(The following was submitted by Shawn Cassiman – a member of Occupy Dayton since its inception. She is involved in the education working group, the process and facilitation group, and others as the need arises and time allows.)

Reading Mayor Leitzell’s perspective on Occupy Dayton illustrates the nature of truth as partial (i.e. there are many truths) and contextual. My version of the truth bears some similarity to Mayor Leitzell’s, but not much. However, before I address the content, I would like to address the tone.

The Mayor begins his missive by describing “truths, half truths, and outright lies”  associated with the events that lead to Occupy Dayton leaving Dave Hall Plaza, and then declares his narrative the truth. He goes on to discuss his efforts to “educate” Occupy Dayton on local government and permitting processes, while referring to the “mostly” young people of the movement. In fact, as he may have noticed at the General Assembly meeting he attended, the average age of our members is probably somewhere in the mid-thirties. There are retired people, working professionals, students, working–class and under and unemployed people that identify with Occupy Dayton. Some of the youngest members of our group might be the “campers” that were arrested after not being given a chance to leave their location-despite claims otherwise.  It is unsurprising that campers would be young, since frequently young people are more willing and able to endure the physical conditions required by the camp experience. It is also unsurprising that many young people would be attracted to the Occupy movement, since we, as a society, have gone busily about the business of criminalizing youth. There are few safe spaces for young people to gather without drawing suspicion. It is no wonder that young people seek a space that offers them a sense of community and equal participation in decision-making when they have few other places to turn. However, to dismiss the movement as “mostly young people” serves distinct discursive purposes; it trivializes the experiences and contributions of young people, while continuing to perpetuate the stereotype of young people as dangerous.

It is true that Occupy Dayton did not apply for a permit. Perhaps Mayor Leitzell is unaware of the symbolism associated with this occupation movement? By eschewing the permit application in the process of occupation the movement draws attention to some of the very problems identified in the Occupy Wall Street Declaration such as the erosion of our rights, for instance, the right to peaceably assemble. The occupation also draws attention to the continued privatization of public space-the relationship between corporation and government. This is why many chants you might overhear at Occupy events include phrases such as, “Whose streets? Our streets!”  Ours. The people’s. Not the corporation’s.

The Mayor also condescendingly suggests that Occupy Dayton’s “complaint is with the federal government”. While I certainly agree that there is much to complain about in relation to the federal government, our local government must not attempt to absolve itself of responsibility to its citizens. Some of the same practices we might identify at the federal level certainly occur locally. In fact, after the campers voted to move to Dave Hall Plaza (at the suggestion of the DDP, City and County) in order to ease the minds of the public and not interfere with the “Grand Illumination”, they were then served, simultaneously, with two documents; 1) a ‘reminder’ of city park rules, and 2) a notice that the county was in the process of changing the ordinance on Courthouse Square in order to ban any activity between the hours of midnight and six am. The ACLU has registered a complaint as a result and had a representative in attendance at the second meeting of the County Commission dealing with this topic. Despite many people speaking out against the new regulations of Court House Square the vote passed unanimously in less than a minute. The erosion of rights is not only a federal problem. Occupy Dayton did not have an opportunity to move back to Courthouse Square. Perhaps you’ll pardon me for thinking that was the plan all along. As for “understanding the system”, I believe this sort of practice contributes all to well to our understanding of the system.

Photo by jamestraceur on flickr

So, if you haven’t noticed, construction crews are busy messing up converting 18 blocks of downtown Dayton’s one-way streets into two-way streets.

Am I the ONLY one who doesn’t like this idea?? (Don’t answer that, no one asked me anyway.)  But seriously.  WHO are they doing this for?  If you already live, work, or frequent downtown Dayton, like moi, then you already know which streets are one-way and you drive accordingly. It’s not that hard.  If you don’t already live, work, or frequent downtown Dayton, GET A MAP or a GPS!  Again, not that difficult.  I mean, were there a HUGE rash of crazy traffic accidents downtown because people didn’t know which side of the street they should be driving on???  If so, there must be a cover-up because as you know the local news around here covers every fender-bender and flat tire in the region.

