Dear Viewers,

On many occasions, you have pulled into a parking lot in Lakewood, Ohio and come back to find out that Bakers Towing has nabbed your car again.

Dear Lakewood Observer:
On Oct.18, 2004 Harry Buffalo located at 18605 Detroit Ave. in Lakewood filed to expand their liquor license. Councilperson Corrigan requested a C.R.I.S report (it’s a report that keeps track of how many times police respond to an address). On Nov.1, 2004 Lakewood City Council passed the motion to grant the license. In the meeting Police Chief Malley stated “that since the new owner had taken over he didn't think there were any complaints and the report was not currently available". In fact this was all untrue.

Dear Lakewood Observer...

Mr. Gordon Brumm, in a Lakewood Observer article titled, “Intelligent Design: Skeptical Thoughts about the Skepticism (1)” mentions that he, “...welcome(s) good answers, if any are forthcoming.” We shall see.

Having spent a work-life in the private sector and an enlightening couple of months one time in the government sector, I would like to make these observations regarding the Lakewood city budget and talk of a proposed income tax raise.

“Politicians fascinate me because they constitute a paradox: they are an elite that accomplishes mediocrity for the public good” - George Will

I have been reading with interest the unfolding story concerning the homeowner mansion but not until I read Mr.LaCerva’s letter was I moved to weigh in. I am appalled by his smug and dispassionate tone and by his rational that somehow people who find themselves unable to pay their bills equates to their status as “law- abiding citizens”, and most importantly by his apparent willingness to ride rough shod over the rights of a property owner purely because he has fallen into financial difficulties. Most of us “own” our homes in conjunction with a financial institution. That the resident has been in this home since the seventies hardly indicates that his was a speculative venture. I recall seeing the children’s tricycles and later bicycles in the front yard and thinking they looked wonderfully incongruous amid the grandeur of the house. I have long admired the house and I would be very sorry to see the fence and the other outside amenities go (at the time of this writing it would appear that that will not happen). It seems that there is no specific law in place protecting these assets. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Homeowner was current with his obligations or actually did not have a mortgage and simply wished to alter the property. Would this even be debatable?