floor of Lakewood City Hall. Absent from the meeting were Mayor Thomas George and Police Chief Tim Malley, who spent the first three months of the year at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

It was not a long or happy meeting. Hidden Village co-owner Michael Priore expected a small gathering. He walked into the room, and saw 15 to 20 city officials. “I was absolutely shocked,” he recounted.

After Rev. Brauer explained the program, Sgt. Favre shared his concern that the neighborhood had a high concentration of crime and registered sex offenders and was ill-suited for what LMM envisioned.

Commissioner Barrett presented another issue. He said the youth re-entry program would not be in compliance with the city’s zoning code for that section of Clifton Blvd. Assistant Law Director Tom Corrigan suggested the program consider instead a commercial area on Madison Ave. or Detroit Ave, where the zoning codes allowed for a wider variety of uses. One site in particular, Sgt. Favre remembered, was the apartment building on Detroit Ave., across the street from St. Edward High School.

Youth re-entry programs moves to Lakewood over city’s objections

Rev. Brauer described the meeting as being civil in nature. “But the tone definitely from Mr. Favre and Mr. Barrett, in my impression were one of, we don’t want you to come here,” he recalled in his testimony.

A month later, Rev. Brauer e-mailed Ward 4 Councilperson Mary Louise Madigan an update on the situation. “We will likely make the move,” he wrote.

Brauer said LMM’s lawyer had discussions with the city’s law and building departments about the zoning issue and found their position “untenable.” Brauer wanted to have another meeting with Director Buckon to begin the process of establishing relationships with the city.

On April 13th, the Thursday before Easter, LMM took possession of 25 units at Hidden Village. They paid $400 per month per efficiency, and would eventually completely occupy two entire buildings, 40 units in all.

The move prompted Mayor George to send a message to his staff warning them of the situation. “As no member of the Lutheran Metro Ministry has been in contact with me regarding this issue, so let me be clear as to the Administration’s policy,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Zoning laws in this city will be strictly and uniformly enforced. Attempts to circumvent or ignore such laws will not be tolerated.”

He concluded the e-mail with a bluntly worded declaration: “As the proposed location of the Lutheran Metro Ministry facility is not located in the properly zoned area, nor is it an existing Lakewood establishment looking to expand, the Administration opposes the 11849 Clifton location.”

City cites Hidden Village for zoning violation due to re-entry program

Sgt. Favre, Commissioner Barrett and building department administrator Fitzgerald visited the Hidden Village complex the following week. In an e-mail to Assistant Law Director Corrigan, Favre described the location and number of units the youth re-entry program occupied. He told of an encounter with the program’s office manager. She was under the impression that “the attorneys” had worked the situation out. She asked if they had a search warrant and then refused to answer any other questions.

After additional conversations between the city’s law department and LMM’s legal representatives proved to be unsuccessful, Commissioner Barrett issued a zoning code violation notice to Hidden Village management. In it, he referenced the February meeting at which he warned them that the program was not appropriate for the property. Barrett called LMM’s action “disappointing,” and ordered Hidden Village to remove them from the property.

Lakewood Planning Commission overrules building commissioner

Hidden Village appealed the notice. There case was transferred from the Lakewood Board of Zoning Appeals to the Lakewood Planning Commission.

Just prior to the Commission’s July 5, 2006 meeting, signs were anonymously posted and distributed around the Clifton Blvd. neighborhood near Hidden Village. They announced the meeting date, warned residents of the youth re-entry program – that convicted felons were living in their backyard – and suggested citizens could keep the neighborhood safe by attending the planning commission meeting.

The signs had their desired effect in one sense; the meeting room was packed with people. However, the Commission ruled unanimously that the presence of the youth re-entry program at Hidden Village did not constitute a violation of the zoning code. It could stay.

The Planning Commission’s decision ended the conflict between the city, Hidden Village, and the Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry, but not for long.

Neighborhood crime problems linked to re-entry program emerge

New tensions formed within a matter of months due the misbehavior of certain young men and women in the re-entry program. Where city administrators saw a crime problem that needed to addressed, Hidden Village and members of LMM’s program saw racism and police harassment.

Outside of a curfew violation, the first five months of the youth re-entry program’s stay in Lakewood was crime free. But then the problems began. 30 program members were arrested or cited between September 8, 2006 and February 11, 2008 for crimes ranging from jaywalking to aggravated robbery with a gun.

Mayor George e-mailed Assistant Law Director Tom Corrigan on September 11, 2006, and asked him to contact Mike Sapell, the owner of Sapell’s Bi-Rite on W. 117th St, in regard to problems he was having with LMM program members. Three of them, none of whom was of drinking age, were caught shoplifting alcohol on two separate incidents on the same day.

George wrote in is e-mail: “As you are aware, many of us had real concerns about the Lutheran Ministries program coming to Hidden Village. And despite these concerns, the Planning Commission approved their move. At the time of the approval, I questioned whether we could bring the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review. Is that possibility? Regardless, I feel it is very important to document this program the programs this problem is having for future reference.”

Ward 4 Councilperson Madigan tries to improve program’s image

In response to a couple of neighborhood complaints about the youth re-entry program, Councilperson Madigan organized an October 11, 2006 meeting at Hidden Village to try and clear the air. It was part of her ongoing effort to help the program change its negative perception among some members in the community.

She invited Police Chief Timothy Malley, but he sent narcotics detective Lieutenant Anthony Ciresi in his stead. Also present were Sgt. Favre, Director Buckon, Rev. Mark Brauer, LMM’s director of youth programming, and Kandi Withers, LMM’s re-entry program director.

There was some discussion at the gathering about how the city and LMM could forge a strong working relationship, but it was overshadowed by crime-related accusations against the youth re-entry program.

Rev. Brauer recollected that Favre objected to program members using the railroad tracks as a shortcut. Brauer agreed to address the concern.

Sgt. Favre recalled in his deposition that a custodian from a nearby building who was at the meeting complained that he saw program members crawling in and out of their windows dealing drugs. The custodian, a recovering addict, said he was familiar with the signs of drug activity.

Kandi Withers remembered that the police presented a log of crime statistics directly related to residents at the Hidden Village apartment complex and claimed that her program’s members were responsible for a crime wave.

Withers, who is African-American, said Sgt. Favre asked her at one point, “Do you know what it’s like to live in a suburb?” Favre has denied making the remark.

Lt. Ciresi, according to Withers, said he observed program members use the car belonging to the youth re-entry program’s office manager to conduct drug transactions at Wendy’s on W. 117th St. The office manager later denied the claim.

Lakewood police take aggressive approach toward Hidden Village crime

After the meeting, Withers began a log to track the number of police visits to the program and also posted a notice on the interior doors at the youth re-entry program that read:

“Lakewood Police will be arresting anyone walking on any railroad track in the city of Lakewood. If you usually use the tracks to get to your destination, you must use a safer, alternate route.

Lakewood Police have also made it very clear that they are going to be watching our program very closely and clients may be subject to a search at any time. Please make sure that you always present yourself in an appropriate manner and avoid any unnecessary harassment!!! Also, if you are approached by the police, be cooperative.”