2nd Street in the good ol' days. *Sniff* Photo by DDFic on flickr

So, my dear City Commissioners or whoever the heck decided this was a good idea – here’s what you have done.  I, Jenny Rapson, a life-long resident of Dayton who drives through downtown several times a week, NO LONGER KNOW WHERE THE HECK I AM GOING.  At 32 years old, I am already set in my ways, and one of my ways was ONE-WAY streets downtown.  Now, we may have a rash of fiery traffic accidents because the routes I have been driving my whole life are now totally different. AND?  MY GPS DOESN’T KNOW IT YET, EITHER!

Let me reiterate: you have confused and irritated the people who were already frequenting downtown.  Good luck luring all those new customers with your shiny two-way streets.  I’m sure your really good idea will work.

I’m just a *smidge* grumpy about the directional street changes downtown.  How do you feel about them?

Stacey Doss, a single woman from Orange County, adopted daughter Vanessa at birth  in June 2008. Vanessa was born in Dayton and her birth mother had been matched with  Doss through a California adoption agency.  Although the birth mother signed a document under penalty of perjury stating that she did not know who the birth father was, she was lying.  While Stacey took Vanessa back home with her to California, thinking all was well, the child’s birth father Benjamin Mills, Jr., began taking steps to try and get her back.  Because of this, Stacey’s adoption of Vanessa has never been finalized, and now Vanessa is in danger of being taken from the only home she has ever known.

If the facts about Benjamin Mills, Jr. were not the facts, I might be outraged for him.  After all, his biological child was put up for adoption without his knowledge.  But the facts are these: Mr. Mills has four other children, none of whom he has custody of. (His mother has custody of Vanessa’s two full-siblings). Mr. Mills has a felony criminal record, (which if you’re so inclined you can look up on Montg0mery County’s website) including a conviction for domestic violence against the birth mother for which he served eight months in prison.  (It has been reported by several media outlets that in this instance Mr. Mills pulled the birth mother around by the hair so violently that police found clumps of bloody hair strewn about when they arrived.) Mr. Mills has a child endangerment charge on his record.  Mr. Mills has a very long misdemeanor record.  The Dayton Daily News has reported that Montgomery County Children Services currently has an open case involving Mr. Mills’ older children.  With these being the facts about Mr. Mills, it seems clear to me that he never would have received custody of Vanessa at the time she was born – so why should he receive it now?  And why is he fighting to have his daughter taken away from a loving, stable home, when he clearly cannot provide this for her?

On July 2, California courts ruled that this case belongs in Ohio – and so does Vanessa.  Stacey Doss has been told she has until July 16th to surrender her daughter, who will then be taken by Montgomery County officials and placed in foster care here.  This, to me, is the truly mind-boggling element of this case – why traumatize a two-year-old child by putting her in foster care when she has a perfectly happy home to live in while this case is decided?  It is cruel and unusual punishment to take this child from Stacey Doss’ home – temporarily or permanently.

Doss has filed an emergency appeal to keep Vanessa with her in California with hopes that it will be heard before the 16th.  In support of Stacey and Vanessa Doss, some Dayton locals, including myself, will be holding a candlelight vigil on Thursday July 15th (the eve of the deadline for Vanessa to return to Ohio) from 8:30-9:30 at the Deeds Carillon.  I hope that many of you can join us for what is a support rally not only for Vanessa, but for the best interests of the child in cases like these.

Vanessa’s custody case will be heard in Montgomery County courts on July 29th and 30th, and tensions in the community, and between the the parties involved will surely be heating up between now and then.  The question is, who will Montgomery County law and judges protect – the “rights” of an unfit biological parent, or the best interests of an innocent child?  Only time will tell if justice will be done for Vanessa.

OD Knit Graffiti - photo credit: Delectable Dayton

The City of Dayton seems to be stuck somewhere between two forces.  The first is a government mired in an old bureaucratic attitude and uncreative culture with strict rules that focus on regulating instead of facilitating, perhaps from a different era when old captains of industry controlled things in the community.  The other is a new generation of a few progressive-thinking city staffers & officials, a citizenry made up of those who create music and art, and those who enjoy living where creativity (sometimes spontaneous) is embraced and encouraged.  The same subset of city residents that actually CHOOSES to live in the city for the love of an urban environment, despite the enormous challenges that the city faces.

