2. ORDINANCE 16-2025 - AN ORDINANCE to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members of Council to enact Section 901.23 Complete Streets of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood, to address the livability and safety needs of Lakewood by building upon efforts to promote an equitable multimodal transportation system. (referred to COW & PC 4/21/25)
I'm in support of ordinances such as this that makes streets safer for all especially those using active transportation as they are in a far more vulnerable position when trying to get around.
The sooner we get these done the more lives we save from needless death due to careless infrastructure/drivers
We can keep kicking the can down the road or we can actually do something. Without legislation that has any "bite" we will continue with the status quo because that's what the vocal minority/NIMBY's demand. That is why I support the Complete Streets of the Codified Ordinances. I want to see real change in my city. We can continue claiming we are walkable and bikeable but other cities (cough cough Cleveland) are making good on those promises by building infrastructure. We need walking and biking infrastructure that gets more people on the road, not just spandex clad cyclists.
As a mother of a young child, who will soon be walking to schools in this city, I of course want safe Streets. But moving so quickly, as to pass an emergency vote so you don't need The required 45 days to vote is not the way to do it.
Calling something safe does not make it safe.
City leaders have already shown that they do not always care to take in constituency's point of view about our streets (I e. Bunts road) but perhaps, taking some time to make sure we do this right is something they would care about. You say that these ordinances will make our streets safer, but saying something is safe is different than ensuring that it will be.
Keep our streets safe, but also be smart about it. There isn't a need to rush
As a parent who relies on active transportation to do all the things that allow my family to be fully functioning members of our community (access school, work, civic meetings, volunteer work, grocery stores, pharmacies, libraries, etc), I fully support the passing of this ordinance as quickly as possible. I disagree with the previous comments made in opposition of this ordinance. This ordinance is very well thought out and the public has had months to come forward to make public comments about it. Delaying the passing of this ordinance any further would be irresponsible of the administration and Council. Lives are at stake. Additionally, I would like to echo and amplify the following comments made by C. Organ, R. Organ, and D. Zielinski: "Please consider allowing for updates to which streets are address between the 10 year ATP cycle. This will help ensure we remain flexible as needs and safety concerns change in the future." "If CASE is to be effective, their suggestions and treatments should automatically trigger a tier one status for that street during the next review/improvement. If Community engagement is truly valued in this city, CASE should have an EQUAL seat at the table." And, "DISCUSSION POINT from section (f): I would like the joint group to discuss adding before/after (1) mode use data, (2) speed data, and (3) community feedback reporting elements to the annual report for tier 1 projects. I urge Council to consider incorporating these thoughtful, rational, and valuable suggestions.
I urge council to pause the vote on the Safe Streets Ordinance. I believe that passing legislation on a fast track makes the decision seem rushed and that it leads one to believe that it is not being given the same thoughtful consideration that other legislation typically gets.
It would seem that a special interest group is pushing the speed of the vote. It also seems that other stakeholders do not get consideration for their views.
Yet, we all have the same priority: making our streets safe for all users. I know we all agree that cars should not be our first priority. We live in a wonderful walkable city. I walk daily in our city. I ride my bike as well. However, I wonder why do cyclists get priority over pedestrians? The present Active Transportation Plan and Safe Streets Initiative always lists pedestrians before cyclists. Contrary to the stated goal of making Lakewood more walking and biking friendly, I think that the safety of pedestrians has taken a back seat and more consideration has been given to cyclists. Multi modal paths create dangers for pedestrians and cyclists. I believe formally separating the two makes each safer. Let’s explore other alternatives rather than trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. We can and we must design better transportation infrastructure.
One of the commenters today asks for revisions to be made. Why not take time and carefully consider these ideas and others before passing the ordinance as it is. Why should enacting it on an emergency basis absolutely necessary? Please pause, table the discussion to a future meeting. Give everyone a seat at the table. Together we can improve the plan.