Lt. Ciresi wrote a police departmental memo immediately after the meeting to emphasize the need for patrol officers and dispatchers to detail and document any contact with youth re-entry program members. The purpose of the communication was to help create a clear distinction between the trouble caused by LMM program members, and the trouble caused by others unrelated to the program.

Near the bottom of his memo, Ciresi directed patrol officers to take off the kid gloves: “Citations and arrests are the preferred course of action for any violations encountered on or off site, in the vicinity of 11849 Clifton, particularly Williamson and Hird Ave.”

The next day Captain Edward Hassing issued a similar memorandum to police shift commanders. He wrote: “Over the past year the activity in and around 11849 Clifton has doubled. Reviewing the details we cannot pinpoint if the opening of the Youth Re-entry program is a definite cause. In order for us to use the nuisance ordinance and to determine if the program participants are contributing to the increase in activity we need documentation, including specific names and addresses.”

The rank and file, according to Police Chief Malley’s deposition, did not properly follow Ciresi and Hassing’s requests and their order had to be repeated three months later because the data collected lacked detail.

Sgt. Favre agitated by Madigan and social services grant

Aggravation in the mayor’s office surfaced with Director Buckon’s participation in Councilperson Madigan’s meeting. In an e-mail from Mayor George to Buckon the day after the event, he said he was “surprised” to learn she took part in the meeting and reminded her that Sgt. Favre was the administration’s point person in the matter.

Favre forwarded the e-mail, which he was copied on, to Lt. Ciresi and commented, “This is a reflection of how ticked off he was at having Mary Hall and Youth Services help change the ‘perception.’”

About a month later, Councilperson Madigan tried to set-up another meeting with Director Buckon to discuss how to help the youth re-entry program’s transition at Hidden Village.

Director Buckon referred the request to Sgt. Favre, who didn’t understand what Madigan was doing. Mayor George sent an e-mail to Favre clarifying the councilperson’s intent, and added his two cents to the discussion. “As far as I’m concerned, Hidden Village is on probation,” he wrote, “And unless major changes occur in their operation, their future in Lakewood is dim.”

Favre replied: “All [Mary Louise] wants to do is make nice and keep them here. I’m not interested in being a part of that and would prefer not be involved in any such meeting.”

The source of his frustration, he explained at his deposition, was that the left-hand didn’t know what the right-hand was doing. Favre said that although he got along well with Madigan, “simple issues tend to become very complicated” with her involvement.

Favre was also irked that the city was providing social services to some of the youth re-entry program members as the result of a grant it received in late 2006. He felt it was one of the reasons LMM chose to locate in Lakewood. He even reviewed a copy of the grant to see if the program had violated any of its terms.

Mayor George orders re-entry program out of Lakewood

From late 2006 to early 2007, the city administration grew increasingly unhappy with the amount of crime it believed was attributable to the LMM program at Hidden Village. Discussions were held to examine ways the program could be removed from Hidden Village.

On February 28, 2007, frustrated by continuing crime problems and a lack of communication between the city and Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry, Mayor George fired off a testy three-page letter to Jan Roller, president of LMM.

He outlined the situation’s unsatisfactory history, and served notice that he was going to “seek to have the program removed from Lakewood at the earliest possible time.”

Mayor George later explained that while he did sign the document, he didn’t write it or read it in its entirety. More than anything, he said, the letter was a saber-rattling effort intended to get LMM’s attention.

The letter — described by Police Chief Timothy Malley at his deposition as “ridiculous” and “unenforceable” — had its desired effect. LMM representatives met with city officials on May 16, 2007.

The message from the city at the meeting was essentially this: Members of your youth re-entry are causing a lot of crime. We’re very unhappy about the situation. Have you considered moving elsewhere?

LMM disputed the claim that their program was responsible for increased crime levels, and had no interest in relocating.

“And I know it ended up being very disturbing from our point of view,” Rev. Brauer, recalled about the meeting. “It had something to do with the police and there was kind of a blaming this victim sort of mentality that occurred that I recall. It was very upsetting to me and to Director [Carol] Fredrich.”

Mayor George and Sgt. Favre make clear in their depositions that their intent, despite what was written or said to the contrary, was to relocate the program elsewhere within the city, not to have it leave altogether.

City conducts unannounced, unplanned inspection of Hidden Village

Six days later, the city conducted a joint departmental inspection in response to criminal activity and resident complaints at the Lakewood Club apartments, a troubled complex located across the railroad tracks and directly south of Hidden Village.

After the inspection was completed, the team gathered in the parking lot and someone, possibly Sgt. Favre – no one recalls for certain, suggested they visit Hidden Village.

The group agreed to go to 11849 Clifton Blvd. and directly to the two buildings at rear of the property occupied by youth re-entry program. Recollections of the exact reason behind the unannounced inspection are varied and somewhat vague. It was a completely spontaneous event that not even the mayor or police chief knew about until after the fact.

Kandi Withers, LMM’s re-entry program director, said the crew from the city was initially “rude” and unwilling to explain why they were there unannounced. While the inspection was underway, Withers and her staff members placed several phone calls to Hidden Village and LMM management. They advised her to comply with the city’s requests.

Accounts of the incident differ, but surveillance video of the event shows a contingent of city personnel from the police, fire, building, and health departments walking through the halls of Hidden Village accompanied by LMM representatives. Staff members are seen knocking on the doors of program members before entering with city inspectors. Her presence is not noted in any of the depositions, but it looks as if LMM President and Director Carol Fredrich was present during the proceedings. (Additional video clips of the inspection can be seen here.)

Considering the circumstances of the surprise visit – it was less than a week after the meeting where the city complained to LMM about problems with their youth re-entry program – the mood captured in the video is calm and business-like.

The inspection covered both buildings occupied by the program, and a portion of another building in the complex. Inspectors did not observe any major violations.

Sgt. Favre noticed one LMM unit with an odd rectangular hole cut into the ceiling said to be due to a leaky roof. Fire Marshal Gilman saw several smoke detectors that were disabled. He would return to the property weeks later with a state fire marshal to try and determine if the Hidden Village buildings occupied by LMM had proper fire protection in relation to their use.

The spur-of-the-moment joint departmental inspection irritated the owners of Hidden Village. From their perspective, the apartment buildings had undergone recent extensive renovations and didn’t warrant such attention. They saw the city’s actions as another form harassment in an effort to drive away the LMM program. They had also heard anecdotal evidence trickle in that the police were harassing their LMM tenants based on race.  The owners sent a sternly worded letter to the city advising it not come onto the property unless it was an emergency.

Tension dialed down with Fitz administration, but problems remain

In August 2007, Sgt. Favre prepared a draft letter charging Hidden Village and the LMM youth re-entry program with violating the city’s nuisance laws. It was never sent.

Sgt. Favre assignment in the mayor’s office ended in December 2007, after Mayor George lost his re-election bid to then-Councilperson Edward O. FitzGerald.

The change in mayoral administrations improved relations between the city and LMM. Mayor FitzGerald, according to testimony provided in the depositions of LMM employees, was less prosecutorial. He visited the program, held several meetings with them at city hall, including one to introduce ward police officer Michael Fritsch.

