Friday, August 28, 2009
Crime in Lakewood: Gang Activity and Violence are on the increase
Some of you will recall the post below asking if anyone had questions or concerns about crime in town based on recent statistics report. The report came to my attention because the Lakewood City Council was supposed to have a discussion in front of the City Council about crime trends, and we didn't.
Frankly, I didn't hear from a lot of folks. Crime doesn't seem to be much of an issue. This tells me crime may be a simmering but not front-burner issue for the kind of people who read this blog or follow me on Facebook.
The numbers, though, tell a somewhat different story. I'm going to humbly suggest to my colleagues on the Lakewood City Council that we keep crime and crime prevention at the front of our minds as we enter the planning process for the 2010 budget.
Absent a discussion in front of the council, I did some number-crunching myself.And the numbers about gangs are worth knowing.
Based on current trends, we're set to have more gang arrests this year than we have in any of the last five years in Lakewood. If trends continue, there will be 116 people arrested for gang-related activity, versus 113 arrested in 2006.
In April, May and June of this year, there were 35 people arrested for gang-related activity, the second highest number of any three months in five years (there were 62 arrested in October, November and December of 2006)
Year to year, that means 116 people would be arrested this year, versus 77 last year, an increase of 50 percent.
In terms of overall crime, other numbers are distressing. Violent crime for the first six months of 2009 is up 27 percent from the same period last year. Apparently a lot of that increase is due to the horrible crime of domestic violence, and I'll see if we can get some numbers released about the trends in that crime over the last five years.
There is good news! Property crime is down 17 percent from the previous year. So that's good.
And let me stress, these numbers are no reflection on the police department and the volunteers of the town who seek to prevent and stop crime. There may be a national tend afoot, and if someone more familiar with police and crime stats wants to weigh in, that would be welcome. It's all possible that police are doing a better or different job in how they categorize gang crime.
One reason I was hoping we'd have a discussion in front of the council is to get some context. Lakewood's violent crime rate in 2008 was higher than it was in places like Puyallup and Federal Way, for example, and the council really needs to talk about this when we're formulating our budget (The good news for my loyal readers, both of you, is that there will be more numbers to come as I look at crime trends in other cities)
My main point in this exercise was to show that crime is an important issue in Lakewood, not just intuitively, but by the numbers.
Forward this post
Frankly, I didn't hear from a lot of folks. Crime doesn't seem to be much of an issue. This tells me crime may be a simmering but not front-burner issue for the kind of people who read this blog or follow me on Facebook.
The numbers, though, tell a somewhat different story. I'm going to humbly suggest to my colleagues on the Lakewood City Council that we keep crime and crime prevention at the front of our minds as we enter the planning process for the 2010 budget.
Absent a discussion in front of the council, I did some number-crunching myself.And the numbers about gangs are worth knowing.
Based on current trends, we're set to have more gang arrests this year than we have in any of the last five years in Lakewood. If trends continue, there will be 116 people arrested for gang-related activity, versus 113 arrested in 2006.
In April, May and June of this year, there were 35 people arrested for gang-related activity, the second highest number of any three months in five years (there were 62 arrested in October, November and December of 2006)
Year to year, that means 116 people would be arrested this year, versus 77 last year, an increase of 50 percent.
In terms of overall crime, other numbers are distressing. Violent crime for the first six months of 2009 is up 27 percent from the same period last year. Apparently a lot of that increase is due to the horrible crime of domestic violence, and I'll see if we can get some numbers released about the trends in that crime over the last five years.
There is good news! Property crime is down 17 percent from the previous year. So that's good.
And let me stress, these numbers are no reflection on the police department and the volunteers of the town who seek to prevent and stop crime. There may be a national tend afoot, and if someone more familiar with police and crime stats wants to weigh in, that would be welcome. It's all possible that police are doing a better or different job in how they categorize gang crime.
One reason I was hoping we'd have a discussion in front of the council is to get some context. Lakewood's violent crime rate in 2008 was higher than it was in places like Puyallup and Federal Way, for example, and the council really needs to talk about this when we're formulating our budget (The good news for my loyal readers, both of you, is that there will be more numbers to come as I look at crime trends in other cities)
My main point in this exercise was to show that crime is an important issue in Lakewood, not just intuitively, but by the numbers.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Grand Potential, and the Reality
My loyal readers, both of you, will recall that a bit ago we reported on the grand potential of Woodbrook and a joint meeting between the Lakewood council and the Port of Tacoma.