I am very supportive of passing this ordinance and moving quickly to make our streets more safe for everyone who uses them, regardless of if they drive, ride a bike, or walk.
As someone who rarely drives and chose to live in Lakewood for this exact reason, I support this ordinance and thank the council/administration/staff for working diligently to move forward with this. I encourage the city to continue taking steps make our streets safer, more connected, and more accessible for everyone. Please consider allowing for updates to which streets are address between the 10 year ATP cycle. This will help ensure we remain flexible as needs and safety concerns change in the future.
As a Lakewood homeowner and mom, I’m grateful to City Council for moving forward on the Complete Streets ordinance. This seems like a well thought out step in future infrastructure planning. With the recent traffic incidents in our community, it’s important to me that I see continued progress. I think this is a good step toward making Lakewood’s streets safer for families like mine who want to bike, walk, and travel safely with our children throughout this community.
Fully support passing this ordinance as soon as possible. We have allowed our shared community space to be dominated by cars for far too long. It's time to lead on this issue and do what we can to quickly and proactively reverse this trend and give safety and community space back to pedestrians. Anyone who regularly walks and bikes around Lakewood has recent and recurring stories of close calls and aggressive encounters with drivers. We can't call ourselves a walking city, and use that language to promote Lakewood and highlight our great community, but then drag our feet on real progress. It is time to move forward on this. Thank you to council and Mayor George.
I support the Complete streets ordinance and encourage city council to pass this, with some changes, at the earliest possible meeting.
There needs to be a clearer definition of the two-tiered system for determining how improvements are made to our streets. There also needs to be a change to the frequency with which the active transportation plan is updated. As currently written, the ordinance only requires an update every 10 years. However, additional housing development and street improvements may happen more frequently, such as the current developments in our downtown and along Detroit and Rosewood. However, Detroit is currently not addressed in the current ATP and thus would get no safety improvements when it is repaved.
Further, CASE should have a clearer and more powerful role in determining both short- and long-term street improvements. Our streets currently put cars as the top priority with all other users as an afterthought. If CASE is to be effective, their suggestions and treatments should automatically trigger a tier one status for that street during the next review/improvement. If Community engagement is truly valued in this city, CASE should have an EQUAL seat at the table.
Last, I'd like to point out that the current comments opposing this ordinances lack a fundamental understanding of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and are car-centric NIMBY's masquerading as safety advocates. They claim that they value community feedback, yet oppose an ordinance that creates a process for community feedback on ALL street improvement projects along our main corridors and major interscections. They lack a fundamental understanding of the context of "emergency" wording in this ordinance. They claim to support bicycle infrastructure as long as it isn't on their street, which creates a disjointed and inefficient network for anyone other than drivers.
The only way to increase walking and biking in our city is to make it safe and convenient for EVERYONE.
DISCUSSION POINT from section (f): I would like the joint group to discuss adding before/after (1) mode use data, (2) speed data, and (3) community feedback reporting elements to the annual report for tier 1 projects. The current elements only describe changes the city has made and not the effect the changes had.
I urge Council to vote against Ordinance 16-2025 at this time. While I support efforts to make Lakewood more accessible and safe, this ordinance raises several concerns that should be addressed before immediate implementation.
First, the ordinance lacks a clear fiscal analysis. Major changes to streetscapes—including bike lanes, pedestrian features, and transit redesign—can carry significant costs. Without a transparent funding plan or cost-benefit analysis, taxpayers may be asked to shoulder unforeseen financial burdens or see resources pulled from other vital services.
Second, a "Complete Streets" model, while well-meaning, may not suit all areas of Lakewood. A one-size-fits-all design risks creating inefficiencies, eliminating parking, and worsening traffic in parts of the city not built for such changes. We must prioritize flexibility over broad mandates.
Additionally, there has been insufficient public engagement on this ordinance. Residents, business owners, and neighborhood associations should have more opportunities to weigh in, especially since this could lead to long-term changes in how we move through the city.