Crime problems with LMM residents, however, have continued unabated. “The arrests of Youth Re-entry participants has risen obviously since the program started,” Police Chief Malley said in his November 2010 deposition. “But each year we’ve had more arrests.” Oddly, Malley noted that he could not recall having a discussion  specifically about Hidden Village with Fitzgerald at any point in 2010.

Depositions

Depositions were taken in November and December of 2010. Attorney Richard Haber represented Hidden Village. Attorney James Climer represented the City of Lakewood. The conversation mostly revolved around the Hidden Village situation, but sometimes touched other areas of curiosity.

City of Lakewood

Thomas George: Former Mayor

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Edward Favre: Police Sergeant, assigned to mayor’s office.

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Timothy Malley: Police Chief

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Charles Barrett: Former Building Commissioner

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Edward E. Fitzgerald: Former New Lakewood Project Administrator

• Deposition (.PDF)

Scott Gilman: Fire Marshal

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Dorothy Buckon: Director of Human Services

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Emma Petrie Barcelona: Development Officer

• Deposition (.PDF)

Hidden Village, LLC

Gary Lieberman: Co-owner

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Michael Priore: Co-owner

• Deposition (.PDF)

Marilyn Watts: Former Leasing Manager

• Deposition (.PDF)

Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry

Reverend Mark Brauer: Director of Youth Programming

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Kandi Withers: Youth Re-entry Program Director

• Deposition (.PDF) | Excerpt

Wanda Jacobs: Program Office Manager

• Excerpt

Arguably the city’s most visible symbol of decay and neglect, the boarded-up and abandoned apartment building at 1468 W. 117th St., will be razed within the next 48 hours, according to a city official who confirmed that the process would begin Wednesday.

The property has been fenced off and prepared for the demolition team. Depending upon the site conditions, efforts to topple the large brick structure may be delayed until Thursday.

An 80-year-old Pepper Pike man owned the Highland Manor apartment building for more than 20 years, before losing it through foreclosure in the summer of 2009. His lender left the building in limbo by not moving it to sheriff’s auction, or taking possession of the deed. It has been generally vacant since November 2008, according to this police report from the same year.

It will be the second apartment building and fourth structure demolished on W. 117th St. in the past year. The city acquired through sheriff’s auction and tore down another brick apartment building in August 2010. Berea-based Self Service Mini Storage knocked down two residential houses it owned a couple of months ago. All of the parcels remain vacant.

The demise of the Highland Manor building marks the end of a long process the city began in mid-May 2009 after the Board of Building Standards declared the property to be an unsafe structure in need of either repair or demolition.

Four other properties earned the same designation from the city that month. Here’s a quick recap of their outcomes:

2107 Robin St.: Demolished

This four-unit house in Birdtown went into foreclosure and was turned over to the city by the lender. It sat next to an empty corner lot and was demolished around April 2010 (see below).

14124 Detroit Ave.: Repaired

The Ruth apartment building, located just to the west of Giant Eagle, was purchased out of foreclosure by a company that rehabbed it. County auditor records indicate, though, that almost $7,000 in property taxes due in 2010 from the 2009 tax year have not been paid.

13736 Madison Ave.: Demolished

North Ridgeville resident Tracy Brown bought the building in 2003 as an investment property. He started interior renovations, and then ran out of money. The lender turned it over to the city. It was demolished October 2, 2010 (see below).

2101 Dowd Ave: Repaired

Birdtown homeowner Joe Falat and the city’s building department had a long-running conflict over housing violations. After some legal wrangling, Falat agreed to convert the 4-unit building to a 2-unit house. Repair progress on the house is still underway. Falat’s name popped up on the housing court docket last week. It wasn’t clear if the situation was associated with the Dowd. Ave. property.

Speaking of demolitions…

Parking is at a premium in many areas of Lakewood. St. Peter’s Episcopal Church at 18001 Detroit Ave. solved their parking problems by acquiring the house at 1425 W. Clifton Blvd. (above) and knocking it down. The demolition took place in the fall of 2010.

Misencik Funeral Home at 12500 Madison Ave. is also pressed for parking. It purchased a long, narrow strip of pavement (seen next to the house at 1645 Lakewood Ave. in the photo above) from the city in October 2010 for $8,000 (see appraisal). The owners of Misencik also own the house, and plan to demolish it to expand their parking lot. The vacant house has been targeted by burglars.

Concern among a majority of Lakewood City Council members that the mayor’s annual $75,653 salary is inadequate to attract quality candidates for the position, and is not commensurate with the role’s responsibilities could lead them to approve a significant increase for the position.

The City Council met in committee for nearly two hours Monday evening and held preliminary discussions on a proposed ordinance that would lift the annual compensation paid to the city’s elected officials based on recommendations made by the Lakewood Civil Service Commission.

The ordinance introduced by Ward 1 Councilperson Kevin Butler would raise the mayor’s yearly salary to $100,000. It would also bump councilmember’s salaries from $7,000 to $11,000, plus an optional health care benefit package of no more than $3,300.

A compromise version of the ordinance could be passed soon. The proposed ordinance has already had two readings. Three readings are usually required before a vote is taken. If approved, it would not take effect for the city’s current group of elected officers until after they’ve stood for re-election.

Ex-mayor was unhappy with his wage level

It is worth noting that former Mayor Edward O. FitzGerald publicly expressed disdain with the amount of his annual salary.

At his final regularly scheduled city council meeting as the city’s mayor, FitzGerald said he “was never gonna run for another term” because the compensation did not suit his lifestyle. With three kids enrolled in private high school and another kid on the way to college, he planned on finding a job that paid more. “It is not a competitive salary,” he said.

Fitzgerald said he tried practicing law on the side early in his term, but stopped because it wasn’t working out. He pointed out that the city’s previous mayors were able to get by on their respective salaries due to different circumstances. Former Mayor George had a full county pension. “He was double dipping,” FitzGerald said. Former Mayor Cain didn’t have any dependents, and Former Mayor Harbarger had a law practice.

2007 effort to raise mayoral pay unsuccessful; Butler open to compromise

At Monday’s meeting, Councilperson Butler outlined some of the history regarding efforts to address the salary situation. The council’s salary hasn’t been adjusted since 1978. Except for almost yearly cost of living increases since 2005, the mayor’s base salary hasn’t changed since 1991.

An effort in 2007 to change the mayor’s $65,000 salary to $75,000 was approved by the council, but was vetoed by then Mayor Thomas George. The council could not muster the votes necessary to override the veto. Butler, who introduced that ordinance, noted the original proposal was for a salary of $100,000.

Butler said he was “not adverse” to compromise, and offered a few suggestions. One idea, he explained, would be to stagger the salary increases over a period of years. Another scenario would be to forgo council raises and instead give the mayor a raise. A third approach would be to adjust the council’s salary depending on whether or not they draw health care benefits from the city. “One or two” current council member takes advantage of the city’s health care offering, according to Butler. Individual benefits are valued at $5,500. Family benefits are valued $14,000. “Those figures cannot be overlooked,” he said.

Regardless of the potential for an extended economic recession, Butler felt “now is as good a time as any” to raise the salaries. “I think we’re in a good position to do it,” he said.

Summers: Spread mayoral salary increase over five-year period

Interim Mayor Michael Summers, drawing on his extensive experience in private industry, said one line of thought to use in determining the mayor’s salary would be to answer the questions: ‘What’s the job worth to the city and how much can it afford to pay?’ and ‘What’s the market rate for the position?’