The News Trib has a nice report before the meeting and another one after the meeting.
You might glance at least at the report after the meeting. Brent Champaco, the reporter, captures the essence of the meeting. There was a lot of discussion about traffic issues, potential zoning, etc... But the bottom line is that if someone developed that place as one massively master-planned parcel (as in DuPont), someone would have to buy it and displace 500 households.
I am known for epic blog postings, but this one is really pretty simple. Presumably, there are only two public entities that could take over this land. One is the port, which while it has the name Tacoma has jurisdiction over developing industrial land throughout Pierce County. But the port folks who spoke on the topic said that they have absolutely no interest in evicting 500 households.
That leaves the city. But Lakewood is a libertarian place. We would rather pull out our fingernails than perform eminent domain for some venture. We ain't University Place, and I love the folks there but I'd never use government funds to buy my downtown. If Lakewood wanted to do that, we woulda bought/seized the Colonial Center long ago. That ain't our way. We believe in private enterprise and limited government. Even if we had the will to evict all those folks because we somehow thought it would make the world a better place by creating a zillion jobs, we wouldn't because it's not the Lakewood way.
In practical terms, that means Woodbrook is almost certain to develop piecemeal and slowly. There was some discussion about whether there is a payoff to putting in up to $10 million of road improvements to seed private investment. The area needs thicker roads (to handle trucks) and different circulation to be most effective, among other things. I would think that at least a percentage of those road improvements are still very much on the table. We'd need more analysis to make sure there's a payoff for that expenditure in terms of jobs and other economic benefit. Then there'd be the question of where we'd find funding during an awful budget year. Maybe grants? Grants are pretty much the reason you've seen all the road construction activity this summer. For sure, this subject is still live and kicking.
Forward this post
The News Trib has a nice report before the meeting and another one after the meeting.
You might glance at least at the report after the meeting. Brent Champaco, the reporter, captures the essence of the meeting. There was a lot of discussion about traffic issues, potential zoning, etc... But the bottom line is that if someone developed that place as one massively master-planned parcel (as in DuPont), someone would have to buy it and displace 500 households.
I am known for epic blog postings, but this one is really pretty simple. Presumably, there are only two public entities that could take over this land. One is the port, which while it has the name Tacoma has jurisdiction over developing industrial land throughout Pierce County. But the port folks who spoke on the topic said that they have absolutely no interest in evicting 500 households.
That leaves the city. But Lakewood is a libertarian place. We would rather pull out our fingernails than perform eminent domain for some venture. We ain't University Place, and I love the folks there but I'd never use government funds to buy my downtown. If Lakewood wanted to do that, we woulda bought/seized the Colonial Center long ago. That ain't our way. We believe in private enterprise and limited government. Even if we had the will to evict all those folks because we somehow thought it would make the world a better place by creating a zillion jobs, we wouldn't because it's not the Lakewood way.
In practical terms, that means Woodbrook is almost certain to develop piecemeal and slowly. There was some discussion about whether there is a payoff to putting in up to $10 million of road improvements to seed private investment. The area needs thicker roads (to handle trucks) and different circulation to be most effective, among other things. I would think that at least a percentage of those road improvements are still very much on the table. We'd need more analysis to make sure there's a payoff for that expenditure in terms of jobs and other economic benefit. Then there'd be the question of where we'd find funding during an awful budget year. Maybe grants? Grants are pretty much the reason you've seen all the road construction activity this summer. For sure, this subject is still live and kicking.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Lakewood's Twitter Complaint
I originally titled this Lakewood's First Twitter Complaint, but I've been talking to Lakewood folks before. Maybe what this should be called is 'An Instructive Lakewood Twitter Complaint." Because this really shows the potential of digital communication to make government better.
So we begin a couple mornings ago when I was getting ready to go to a conference, and saw this on Twitter. And then you can see my reply.
\
So of course I sent a note to the city manager, who forwarded it to the public works director, who replied ...
Walter, while the sidewalks on both sides of GLD are under construction it’s limited to those areas where ADA standards weren’t met such as at curb returns at intersections and certain driveways. Further while they are under construction the contractor is required to maintain pedestrian access for which in most areas where the sidewalk was removed a compacted crushed rock path is provided. Where such a path can’t be provided then he can divert with proper signage pedestrians to the other side of the street. We are rechecking as I write this to assure pedestrian access being properly maintained throughout the project limits. Not much else can be said other then if a citizen has or sees a problem then they should contact us directly. Can’t fix what we’re unaware of and our inspectors can be everywhere at once so citizen’s eyes are helpful.