Last month, the Delectable Dayton blog did some great reporting on the spontaneous “knit graffiti” (or “yarn bombs”) that popped up in the Oregon District, and the subsequent heavy-handed reaction by public works employees who allegedly responded to a few complaints by removing this spontaneous street art and threatening to bill the “offending artist” for said removal.  The final chapter in this saga ended with the issue moving from the stand·pat publics works department to the more progressive planning department and a call for this kind of situation to be resolved in the future by community stakeholders instead of city staff.  This was a great example of an issue going viral on the social networks (Facebook, individual blogs, etc.), and the social network reaction is what caused the change in this incident’s trajectory within the city government.  Yes, the more progressive factions of the city government are very plugged into online social networks and I predict we’ll see more actions and reactions come from these online discussions.

Getting back to the OD yarn bomb incident – it is my opinion that we must have a major shift in attitude when it comes to street art in this town.  While the old guard tends to favor more planned, less risque and established out-of-town artists when it comes to public art, the new generation of creatives wants public art to be more spontaneous, thought-provoking, unique and most importantly – done by local artists.  This isn’t to say that city government has always come down against this new generational attitude as Garden Station is a perfect example of city government acting as an enabler.  But other efforts such as c{space have run into a strange combination of conflicting attitudes within city government; regulators vs facilitators, squashers vs champions, traditional vs progressive.  And then there is the OD Yarn Bomb Incident.

Street art can be controversial yet it is important to any urban environment – it differentiates an authentic downtown from the more sterile environments found in typical suburban shopping malls and corporate-driven lifestyle-centers like The Greene.  Nothing against those environments – different strokes for different folks.  But the more diverse lifestyle options a region can offer, the stronger it will be in attracting a talent base necessary for economic growth – and a strong, viable and authentic urban core is an absolute necessity to any region’s economy.  So how do we strike the proper balance between encouraging our local artists when it comes to spontaneous public art, and ensuring that we are creating a truly inspiring urban environment that doesn’t offend the sensibilities of the average resident or visitor?

A possible solution to the public art dilemma could come in the form of a public street arts council – a group of community stakeholders (local artists, residents, business owners) that could be responsible for evaluating potential planned public art installations and quickly approving permits to local artists.  Organization and communication could be done easily, cheaply and rapidly online as opposed to traditional committee meetings and public townhalls.  And this same council and communication system could be used to handle spontaneous street-art incidents, perhaps with online polls that empower citizens to evaluate – hopefully with a sensible yet more laissez-faire attitude than a government bureaucracy.  Whereas typical vandal graffiti would get a majority thumbs down, completely harmless street art like knit graffiti would likely get a pass (as can be seen by the quick poll set up at Delectable Dayton).

As our city continues its transition from old to new economy, we must be looking forward and implementing solutions such as these – lest we lose for good those who make our city more interesting and those who truly appreciate our urban core.

UPDATE: In case some of you haven’t actually clicked on the links in this post, check out the simple solution that Bristol implemented to deal with rogue street art after the fact: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/aug/31/graffiti-art-bristol-public-vote

(the following was written by Gary Leitzell – Mayor, City of Dayton)

The June 16, 2010 article ‘Dayton metro area gets 9th worst ranking in U.S.’ does nothing except give citizens yet another out-of-context, “the sky is falling” dose of misinformation about our region’s economic health.

First, the Dayton region’s demographics are unfairly represented by the Brookings Institute. The Dayton Region trade area (Metropolitan Statistical Area) lists the population as 839,000 – focusing only on the four counties Jennifer Bradley mentions in the report. However, the total trade area population for the Dayton Region is 1.2 million, encompassing all or portions of seven counties.