He estimated the city would have to pay between $130,000 to $150,000 to hire a city manager if it had that form of government.

“It’s a big job,” Summers, who is less than two weeks into his abbreviated term, said of the mayorship. He described his dual role as public safety director as “infinitely complex.”

Sensitive to the sentiment of those who believe now is not the right time to authorize a pay raise, Summers suggested to the council that they spread the mayoral increase over several years. “I would ask you to do this in two jumps,” he said, with a $12,000 raise in 2012 and a $13,000 bump in 2016. Even with the adjustments, Summers observed, the mayor still wouldn’t be the highest paid city employee.

Ward 2 Councilperson Thomas Bullock asked Summers if the city would need to lay-off employees in the event the state reduces its funding to the city. “I don’t know,” he replied. “That would be the very last resort.”

Summers said Governor John Kasich’s economic blueprint was “not a kind subject for local governments.” The Kasich administration believes local governments are in a better position than the state to cut expenses and raise revenue.

State funding makes up about 3% of Lakewood’s general fund, according to Summers. By comparison, he noted, it equals 11% of Rocky River’s general fund. In the worst-case scenario, the city would lose half – $1 million – of its anticipated funding amount beginning in July. Summers said the city would need to find a way to make-up half of that difference in 2011, and the other half in 2012, possibly by keeping certain jobs vacant.

General consensus is to raise mayor’s wage, less certainty about council’s salary

The content of the council’s preliminary discussion on this ordinance suggests there is enough support to increase the mayor’s salary in some form. The result of the conversation about raising the council’s salaries was less certain.

Councilperson Kevin Butler (Ward 1) believes the stars have aligned in terms of the city’s current financial status and the timing of the upcoming city elections, and is firm in his desire to push the ordinance through. There is a “will power among us that pervious councils didn’t have,” he said, and expressed concern future iterations of the council might back away from the issue of salary increases.

Powers: ‘Happy’ if council wasn’t paid anything at all

At-Large Councilperson Brian Powers, who at the council meeting last week said he hadn’t made up his mind, strongly favored a mayoral raise, but was less interested in improving the council’s wages. “I will not be a grandstanding ‘no’ vote,” he said.

Powers felt the mayoral pay level ought to be raised in order to attract experienced leaders, especially considering the position’s advanced responsibilities. He said the city had nearly been “run into the ground” by “a mayor who didn’t understand the finances.”

He pointed to the “unusual circumstances” that allowed the previous generation of Lakewood mayors to subsist on their salary. He referred to one, Thomas George, as a “double-dipper,” and another, Madeline Cain as a “former nun.” FitzGerald, Powers reminded everyone, never intended to spend more than a single term as the city’s chief executive because “he can’t afford to be mayor of this town.”

“I really think we need to act,” he said, but added that the increase should be done incrementally for budgetary reasons.

Powers was far less interested in increasing the council’s compensation. “It don’t see as much as an imperative there,” he said. “I don’t view this as a job. It’s public service.” He added: “Frankly, I’d be happy if council wasn’t paid anything at all.”

Smith: Based on demands of job, council deserves more compensation

First-term Councilperson Monique Smith (At-Large) said she hasn’t made a final decision on the ordinance, but agreed with Powers regarding the need to attract quality executive-level talent to the mayor’s office.

Smith told of her experiences trying to balance the time demands of being a councilperson with her other responsibilities. She said some council members work very long days, and occasionally skip meals because they’re so busy. “Kevin [Butler] puts in a lot of insane hours,” she said. “I’m stunned.”

Smith also mentioned the financial burdens of running for office, and how the council salary offers a degree of reimbursement. She viewed the salary compensation as somewhat of a “reward” for the council household that endures the not-so-fun aspects of the job, like when unannounced strangers knock on the door and want to help with their problems. Smith intimated that a healthier salary would be a valuable asset in retaining council people for the long haul.

Madigan: Higher salaries don’t draw better qualified council candidates

Ward 4 Councilperson Mary Louise Madigan requested some additional information about certain aspects of the proposed ordinance, but generally supported a staggered salary increase for the mayor. “We do need to address the mayor’s salary,” she said. “We have to do it now.”

She didn’t believe higher wages would attract more qualified council candidates to public service. “The incentive is not financial,” she said. “I’ve never known anyone who serves for the money.”

Madigan was concerned about the difference in compensation between those council members who draw medical benefits from the city versus those who don’t. “That’s a huge benefit,” she said. Madigan appeared to be hinting that council members who don’t receive city health care benefits ought to have the ability receive additional money. Full-time city employees who forgo city-sponsored health care coverage are paid $60 per month.

New guys don’t rock the boat

New council appointees Ryan Nowlin (At-Large) and Shawn Juris (Ward 3) both expressed support for salary increases for the mayor and the council.

Councilperson Juris said he took into consideration the mayor’s job description, and what other city’s pay their elected officials. “$100,000 seems fair,” he said. Juris said someone explained to him that the council’s salary would be would be $25,000 if they’d received regular cost of living increase since the 1970s.

Councilperson Nowlin said increasing the mayor’s salary “makes a lot of sense to me.” He felt it is important to make the position attractive to talented candidates, especially those with the skills to be successful in the current economic climate. Nowlin called the decades of inaction on council pay raises “crazy,” and suggested a higher wage could increase the caliber of those serving on the council.

Bullock: ‘Is it the most important thing to do right now?’

Ward 2 Councilperson Thomas Bullock’s concern about the city’s financial health over the next couple of years made him reluctant to embrace the idea of handing out pay raises.

In addition to asking Mayor Summers about the possibility of layoffs in the event of state funding cuts, he wondered how approving the ordinance would affect the city’s collective bargaining negotiations. Law Director Nora Hurley said the bulk of the union contracts have already been squared away.

Bullock inquired about the method used to set the salaries of department directors, most of whom earn more than the mayor. “I would submit those are based on market conditions,” Summers said. Bullock replied that the stability and benefits of a municipal job are a premium value unto themselves. “It is a new day, no question about it,” Summers said.

Bullock received health care benefits from the city for the first six months of 2008, but dropped them when the city began laying off workers. He said it was “patently unfair” that health care benefits are available to part-time city council members, but not to other part-time city workers. Law Director Hurley added that benefits are available to certain part-time members of staff in her department, but no one has utilized them since 2009.

Bullock said it would be “difficult” to support salary increases with the likelihood that a decrease in funding from the state later this year will force the city to cut expenses. About passing the ordinance, Bullock wondered: “Is it the most important thing to do right now?”

Public comment: Put salary increases on the ballot

Ward 3 resident Jennifer Overstreet expressed her support for the ordinance. She also referenced the results of a study that dealt with the link between level of compensation and worker satisfaction.

Arthur Ave. resident Woody Calleri suggested that the council put the issue on the ballot and let the voters decide what to do. Councilperson Madigan, who presided over the meeting after Councilperson Butler left due to a family emergency, didn’t seem to care for the idea.

She suggested residents could gather signatures and put it on the ballot themselves. Calleri said it would require1,600 signatures to accomplish that, and there was nothing in the city charter prohibiting the council from putting it on the ballot. Madigan said she would check with the law director, who had departed the meeting at the point, to get a determination on the matter.