Well, duh, they needed to know where and when. I should have thought of that sooner. So this is the next exchange:
I then reported this to the city staff, and the public works director asked the construction inspector to speak to the contractor. This is what was reported back to me:
Don, thank you for forwarding the message about the sidewalks and pedestrian traffic. I have talked with the contractor about the work on the sidewalks, and we addressed the issue by widening our tapers in the areas that are getting improved, so that they will remain open during the construction. They also removed the sidewalk closed signs once the approaches were redone, as well as adjusting signs as needed, such as business open ,sidewalk closed etc. As for the comment about the contractor forcing a man out into the street and not holding traffic for him, what I have seen is that the flaggers have been doing a very good job at watching for people and helping them across areas in the work zone as well as doing there best to keep the traffic moving efficiently. On Friday the contractor will be continuing with the roadway excavation and saw cutting , they will also be falling back and making sure all the ramps and temporary crushed surfaces are smooth and accessible for the weekend. Let me know if there are any other concerns that I can help with
One might wish for a more aggressive response, but it does seem like the concern was heard loud and clear. Score one for Twitter. My lesson, of course, was next time to ask right away for the specifics of the complaint.
A final note: by sheer coincidence, the day before this event, I met Frank Eliason, who works for the same company I do, Comcast. Frank is nationally regarded for using Twitter to provide customer service. So it was rather symmetrical, the very next day, to reflect the same approach in government.
Forward this post
So we begin a couple mornings ago when I was getting ready to go to a conference, and saw this on Twitter. And then you can see my reply.
\
So of course I sent a note to the city manager, who forwarded it to the public works director, who replied ...
Walter, while the sidewalks on both sides of GLD are under construction it’s limited to those areas where ADA standards weren’t met such as at curb returns at intersections and certain driveways. Further while they are under construction the contractor is required to maintain pedestrian access for which in most areas where the sidewalk was removed a compacted crushed rock path is provided. Where such a path can’t be provided then he can divert with proper signage pedestrians to the other side of the street. We are rechecking as I write this to assure pedestrian access being properly maintained throughout the project limits. Not much else can be said other then if a citizen has or sees a problem then they should contact us directly. Can’t fix what we’re unaware of and our inspectors can be everywhere at once so citizen’s eyes are helpful.
Well, duh, they needed to know where and when. I should have thought of that sooner. So this is the next exchange:
I then reported this to the city staff, and the public works director asked the construction inspector to speak to the contractor. This is what was reported back to me:
Don, thank you for forwarding the message about the sidewalks and pedestrian traffic. I have talked with the contractor about the work on the sidewalks, and we addressed the issue by widening our tapers in the areas that are getting improved, so that they will remain open during the construction. They also removed the sidewalk closed signs once the approaches were redone, as well as adjusting signs as needed, such as business open ,sidewalk closed etc. As for the comment about the contractor forcing a man out into the street and not holding traffic for him, what I have seen is that the flaggers have been doing a very good job at watching for people and helping them across areas in the work zone as well as doing there best to keep the traffic moving efficiently. On Friday the contractor will be continuing with the roadway excavation and saw cutting , they will also be falling back and making sure all the ramps and temporary crushed surfaces are smooth and accessible for the weekend. Let me know if there are any other concerns that I can help with
One might wish for a more aggressive response, but it does seem like the concern was heard loud and clear. Score one for Twitter. My lesson, of course, was next time to ask right away for the specifics of the complaint.
A final note: by sheer coincidence, the day before this event, I met Frank Eliason, who works for the same company I do, Comcast. Frank is nationally regarded for using Twitter to provide customer service. So it was rather symmetrical, the very next day, to reflect the same approach in government.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Give Me Your Thoughts on Crime Statistics and on Crime, Please
Update on 8/20: I got some feedback people thought I was being critical of the report I posted below, and I feel bad. That wasn't my intent. This is what I posted just now at The Suburban Times:
In the light of day, I’ve thought of a simpler way to ask this question: What’s going on with crime, or what do you think might be going on with crime, that the Lakewood council should know about as we determine spending priorities? I can look through the statistics report and see if the relevant information is there, or if the council should ask for it. The feedback I’m getting is that my question about the statistics report might distract people from that major question: What’s going on with crime, or what do you think might be going on with crime, that the Lakewood council should know about as we determine spending priorities? *end of update, original post follows:*
Today we visit crime statistics in Lakewood, but not the way I had expected.