Finally, the ordinance lacks clear accountability or performance metrics. Without oversight mechanisms, we risk investing in infrastructure with no way to evaluate its effectiveness.
I respectfully ask Council to pause this ordinance, engage more thoroughly with the community, and ensure a responsible, transparent, and tailored approach to improving Lakewood’s transportation systems.
I respectfully request that Council delay the emergency vote on the Complete Streets Ordinance scheduled for tomorrow. I truly appreciate and share the City’s commitment to making our streets safer and more accessible for everyone. However, I believe that such an important initiative deserves the fullest possible discussion, engagement, and reflection.
The Active Transportation Plan and Complete Streets Ordinance represent major steps toward reshaping how we all move through Lakewood. These are deeply important goals that impact residents across all ages, abilities, and neighborhoods. Many of us want to support these efforts — but also hope that the specific safety challenges of certain corridors, like Bunts Road, can be more carefully examined before final decisions are made.
As a community, we have an opportunity to get this right. Slowing down the process just slightly to allow more open dialogue would strengthen trust, improve the final outcomes, and ensure the new policies are supported as broadly as possible. Listening to the lived experiences of those who use these streets every day — whether on foot, by bike, or by car — will only enhance the work already underway.
I respectfully ask that you defer the vote until additional public input can be gathered and thoughtfully considered. Taking this extra time will affirm Lakewood’s long tradition of citizen-centered decision-making.
I oppose any plan that is passed by emergency legislation and immediately put in place without ample time to think through the plan and design it so it actually promotes safety. This ordinance promises to build safe streets by taking into account the recommendations of legal bodies such as the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. However, the city is already ignoring recommendations by those very offices by building a multi-modal path on Bunts.
If the city continues to ignore the governmental offices it promises to consider, this plan has already been set up to fail.
Take your time. Consider significant input from residents who are actually impacted by your actions before passing legislation. Do better.
Safe streets should be a top priority of Lakewood, but any plan needs to be well thought out and should not be rushed as an emergency order. Do not rush this through as you did the Bunts Rehabilitation project and the planned multi-modal path. As your constituent, I urge you to take the time to do this right to REALLY promote safety with sound planning, not just in name.
I'm in support of ordinances such as this that makes streets safer for all especially those using active transportation as they are in a far more vulnerable position when trying to get around.
The sooner we get these done the more lives we save from needless death due to careless infrastructure/drivers
We can keep kicking the can down the road or we can actually do something. Without legislation that has any "bite" we will continue with the status quo because that's what the vocal minority/NIMBY's demand. That is why I support the Complete Streets of the Codified Ordinances. I want to see real change in my city. We can continue claiming we are walkable and bikeable but other cities (cough cough Cleveland) are making good on those promises by building infrastructure. We need walking and biking infrastructure that gets more people on the road, not just spandex clad cyclists.
As a mother of a young child, who will soon be walking to schools in this city, I of course want safe Streets. But moving so quickly, as to pass an emergency vote so you don't need The required 45 days to vote is not the way to do it.
Calling something safe does not make it safe.
City leaders have already shown that they do not always care to take in constituency's point of view about our streets (I e. Bunts road) but perhaps, taking some time to make sure we do this right is something they would care about. You say that these ordinances will make our streets safer, but saying something is safe is different than ensuring that it will be.
Keep our streets safe, but also be smart about it. There isn't a need to rush
As a parent who relies on active transportation to do all the things that allow my family to be fully functioning members of our community (access school, work, civic meetings, volunteer work, grocery stores, pharmacies, libraries, etc), I fully support the passing of this ordinance as quickly as possible. I disagree with the previous comments made in opposition of this ordinance. This ordinance is very well thought out and the public has had months to come forward to make public comments about it. Delaying the passing of this ordinance any further would be irresponsible of the administration and Council. Lives are at stake. Additionally, I would like to echo and amplify the following comments made by C. Organ, R. Organ, and D. Zielinski: "Please consider allowing for updates to which streets are address between the 10 year ATP cycle. This will help ensure we remain flexible as needs and safety concerns change in the future." "If CASE is to be effective, their suggestions and treatments should automatically trigger a tier one status for that street during the next review/improvement. If Community engagement is truly valued in this city, CASE should have an EQUAL seat at the table." And, "DISCUSSION POINT from section (f): I would like the joint group to discuss adding before/after (1) mode use data, (2) speed data, and (3) community feedback reporting elements to the annual report for tier 1 projects. I urge Council to consider incorporating these thoughtful, rational, and valuable suggestions.