When all statistics from these counties are added together, the region becomes much stronger statistically. Between 2000 and the end of 2008, both the City of Dayton and Montgomery County lost population, yet the Dayton Region as a whole gained 1.8% in population. The constant news reporting about the exiting of Mead, General Motors and National Cash Register would lead citizens to conclude that we have lost population in the double digits. Not the case. Additionally, hundreds of small companies have opened or relocated into the Dayton Region, even as those larger, newsworthy companies moved out.

Despite the economic pain resulting from the loss of GM and NCR, our region is making up for it with large, successful corporations like Wright-Patterson AFB, UDRI, Premier Health Partners, Kettering Health Network, Care Source, and others, along with the many small and medium-sized businesses that are continually forming in support of these large corporations and institutions. The Austin Road interchange development should turn the population numbers positive for Montgomery County in three to four years, and the Dayton and Cincinnati regions are currently in the process of merging as we speak. All of this bodes well for the Dayton Region.

Mrs. Bradley compares Dayton to Rochester and Buffalo, NY, Madison, WI, and Des Moines, Iowa, claiming they fared well with no big corporations. However, 39% of the Top 300 Cities in the US are successful because of significant amenities such as being located near an ocean or lake, in a warm climate, near mountains, or being a capital city. As any economist can tell you, capital cities are in a class by themselves and cannot be compared to other municipalities. Madison and Des Moines are both capital cities located next to large lakes, while Rochester is on Lake Ontario and Buffalo on Lake Erie. Not only can these four cities not be compared to Dayton, but taking a three-month window and predicting Dayton’s untimely demise makes it obvious that the Brookings Institute does not have an in-depth understanding of our region’s true health.

Shame on the DDN for not investigating the Brookings Institute report more thoroughly. Dayton did not deserve this headline.

Gary Leitzell
Mayor, City of Dayton

I attended one of the stops on Tim Riordan’s (Dayton’s current City Manager) “listening tour” on June 3^rd at the Southeast Priority Board (2160 E. Fifth St.). There were around forty or fifty people crammed into the cramped board room, with representatives from the priority board, the city commission and various other local governmental agencies in attendance. Dayton Mayor Gary Leitzell and City Manager Tim Riordan were also in attendance, with Mr. Riordan conducting the salient portion of the meeting, which was to gain insights and ideas from the citizenry of Dayton. Mr Riordan presented a fifteen minute slideshow which outlined the economic situation that Dayton was in at this time as well as some of the nuts and bolts costs involved with running the city and its services. The charts detailed the lost jobs that the area has suffered through, the standing of the general fund and charted all the income and property taxes collected, all juxtaposed against the inflationary index. The glaring truth that was revealed was that Dayton fell well below the inflationary index and lagged far behind every other major city in Ohio.

We are all familiar with the national and international occurrences and trends that led to the failing economy, but on a local level, those events were exacerbated by poor leadership, petty personal greed and a massively myopic shortsightedness. While the portents and omens of what was to come became glaringly evident, the City chose to continually woo large manufacturers in the baseless hope of garnering an anchor for the City’s wildly wavering economy. Heads of corporations and industries were flown in to meet with City officials while, at the same time, businesses that had been here for decades and decades, and who had been left to fend for themselves, quietly closed their doors. The City mustered all of their resources, offering tantalizing tax abatements and lucrative property proposals to these corporate big wigs while people lost their livelihoods and their homes and, those who had not fallen into foreclosure, fled the city fearing the worst that was eventually to come. The City chose to court a chimera instead of taking care of their base: the people…and now they want to listen.