Another Arthur Ave. resident, Patricia Russell, wondered if the pay increases could be made dependent upon the city’s financial health in 2012, when they would go into effect.

More detailed discussion to take place at next meeting

Having had a general discussion about the ordinance, Councilperson Powers asked other members of the council to come to the next meeting with “real proposals.” The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Monday, January 24th at 6:30 p.m.

Clients of Mental Health Services for Homeless Persons, Inc. (MHS) who reside in the Oak Tree Manor apartment building located on Bonnieview Ave. won’t have access to on-site around-the-clock support assistance past July 31st, according to a December 2010 settlement agreement between the City of Lakewood and the Big Oak, LLC, the owner of the property. (see agreement .PDF)

The agreement ends a dispute that began in July 2009 after 25 MHS clients were stealthily relocated from a Tremont facility to the 72-unit Lakewood apartment building.

Following up on an anonymous complaint about the facility that same month, a Lakewood city building inspector found that a couple of first floor two-bedroom suites had been converted into a single office space to service MHS’ clients. MHS leased the office and staffed it on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week basis with 14 employees.

The city issued an order to shut down the MHS office. It maintained that such an office had a business use and was prohibited in a residentially zoned district. The city also noted that a certificate of occupancy had not been issued, and no permits had been obtained to construct the office space. (see explanation of city’s position .PDF)

Big Oak appealed the city’s order. They contended that the previous owner kept at various times a double suite on the second floor as an office space to manage a real estate business. MHS’ use of the first floor space was just a continuation of the existence of a prior business use. (see explanation of Big Oak’s position .PDF)

On October 15, 2009, the Lakewood Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) considered the appeal, and voted unanimously to uphold the city’s decision. Big Oak then unsuccessfully appealed to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Big Oak next took their case to the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals. The case was settled and dismissed on December 17, 2010 after Big Oak reached their agreement with the city. (see transcript of first BZA meeting, see transcript of second BZA meeting .PDF)

What’s going to happen to the MHS clients on Bonnieview?

Now that the zoning dispute has been settled, one wonders what’s going to happen with the MHS clients who live in Oak Tree Manor when their 24-hour-a-day support system is removed. MHS Executive Director Susan Neth and Chief Operating Officer Eric Morse did not respond to a request to comment on the situation.

The agreed upon date by which to close the on-site support office, July 31st, coincides with what is believed to be the end date for the MHS lease on the space. It is believed that the MHS clients’ leases with Oak Tree Manor also expire on that same date.

At a public meeting held at St. James Church on October 27, 2009 to discuss neighborhood concerns about her organization’s clients, Executive Director Susan Neth said that MHS’ services were “much more effective” when provided on-site. If they were to be moved some distance away, she said, it would impede their effectiveness. Neth also made clear MHS’ disappointment about the zoning situation. “We’re as distressed as everyone else,” she said.

MHS representatives have been vague when publicly discussing the nature of their client’s problems. In general, many of people they assist have been homeless or in abusive relationships, and have mental issues and drug and alcohol addictions. The MHS website describes their program on Bonnieview Ave. as offering “permanent housing and on-site supportive services for homeless adults who have severe mental disabilities.”

During its efforts to appeal the city’s ruling, Big Oak suggested discontinuation of on-site services for MHS’ clients could damage the neighborhood and place an additional burden on the city’s public safety resources.

From its March 26, 2010 merit brief:

“Big Oak would submit that the public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity, and general welfare of the residents in the neighborhood, as well as the city at large, would be better served if the MHS office continue to be located within the Oak Tree Manor apartment complex rather than moving offsite.

Clearly, the elimination of 24-hour supportive services within the building would only force tenants to go outside the building and into the neighborhood to obtain assistance. The interests of the City of Lakewood as a whole would likewise be better served in that the elimination of the onsite supportive services currently provided by MHS would likely increase tenants reliance upon the police and/or fire department to intervene in situations that could have been otherwise addressed by MHS.”

Crime, drugs, and death in Oak Tree Manor

The identities of most MHS clients are not known, so it is difficult to determine the extent of their involvement in any reported problems. However, it’s worth reviewing some of the events that have occurred in and around Oak Tree Manor since MHS moved in, particularly in light of the concerns about what may happen when on-site support services are removed.

Nearly four months after MHS relocated, Ward 1 Councilperson Kevin Butler said at the public meeting held at St James Church that he had heard “some” additional concerns from neighbors, but “not that many.” Most of the nuisance-type complaints originated from within the apartment building, he said. Butler indicated problems on the streets in the general vicinity of Oak Tree Manor included panhandling, pandering, and trespassing.

The first reported incident known to involve an MHS client occurred on July 4, 2009. A man was caught walking on Detroit Ave. with a religious statue stolen from the St. James courtyard. Councilperson Butler noted the situation on the Lakewood Observer message board.

The man arrested in the statue incident was convicted of criminal damaging. Lakewood Municipal Court records show he was arrested four more times in 2009, twice for disorderly conduct and intoxication at McCarthy’s. He was evicted in April 2010.

Another incident known to involve an MHS client occurred on September 29, 2009. A police officer called to the apartment building due to the presence of an unwanted guest arrested a female for carrying a concealed weapon. The same female was arrested and convicted on two separate occasions in the following month for disorderly conduct and intoxication. (see police reports .PDF)

On February 6, 2010, a 42-year-old Oak Tree Manor woman overdosed on tranquilizers, alcohol, and heroin. She went into a coma and died five days later. A police search of her apartment revealed two unmarked containers with a total of 94 pills, a hypodermic needle and a spoon with heroin residue. Court records indicate she was an Oak Tree Manor resident since at least 2000, and had been convicted on drug-related charges. (see police report .PDF)

The police incident report identified her as a recovering addict. Two other Oak Tree Manor residents named in the police report have criminal histories that include alcohol and drug-related charges, court records show.

On March 30, 2010, a Cleveland resident filed a missed person report for her brother who was an Oak Tree Manor resident. She last spoke with him when he was on West Blvd. in Cleveland. She said he would go there to buy crack cocaine, and then return to his apartment to smoke the drugs. He was found deceased in a West Blvd. home. Court records show he was an Oak Tree Manor resident since at least 2000. (see police report .PDF)

On May 26, 2010, officers were dispatched on the report of a drug overdose to the Oak Tree Manor apartment of a 55-year-old man associated with the February incident. Officers found unprescribed controlled substances, and hypodermic needles. The man was convicted of permitting drug abuse. (see police report .PDF)

On July 13, 2010, a MHS employee visited the police station and reported receiving threats from one of her clients. The police incident report didn’t identify the client, but court records show one of the individuals involved in the September 2009 incident was found guilty of menacing for an incident that occurred on the same date. (see police report .PDF)

On October 18, 2010, a 27-year-old Donald Ave. resident had a dispute with a Baker Motors tow truck operator in the Oak Tree Manor parking lot. A police officer on the scene noticed the woman was very sluggish and had shaky hands. During a search of her purse, the officer found hypodermic needles and one tablet of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opiate dependence. The woman did not have a prescription for the drug. She was found guilty of drug abuse. (see police report .PDF)

The police call log for Oak Tree Manor (below) is not comprehensive, but provides a decent view of the kinds of problems that occur at the Bonnieview Ave. apartment building. Police incident reports for the burglaries were provided. They were abbreviated and did not contain any detailed information.