I urge council to pause the vote on the Safe Streets Ordinance. I believe that passing legislation on a fast track makes the decision seem rushed and that it leads one to believe that it is not being given the same thoughtful consideration that other legislation typically gets.
It would seem that a special interest group is pushing the speed of the vote. It also seems that other stakeholders do not get consideration for their views.
Yet, we all have the same priority: making our streets safe for all users. I know we all agree that cars should not be our first priority. We live in a wonderful walkable city. I walk daily in our city. I ride my bike as well. However, I wonder why do cyclists get priority over pedestrians? The present Active Transportation Plan and Safe Streets Initiative always lists pedestrians before cyclists. Contrary to the stated goal of making Lakewood more walking and biking friendly, I think that the safety of pedestrians has taken a back seat and more consideration has been given to cyclists. Multi modal paths create dangers for pedestrians and cyclists. I believe formally separating the two makes each safer. Let’s explore other alternatives rather than trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. We can and we must design better transportation infrastructure.
One of the commenters today asks for revisions to be made. Why not take time and carefully consider these ideas and others before passing the ordinance as it is. Why should enacting it on an emergency basis absolutely necessary? Please pause, table the discussion to a future meeting. Give everyone a seat at the table. Together we can improve the plan.
I am very supportive of passing this ordinance and moving quickly to make our streets more safe for everyone who uses them, regardless of if they drive, ride a bike, or walk.
As someone who rarely drives and chose to live in Lakewood for this exact reason, I support this ordinance and thank the council/administration/staff for working diligently to move forward with this. I encourage the city to continue taking steps make our streets safer, more connected, and more accessible for everyone. Please consider allowing for updates to which streets are address between the 10 year ATP cycle. This will help ensure we remain flexible as needs and safety concerns change in the future.
As a Lakewood homeowner and mom, I’m grateful to City Council for moving forward on the Complete Streets ordinance. This seems like a well thought out step in future infrastructure planning. With the recent traffic incidents in our community, it’s important to me that I see continued progress. I think this is a good step toward making Lakewood’s streets safer for families like mine who want to bike, walk, and travel safely with our children throughout this community.
Fully support passing this ordinance as soon as possible. We have allowed our shared community space to be dominated by cars for far too long. It's time to lead on this issue and do what we can to quickly and proactively reverse this trend and give safety and community space back to pedestrians. Anyone who regularly walks and bikes around Lakewood has recent and recurring stories of close calls and aggressive encounters with drivers. We can't call ourselves a walking city, and use that language to promote Lakewood and highlight our great community, but then drag our feet on real progress. It is time to move forward on this. Thank you to council and Mayor George.
I support the Complete streets ordinance and encourage city council to pass this, with some changes, at the earliest possible meeting.
There needs to be a clearer definition of the two-tiered system for determining how improvements are made to our streets. There also needs to be a change to the frequency with which the active transportation plan is updated. As currently written, the ordinance only requires an update every 10 years. However, additional housing development and street improvements may happen more frequently, such as the current developments in our downtown and along Detroit and Rosewood. However, Detroit is currently not addressed in the current ATP and thus would get no safety improvements when it is repaved.
Further, CASE should have a clearer and more powerful role in determining both short- and long-term street improvements. Our streets currently put cars as the top priority with all other users as an afterthought. If CASE is to be effective, their suggestions and treatments should automatically trigger a tier one status for that street during the next review/improvement. If Community engagement is truly valued in this city, CASE should have an EQUAL seat at the table.