As if making my point, one member of the assemblage brought up a point that members within the civil service divisions of the City of Dayton (most notably the Parks and Recreations division) had submitted suggested and well thought out and presented plans to the City and these suggestions were unilaterally ignored. At times during the question and answer period, City Manager Tim Riordan seemed jovial then dismissive then passively aggressive in responding to the group’s questions and suggestions. One particular point that was brought up was the $400,000 that it costs to mow the 4,000+ vacant properties in the City of Dayton. Riordan said, somewhat coarsely, that the citizens should take matters into their own hands and mow the overgrown lots in their neighborhoods instead of whining about it to the City. Moshe Oren, one of the citizens in attendance, stated that he did, in fact, mow several vacant properties in his neighborhood, but asked if the City would make available some landscaping equipment to make the job a less daunting task. An answer was not forthcoming and Mr. Riordan went on to the next question. It struck me that this would be a solution to save an estimated $2,400,000 a year (based on one mowing cycle over a six month period). The City could provide the neighborhood Priority Boards with several lawn mowers and weed eaters and local groups, such as neighborhood associations, church groups and others that live within that vicinity, could sign them out and mow the various abandoned properties in the area. If the City was worried about liability issues, a blanket waiver form could be provided and signed.

The more the meeting went on, the more it seemed as if it was nothing more than a diversionary display. It was a way for the City to do whatever they had decided to do from the outset and then, if people complain, they have a plausible deniability. They can point to the meetings (which aren’t advertised all that well) and say, “Look! The people of Dayton had every opportunity to be heard! We are making these decisions based on what was suggested!”

One of the more eloquent points came from Mike Schommer, a Southeast Priority Board member when he said:

“I’m not saying that the City of Dayton is never going to come back, but if there are no big innovations that spur on some new development here…” he trailed off, letting the listeners come to their own conclusions. He went on to say that, “Right now we are going to stay either stagnant, or perhaps suffer a smaller decline. Based on the statement I just made, I think we’ve been making moves in this city…tactical moves…to prepare for that and one of them is the deconstruction of the houses. The demand has gone way down and the supply has gone way up and by eliminating these houses, it’s kind of balancing things out so we can compete with the suburbs, who already have a lesser supply. In that thought, when you tie all that together and, in thinking about the budget, I think we need to start thinking of a lesser city government because there is lesser community to still serve.”

“When it comes to (suggesting to increase taxes), on paper it looks fine and $100 seems small, but to many of those residents still left in the city, it is perhaps more than their budget can bear.” Offering up a solution, Schommer said, “What I think we have to do is we have to start saying, ‘What can we do to cater to the residents? What can we do to be prepared to deal with the residents that we are going to be left with?’ In doing so, I don’t think that raising taxes is the best proposition for the simple fact that you’re trying to make up the difference of a work force and a population that was much greater out of the few residents and workers that are left which is only going to further drive anyone who is left in the city away.”

Schommer’s arguments resonated with the room and made me think back to a few weeks ago when I had interview Mr. Riordan and later attended the unveiling of The Greater Downtown Dayton Plan. The tone was much different then than it was that evening in the hot boardroom of the Southeast Priority Board. During the unveiling of The Greater Downtown Dayton Plan, held at the Dayton Racquet Club, the mood was jubilant and hopeful, with all the players in Dayton congratulating each other on such a fine plan. There was an optimistic air that the money that would be needed to embark on this new endeavor would materialize somehow. In stark contrast, the mood at the “listening tour” was darkly dour, where very little, if any, good news imparted. How can this be justified? How can monies seemingly be pulled from thin air for restructuring the river for kayaking or creating pavilions throughout the city for live musical performances, yet the hinterlands of Dayton are left to contend with all of the issues surrounding an abandoned and deteriorating neighborhood? How can one justify the “need” for a 3C Rail System or a comprehensive broadband network when the realistic and day to day needs of the majority of the population is being threatened to be scaled back or even terminated? Does it mean that anyone outside of this magical and invisible circle around the downtown area is less of a citizen or is less in need of the services that their tax dollars were intended for?

The argument would be made that this is for the future, a means to an end. In reading through studies pertaining to the attraction and retention of businesses and employees, especially within the technological industries, the powers that be set out to create a plan that would attract these technological businesses and the employees that come with them. The whole “plan,” however is overshadowed by a myriad of “ifs.” It is a “build it and they will come” kind of mentality wherein the people with ideas try and craft a perfect carrot, not realizing that they have splintered the stick into a million pieces.