9/29/2009	Disturbance. Female arrested on a weapons offense
9/30/2009	Personal welfare check. Apt. 217. Complainant would like to check the welfare of a female who suffers from seizures. Complainant has been unable to reach her since this morning. Female does not drive. Female and will call the complainant.
10/1/2009	Department information.
10/3/2009	Department information. Would like to speak to an officer regarding hang-up phone calls she’s been getting.
10/4/2009	Disturbance. Have problems with resident in apt. 103. Both parties advised. Complainant admitted she is a little tired and got short with a patient.
10/4/2009	Disturbance. Apt. 305. Loud music. Loud on arrival. Male advised. He turned it down.
10/6/2009	General Complaint. Apt. 215. Parties refusing to leave. Possibly doing a drug deal in the lot. The female with the flowered dress on is getting ready to buy drugs. Male and female ID’ed and listed in the person file. They were visiting a friend. They were advised that they are no longer residents at the building and that if they are caught on the property without Eugene home, they would be arrested for trespassing.
10/8/2009	Disturbance. Apt. 219. Complainant and his fiancé are fighting. She cut him with a knife on his arm.
10/17/2009	Burglary. Someone broke into the comp’s apt and left a note behind
10/21/2009	Department information.
10/19/2009	Phone Call Complaint. Complainant would like to speak to an officer regarding phone calls she is receiving from a male. Spoke with the complainant. She just wanted some advice on how to handle calls she is receiving from an ex-boyfriend. She doesn’t want further police involvement at this time.
10/27/2009	General Complaint. Complainant states someone put a rat in a refrigerator and is urinating on the floor in attempts to get her to move out of the building. Female was advised.
10/27/2009	General Complaint. Four juvenile white males possibly smoking marijuana in the parking lot by the dumpsters. 207 out with juveniles at Detroit and Bonnieview. No evidence found.
10/28/2009	Disturbance. Apt. 112. Male causing a disturbance in the office. Male is a mental health consumer. Complainant said that the male had a probate warrant out of Cleveland’s 2nd District. Could not  be located.
10/28/2009	Disturbance. Complainant is having problems with the staff. Complainant is a mental health consumer. Just wanted us aware that he’s having issues with the Mental Health Services staff.
10/30/2009	Probate attempt. Apt. 207.
11/17/2009	Disturbance. Male from apt. 103 is causing a disturbance. Male is a mental health consumer and was advised.
11/21/2009	Disturbance – noise. Apt. 305. Loud Music. Loud on arrival.
11/27/2009	Disturbance. Apt. 219. Male and female arguing. Female was in the apt. along with her hamster. Music was on low. Advised of the complaint.
11/29/2009	General Complaint. States a white male wearing an orange hat and a black coat was knocking at her door. She did not know who he was or what he wanted, but feels he was suspicious. Would the area checked. Male is a mental health consumer and was advised.
12/19/2009	Disturbance – noise. Apts. 305 and 307. Loud music. Apt. 305 had the music up and did not realize it was that loud. Advised. Music turned down.
12/29/2009	Squad assist. Apt. 305. Male needs to go to the hospital and his case manager thinks the male is going to give the paramedics problems.
1/6/2010	Disturbance. A Male is refusing to leave the apartment. Both advised to stay away from each other.
1/10/2010	General Complaint. Tenant who lives in apt. 103 entered the tenants apt. in 308 without his permission. Male is no longer in the apartment. Complainant not sure the male was in his apartment. He believes the male was because cigarettes were missing from his refrigerator.
1/15/2010	Psychiatric Situation – probate. Attempting to serve a probate warrant. Male transported to Lutheran Hospital.
1/22/2010	General Complaint. Would like to speak with an officer about a problem he is having with the staff.
1/29/2010	Suspicion.1315 Bonnieview. There is an unknown female sitting in a chair on the complainant’s porch. Female was advised. Stated she thought it would be a funny place to sit.
1/29/2010	Disturbance. Male throwing things in apt. 403. Verbal argument. Male left.
1/31/2010	Disturbance. Apt. 219. Male and female arguing. Male and female had an argument earlier. One party left.
2/6/2010	Overdose. Has been drinking and shot up heroin not that long ago. Locked in the bathroom, not breathing.
2/6/2010	Burglary. Complainant just got home and her apartment has been broken into. The door has damage and several items are missing.
2/7/2010	Disturbance. Sister and boyfriend of female who overdosed yesterday is there. Comp is removing items from the apartment and the comp wants them to leave. Male called back and stated they left.
2/9/2010	Disturbance. Apt. 410. Mom and daughter fighting over car keys. Verbal argument between mother and daughter. Daughter is going to stay in her room for the night and they are going to work it out in the morning. Advised.
2/10/2010	General Complaint. States a female named Janice is causing a problem. Female is a green card and was sent on her way.
2/11/2010	Assist – rescue squad. Female just delivered her baby at home.
2/15/2010	Burglary. Apt. 416. Complainant believes someone was trying to get into her apartment. She could hear them sawing through the lock.
2/17/2010	Burglary. Apt. 416. Someone knocking on the apartment door. Sounds like they are filing the lock. Male arrested on a Lakewood warrant.
2/2010	Disturbance. Complainant stated the male in apt.103 assaulted her. Complainant was not assaulted. She was upset because the male in apt. 103 kept knocking on her door and asking her for cigarettes.
2/22/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Apt. 319. Loud music. Loud on arrival. Female advised and turned it down.
3/3/2010	Disturbance. Complainant state someone is there trying to take his car. Bakers is attempting to tow his car for a private property tow. Complainant was upset because his car was being towed for private property. Settled for dead run.
3/5/2010	Notification. Apt. 115. Notify female that a vehicle was stopped yesterday and her license and credit cards were found in the backseat. They would like her to contact them. No one was home. Note was left.
3/13/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Apt. 103. Loud music and yelling. Music was turned down.
3/13/2010	Disturbance. Third party call. Female and her son are arguing. Verbal argument. Mom was gone on arrival.
3/13/2010	Disturbance. Male states that his mother came at him with a knife. No knife involved. Verbal argument. Mother is going to stay with a friend.
3/14/2010	Disturbance. Male is bothering residents on the fourth floor. All advised. Male will stay in his apartment.
3/14/2010	Disturbance. 20-year-old son beat her up yesterday. Complainant has been asking him to leave since then and he is refusing to so. Son was advised and left.
3/30/2010	Missing person. Complainant is requesting we check on the welfare of her brother in apt. 402. Nobody has seen or heard from him in three days. Comp stated he uses crack and takes Valium and Methadone for neck pain. Comp will be waiting in the lobby.
3/31/2010	Disturbance. Harassing phone calls.
4/3/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Unable to locate. Loud party somewhere in the area.
4/18/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Apt. 310. Loud music and people wrestling. Quiet on arrival. Resident had some friends over and they were just talking.
4/21/2010	General Complaint. Complainant is receiving harassing phone calls. Dispute is between complainant and her grandson’s mother. Both parties advised. No further police involvement desired.
4/23/2010	General Complaint. Another resident took the complainant’s keys, ID, and checks. Complainant called back and will handle it himself.
4/30/2010	Disturbance. Female refusing to leave. Black female wearing a brown plaid suit. Yelling in front of building. Checking apt. 215 for the female. Female was advised not to returned or she would be arrested for trespassing.
5/2/2010	Disturbance. Apt 219. Male and female arguing. Couple in a verbal argument. Advised and going to separate for the night.
5/5/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Apt 202. Loud music. Manager went into the apartment and turned the music off.
5/6/2010	Suspicion. Complainant stated that the female in apt. 112 stated that she was gonna get a pistol and harm him because his music was too loud. Complainant came down and started making a big disturbance and is the one causing the problem. The female is the manager and will call back if he continues to call problems.