Last, I'd like to point out that the current comments opposing this ordinances lack a fundamental understanding of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and are car-centric NIMBY's masquerading as safety advocates. They claim that they value community feedback, yet oppose an ordinance that creates a process for community feedback on ALL street improvement projects along our main corridors and major interscections. They lack a fundamental understanding of the context of "emergency" wording in this ordinance. They claim to support bicycle infrastructure as long as it isn't on their street, which creates a disjointed and inefficient network for anyone other than drivers.
The only way to increase walking and biking in our city is to make it safe and convenient for EVERYONE.
DISCUSSION POINT from section (f): I would like the joint group to discuss adding before/after (1) mode use data, (2) speed data, and (3) community feedback reporting elements to the annual report for tier 1 projects. The current elements only describe changes the city has made and not the effect the changes had.
I urge Council to vote against Ordinance 16-2025 at this time. While I support efforts to make Lakewood more accessible and safe, this ordinance raises several concerns that should be addressed before immediate implementation.
First, the ordinance lacks a clear fiscal analysis. Major changes to streetscapes—including bike lanes, pedestrian features, and transit redesign—can carry significant costs. Without a transparent funding plan or cost-benefit analysis, taxpayers may be asked to shoulder unforeseen financial burdens or see resources pulled from other vital services.
Second, a "Complete Streets" model, while well-meaning, may not suit all areas of Lakewood. A one-size-fits-all design risks creating inefficiencies, eliminating parking, and worsening traffic in parts of the city not built for such changes. We must prioritize flexibility over broad mandates.
Additionally, there has been insufficient public engagement on this ordinance. Residents, business owners, and neighborhood associations should have more opportunities to weigh in, especially since this could lead to long-term changes in how we move through the city.
Finally, the ordinance lacks clear accountability or performance metrics. Without oversight mechanisms, we risk investing in infrastructure with no way to evaluate its effectiveness.
I respectfully ask Council to pause this ordinance, engage more thoroughly with the community, and ensure a responsible, transparent, and tailored approach to improving Lakewood’s transportation systems.
I respectfully request that Council delay the emergency vote on the Complete Streets Ordinance scheduled for tomorrow. I truly appreciate and share the City’s commitment to making our streets safer and more accessible for everyone. However, I believe that such an important initiative deserves the fullest possible discussion, engagement, and reflection.
The Active Transportation Plan and Complete Streets Ordinance represent major steps toward reshaping how we all move through Lakewood. These are deeply important goals that impact residents across all ages, abilities, and neighborhoods. Many of us want to support these efforts — but also hope that the specific safety challenges of certain corridors, like Bunts Road, can be more carefully examined before final decisions are made.
As a community, we have an opportunity to get this right. Slowing down the process just slightly to allow more open dialogue would strengthen trust, improve the final outcomes, and ensure the new policies are supported as broadly as possible. Listening to the lived experiences of those who use these streets every day — whether on foot, by bike, or by car — will only enhance the work already underway.
I respectfully ask that you defer the vote until additional public input can be gathered and thoughtfully considered. Taking this extra time will affirm Lakewood’s long tradition of citizen-centered decision-making.
I oppose any plan that is passed by emergency legislation and immediately put in place without ample time to think through the plan and design it so it actually promotes safety. This ordinance promises to build safe streets by taking into account the recommendations of legal bodies such as the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. However, the city is already ignoring recommendations by those very offices by building a multi-modal path on Bunts.
If the city continues to ignore the governmental offices it promises to consider, this plan has already been set up to fail.
Take your time. Consider significant input from residents who are actually impacted by your actions before passing legislation. Do better.
Safe streets should be a top priority of Lakewood, but any plan needs to be well thought out and should not be rushed as an emergency order. Do not rush this through as you did the Bunts Rehabilitation project and the planned multi-modal path. As your constituent, I urge you to take the time to do this right to REALLY promote safety with sound planning, not just in name.