I've said a couple times at meetings that our council needs to learn and discuss the state of crime in Lakewood before we enter the budget process. Criminal justice accounts for the bulk of spending by Lakewood city government. Protection against crime is Job One for government. And indeed, the agenda for last night said we would discuss crime statistics.
So I was dismayed when we didn't get any crime statistics, but instead got a very informed report about how gangs are bad. Courageous leaders that we all are, I think every council member in attendance agreed by nodding or speech, yep, we think gangs are bad. But what we didn't have was a discussion about what kind of gang problem - and other crime problems - we have in town.
The city manager and council members pointed me to the monthly crime reports that I get but you (my readers) probably don't. So fair enough. Here's the report.
If your eyesight is like mine, you might have to press "full screen" to be able to see the numbers. You can then go back and forth between slides with arrow keys.
Forward this post
In the light of day, I’ve thought of a simpler way to ask this question: What’s going on with crime, or what do you think might be going on with crime, that the Lakewood council should know about as we determine spending priorities? I can look through the statistics report and see if the relevant information is there, or if the council should ask for it. The feedback I’m getting is that my question about the statistics report might distract people from that major question: What’s going on with crime, or what do you think might be going on with crime, that the Lakewood council should know about as we determine spending priorities? *end of update, original post follows:*
Today we visit crime statistics in Lakewood, but not the way I had expected.
I've said a couple times at meetings that our council needs to learn and discuss the state of crime in Lakewood before we enter the budget process. Criminal justice accounts for the bulk of spending by Lakewood city government. Protection against crime is Job One for government. And indeed, the agenda for last night said we would discuss crime statistics.
So I was dismayed when we didn't get any crime statistics, but instead got a very informed report about how gangs are bad. Courageous leaders that we all are, I think every council member in attendance agreed by nodding or speech, yep, we think gangs are bad. But what we didn't have was a discussion about what kind of gang problem - and other crime problems - we have in town.
The city manager and council members pointed me to the monthly crime reports that I get but you (my readers) probably don't. So fair enough. Here's the report.
If your eyesight is like mine, you might have to press "full screen" to be able to see the numbers. You can then go back and forth between slides with arrow keys.
The suspicious in me wonders if the reason we didn't have the public discussion is that violent crime is up 27 percent. That's troubling. But I don't think that's the case. I think folks genuinely thought additional numbers were not important. Are they right? What do you think?
So here are my questions:
1. Does this tell you what you need to know about crime in Lakewood?
2. If yes, tell me what these statistics mean to you. What do you think the Lakewood City Council should be mindful of as we enter the budget process?
3. If you do want to know more, what do you want to know? Or, to put it another way, what other statistics would be helpful as our council discusses the 2010 budget?
Thank you in advance. Of course I will share the results.
So here are my questions:
1. Does this tell you what you need to know about crime in Lakewood?
2. If yes, tell me what these statistics mean to you. What do you think the Lakewood City Council should be mindful of as we enter the budget process?
3. If you do want to know more, what do you want to know? Or, to put it another way, what other statistics would be helpful as our council discusses the 2010 budget?
Thank you in advance. Of course I will share the results.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
The Road to Public Participation
"The Road to Public Participation." Hmmm. What I will do for a pun. The title might be, "Hey, want to give the city advice about roads and other aspects of transportation?"
Hmmm. Maybe I just should not write a title this morning.
Roads are important, as are other aspects of transportation including biking and walking. There are several openings on the city of Lakewood's transportation advisory board. You might consider applying to join this advisory group.
Members of the advisory committee have a very real say in how transportation dollars are spent. The individuals on the Lakewood commission are very engaged, and also a bit unusual ... the transportation advisory board is the only advisory group that I can think of right now that has recommended the city raise taxes. They want more money to spend on roads. You may or may not agree with raising taxes, but it's certainly a distinctive approach during a recession. So please consider coming aboard and adding your voice, or at least applying (and if we end up getting too many applications, maybe we can save your application or help you find another volunteer opportunity)
Please think about it. You can find the application form either as a PDF or a Word doc. Please let me know if you have any questions about the transportation committee or other volunteer opportunities to weigh in on public policy and spending.