5/6/2010	Disorderly conduct. Male in apt. 202 is causing problems. Male arrested for disorderly conduct.
5/6/2010	Disturbance. Citation issued. Female yelling. Tan Dress. Out with female at Northland and Detroit. Female was cited for trespassing.
5/7/2010	Suspicion. Males in a dark-colored van are sitting in the back parking lot and were honking the horn at her as she walks. The male from apt. 301 was knocking on her door also and she doesn’t know why. Spoke with the female. The male in apt. 301 takes her trash out for her on occasion. He was advised not to bother her at nighttime anymore. There was no one in the parking lot.
5/2010	Petty theft. States health care aide took money and jewelry.
5/26/2010	Overdose. Apt. 305. Male in his 40s or 50s passed out. Possible drug overdose. Male is unresponsive. Complainant advised music is loud. Cars sent code three.
6/2/2010	Disturbance. Apt. 219. Male and female fighting and male advised that she pulled a knife on him. Verbal argument between male and female. There were no threats made with a knife. Male is leaving for the night. Advised.
6/21/2010	Assist-Rescue squad. Apt 113. 36-year-old female is threatening to OD on pills or jump in front of a train or car. Voluntary transport.
7/3/2010	Disturbance. See details.
7/4/2010	Petty Theft. Friend that was staying with her took some of her belongings and will not return them.
7/5/2010	Disturbance – noise. Apt 202 loud noise. Music is loud upon arrival. Male yelled at officer through the door.
7/6/2010	Damage – Non-criminal. Driving having problems with someone in the parking lot.
7/8/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Apt. 202 Loud music. Spoke to the resident. He turned it down.
7/9/2010	General Complaint. Complainant states that the male who lives in 202 came down and threatened him. He would like to speak to an officer. Male in the apartment is a mental health consumer and was not home at the time.
7/13/2010	Psychiatric situation. Apt. 202. Attempting to serve a probate warrant. Male is already at Huron Hospital.
7/13/2010	Menacing. Reports threats.
7/15/2010	Assist-Rescue Squad. Complainant stated one of the residents who suffers from psychological problems is trying to break into their office.
7/26/2010	Disturbance. Female client threatening complainant and refusing to leave. Report already taken on this. Female was advised to stay away from the office unless she needs help of some kind. The workers were advised.
8/1/2010	Disturbance. Apt 411. Male is receiving harassing phone calls. Apt. 306. Complainant just wanted us to avoid the female in apt. 306. Female is a consumer. She was advised.
8/9/2010	General Complaint. Apt. 411 is having problems with his neighbor. Speaking in apt. 311with resident. Parties not getting along because of noise issues. They are going to take it up with their case managers.
8/2010	Suspicion. Apt. 404. Complainant called to advise that her sister is in the apt with a male and that there are drugs all over the table and the complainant and the complainant’s mother went to the residence and removed three children ages 14, 6, and 2. There is no answer at the door.
8/2010	General Complaint. Complainant found some discrepancies on her credit report and thinks someone opened some credit cards in her name. Nothing was opened in the complainant’s name. She just has some unpaid medical bills that were sent to a collection agency.
8/13/2010	Psychiatric Situation. Probate warrant received.
8/27/2010	General Complaint. Complainant said the male who lives in apt. 413 keeps slamming his door and using profanity. Complainant said the male was standing outside of his door. All quiet on arrival. Compliant was advised.
8/29/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Apt. 311. Loud Music. Quiet on arrival. Advised.
9/2/2010	Disturbance. Complainant is having problems with the male who lives in apt 311. He keeps coming to his apartment and bothering him. Male in 311 advised to stay away from the complainant.
9/2/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Apt. 311. Loud music. Complainant called back and said he turned it done. The mental health staff was also contacted and they will also advise him to keep his radio at a decent level.
9/16/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Apt. 311. male is playing his music very loudly. Male turned the music down. Advised.
9/17/2010	Civil Matter. The complainant’s son’s ex-girlfriend and her father keep calling and harassing her and her son. On-going civil matter over custody. Advised.
9/22/2010	Civil Matter. Parties are having problems with the female that lives in apt. 414. Female keeps threatening them. Complainant’s husband owes the female in apt. 414 money and the complainant was upset that she was asking for the money back. Everyone was advised that it was a civil matter and to stay away from each other.
9/22/2010	Disturbance. Apt. 219. Black male outside throwing rocks at the complainant’s window. It was the complainant’s son trying to get his mom’s attention to get in.
9/25/2010	General Complaint. Parties trying to get into vehicle. Males were speaking to females in vehicle. Advised.
9/30/2010	Disturbance. Apt. 219. Loud music. Son had rap music moderately loud. Mother was advised
10/6/2010	Disturbance. Apt. 219. Parties fighting. Male is leaving for the evening. He just wanted to get his food. Parties in 219 would not answer the door. He will call them in the morning.
10/8/2010	Disturbance. Complainant states that the male that lives in apt. 103 pulled a knife out on him and held it up to his throat. Black male wearing a leather jacket and blue jeans. Spoke with both parties who were advised to stay away from each other. Complainant does not want any further police involvement.
10/18/2010	Burglary. Someone took the complainant’s TV, iPhone, and her son’s birthday gift from her apartment yesterday.
10/18/2010	Dangerous Drugs. A female is threatening to stab the driver with needles because they are towing her car. Female arrested for possessing hypodermic needles and drug abuse.
10/24/2010	Disturbance. 20-year-old male spit at mother. Mother and son not getting along. The son was advised to leave and he did.
10/25/2010	Defrauding a Livery. Yellow Cab having a problem with a customer. Male running southbound on Bonnieview. Officer out with male at 1348 Bonnieview. Male arrested.
11/8/2010	Disturbance. Loud music on the second floor. Apt. 307 was advised. Cooperative and turned it down.
11/12/2010	Disturbance. Complainant is arguing with her boyfriend. Verbal argument. Male has left for the evening. Advised.
11/17/2010	Disturbance – Noise. Unable to locate. Black male yelling in the parking lot.
11/24/2010	General Complaint. Complainant is there and his girlfriend is refusing to let him in. The male wants to retrieve his property and leave. The male retrieved his property.
11/25/2010	General Complaint. Residents in apt. 413 are calling him names through the walls. Both parties were advised to stay away from each other
11/26/2010	General Complaint. The male in apt. 411 would like to speak with officers about the males in apt. 413 giving him a hard time and calling him names through the walls. The male resident in apt. 413 denied yelling through the walls. He is moving out next week and that should solve the problems. Both were advised.
11/26/2010	Disturbance. Apt. 306. Female arguing with he 20-year-old son. Verbal argument between mother and son. He is leaving for the night. Advised.
12/7/2010	General Complaint. 2 to 3 parties outside being loud. Complainant said the two males were pushing each other, not sure if they were playing or trying to fight. Checked the area. Male was sitting down outside on his phone, waiting for a ride. Male will go inside.
12/11/2010	Suspicion. Male in lot highly intoxicated. In the lot trying door handles. White male with blue jacket. Male was possibly let into the building . Officer out with male on Bonnieview. Male lives there and has gone to his apartment.
12/27/2010	Disturbance. Apt. 310. Parties arguing. Family argument. One of the sisters is leaving and that should solve the problem. Advised.
1/4/2011	Assist – Rescue Squad. Female is having emotional problems. Voluntary transport.
1/6/2011	General Complaint. Would like to speak with an officer about custody issues. Office spoke with mother and she stated that she would contact the school tomorrow and get her son in school. She also said that if the father applies for joint custody she would not contest it. All parties advised.