Maybe I am too cynical. Maybe the whole thing will work and we will end up living in the Emerald Gem City (without the flying monkeys and such). Maybe we will become the model on which others cities will rate their success. I just can’t seem to ignore what I see and hear on a daily basis. Maybe there are two separate Daytons and I just happen to live in the one that is destined for desolation. Whatever the case, let’s put this whole “listening” thing to the test. Post your ideas to cut the city budget here and also send it to budgetideas@cityofdayton.org and we’ll see, together, when any of them come to fruition or if the case has already been closed and we are doomed to a future of raised taxes with the added benefit of having our services cut.

Wayne Avenue - Click to view map

Along Wayne Avenue, lawn signs scream “Stop the Widening Project” and “City Unfair to us.” A seemingly simple infrastructure upgrade has angered many, and leaves Wayne Avenue residents with an uncertain future. There is no doubt, however, that the intersection of Wayne and Wilmington Pike needs improvement.
Congestion, speeding, street light timing, and pedestrian access are just a few concerns that the City should address when improving the intersection. The City’s solution, however, is to widen the road from Anderson Road to Wilmington Pike and from Wilmington Pike to Beckman Street. Widening will start in June, with an estimated completion date in July 2011. The city will use funds from Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission and Ohio State Issue 1 funds from Ohio Public Works.

The current plan involves taking a portion of land from property owners using eminent domain. The use of eminent domain is legal in this case, and likely necessary, as property owners do not want to cede land voluntarily. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of eminent domain for infrastructure upgrades as a form of economic development. Kelo v. New London (2005) and Berman v. Parker (1954) have established that governments can take land for public purposes provided just compensation for affected property owners.

From the perspective of Wayne Avenue residents, however, the Wayne Avenue project infringes on property owner rights. These residents are forced to accept the project, whether they want to cede land to the City or not.  Residents have lingering concerns about diminished property values, safety, and the justness of the City’s actions.

It is equally concerning that the City’s plan may not improve the intersection, and widening may have undesirable long-term ramifications. The widening project could affect citizens for decades- and the quality of the plan should reflect the importance of Wayne Avenue as a central traffic artery.

To be successful, the Wayne Avenue project should be a measurable improvement over the present design. The project should benefit the majority of citizens, and should take into account any negative long-term consequences.

Unfortunately, the City’s plan for Wayne Avenue may not be an improvement over the old design. City of Dayton traffic engineers believe widening the road will relieve traffic congestion and promote safety.  Urban design proponents, however, argue that street widening causes more problems than it solves. For example, urban design studies performed by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Andres Duany have shown that street widening encourages greater traffic volume. Increased traffic on Wayne Avenue would negate the traffic calming effect of widening the road.

Additionally, the widening project does not benefit all road users. Widening the road clearly benefits drivers, not cyclists and pedestrians. The City plans to replace the sidewalks and tree lawn, but it is unclear if traffic lights and cross walks will be updated to better serve pedestrians as part of this project. As for cyclists, the widening project will not make room for a bike lane.

Another concern is the potential destabilization of the housing block along Wayne. Homeowners face hard choices about the safety and value of their properties; many have chosen to sell their properties. The alienation of Wayne avenue residents is damaging to the neighborhood and city, as they may choose to leave the City of Dayton for good. Losing long-term residents is an undesirable consequence of a public infrastructure project.  The widening project will decrease the market value of homes along Wayne, potentially inviting landlords instead of owner-occupants.

The City should address these concerns before moving forward with the intended project. It may be difficult or impossible to address the immediate concerns of residents living along Wayne. However, the City should not settle on an inferior design because of these challenges. With a new road design, Wayne Avenue could be a vibrant corridor. It may not be within the City’s reach to create a tree-lined boulevard or divided road, but beautification could ease some concerns.

A little creativity and extra effort could turn Wayne Avenue around for the better. Widening the road does not promote bike or pedestrian traffic; nor is it a long-term solution to better Wayne Avenue.  As it stands, City residents must accept an inferior road upgrade instead of a sustainable, long-term solution.

Dayton Mayor Gary Leitzell proposed looking into free RTA service and you would have thought he proposed an annual baby raping day or something from the regressive reaction he’s gotten thus far.