Violations of the law are committed on a daily basis in Lakewood. Certain types of these incidents occur with some regularity and predictability.

Perusing the Crime Calendar, it is not a shock to see that The Avenue Tap House (formerly Put-In-Bay Lakewood) was cited for a noise violation on December 31^st at 10:25 p.m. The bar’s owner was cited for excessive noise at least one other time in the last couple of months. Nettlesome noise issues have irked neighbors and driven them to publicly express their distain in the past.

Summertime is prime time for the city’s marauding bicycle thieves. In an apparent effort to stem the tide of bike thefts in Downtown Lakewood last summer, police placed a bait bicycle in the vicinity of City Center Park on August 12, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.

It stood unmolested for nearly 16 minutes before a 15-year-old Cleveland male circled it three times, then hopped on it and pedaled through the Marc’s parking lot – unknowingly towards a waiting police officer. The male received a cut on his head in the ensuing takedown and was transported to Lakewood Hospital.

Lock it or lose it

Thefts from unlocked cars have plagued the city since at least 2008, and probably well before then. They occur during all times of year and in just about every area of the city. Sometimes the police catch troublemakers.

In this condensed audio clip of police dispatch communication from 2:10 a.m. on October 20, 2010, listen as officers scoop up a 20-year-old Victoria Ave. man after a brief footchase near the intersection of Elbur Ave. and Detroit Ave. (Listen to the .mp3 audio file)

He was charged with obstruction of justice, criminal trespass, and possession of a pocketknife with a blade greater than two and one-half inches long. In addition, he had a warrant with Olmsted Township for non-appearance in a traffic-related case. About a month after this incident, he was also charged with receiving stolen property.

Since November 2010, there have been at least 44 reported instances of unlocked cars being entered, although property wasn’t stolen in every case.

11/5/10 – 1620 Marlowe – Car entered

11/5/10 – 1637 Marlowe – Car entered, GPS removed

11/5/10 – 1577 Lincoln – Car entered

11/5/10 – 2036 Marlowe – Car entered, change missing

11/5/10 – 1631 Lincoln – mp3 player removed, two cars entered

11/5/10 – 1653 Lincoln – School bag taken

11/5/10 – 1568 Blossom Park – Change taken

11/5/10 – 1418 Lincoln – Change taken, backpack left.

11/5/10 – 1633 Marlowe – Change taken

11/5/10 – 1442 Olivewood – Money and GPS removed

11/6/10 – 1422 Lincoln – Bag and cross removed

11/10/10 – 2093 Elbur – Car entered

11/10/10 – 2026 Lewis – Car entered

11/10/10 – 2050 Lewis – Car entered

11/10/10 – 2211 Wyandotte – Camera removed

11/10/10 – 2140 Waterbury – Change taken

11/10/10 – 2032 Lewis – Change taken

11/11/10 – 2213 Wyandotte – Car entered

11/12/10 – 17814 Riverside – Car entered

11/15/10 – 1070 Abbieshire – GPS taken

11/20/10 – 14534 Garfield – GPS taken

11/23/10 – 1508 Lauderdale – Pack of cigarettes missing

11/24/10 – 1650 Warren – Items stolen from car

11/26/10 – 2272 Emily – Two vehicles entered

11/26/10 – 14921 Delaware – GPS missing

11/26/10 – 12315 Plover – Tools left behind

11/26/10 – 2223 Lincoln – Check book missing

11/26/10 – 2232 Adeline – GPS stolen out of unlocked vehicle

12/1/10 – 11801 North Lane Dr. – Car Entered

12/4/10 – 2101 Mars – Wallet missing

12/4/10 – 11850 Edgewater – Items taken from car

12/5/10 – 1606 Elmwood – GPS taken

12/8/10 – 14547 Madison – Car entered

12/9/10 – 16916 Clifton – GPS and $100

12/10/10 – 2053 Morrison – Car entered

12/21/10 – 16803 Detroit – Satellite radio stolen

12/21/10 – 12210 Detroit – GPS taken

12/27/10 – 17478 Woodford – Multi-tool taken

12/31/10 – 1557 Clarence – Two unlocked cars entered

12/31/10 – 1478 Parkwood – GPS taken

1/1/11 – 1672 Wyandotte – GPS taken

1/2/11 – 1649 Mars – Vehicle entered

1/4/11 – 1513 Northland – GPS taken

1/4/11 – 1508 Northland – Vehicle entered

The obvious trend makes one wonder: why hasn’t city put the word out to remind residents to lock their car doors? The city has a community police officer assigned to each ward, and each ward has a councilperson, not including the three at-large council people. And where is the mayor/public safety director on this? The new guy hasn’t been on the job a full week, but what about the last stiff? How do the 44 people who had their cars rifled through feel about their city? It can’t be warm and fuzzy.

East End police patrols — not for the faint of heart

Bar none, the police officers responsible for patrolling Lakewood’s East End – particularly at night – have the worst job in the city. They deserve hazard pay and extra vacation time for having to deal with all of the lunacy and danger in that part of town.

During a routine patrol about a week ago, an officer spotted a vehicle on Clifton Blvd. that was involved in a purse-snatching and robbery in Willowick in which the 71-year-old female victim suffered a broken femur.

He followed the vehicle east on Lake Ave., then west on Clifton Blvd., and then back east on Lake Ave. to Route 2. The chase stretched across I-90 and into Lake County. You can listen to a condensed audio clip of police dispatch communication during the event. (Listen to the .mp3 audio file)

There were a couple of hair-raising pursuits late last year that originated in the East End. They give you an idea of how things can quickly get dangerous.

On September 30, 2010 at 1:36 p.m., a patrol officer observed a stolen car traveling eastbound on Detroit Ave., by West 117th St. He followed it into Cleveland, and ended up in a foot pursuit.

On October 12, 2010 at 10:26 p.m., a patrol officer stopped a car in the parking lot of Family Dollar on Madison Ave. because it was missing a front license plate. After a short time, the driver sped off onto I-90 and into Rocky River.