Give the Kauffman Park contributions back, Mayor George

[Ed FitzGerald]

I'm sure I am not the only person who was disturbed by the Plain Dealer story this morning about the possible sale of Kauffman Park.

Whatever the merits of the plan are, which have continued to remain hidden, the contribution to Mayor George of $4,500 by the developers has cast a pall over the negotiations.

Mayor George, my request is that you return this $4,500 - the largest contribution you have received this year. As an alternative, I am requesting that you use those funds to help refurbish some of the facilities at Kauffman Park.

Only buy doing this can you remove the pall which has been cast over these pending development negotiations.

[Richard Cole]

Only buy doing this can you remove the pall which has been cast over these pending development negotiations.

This is the most wonderful Freudian Slip I have read in a long time

But I do agree with the sentiment that there is something decidedly fishy with the buyer/developer/contibutor status of the company/individuals from Canton.

[Joe Whisman]

I suggested in the "secret plan" thread. Mayor George could walk a check downstairs to the Lakewood Foundation and place it the Caring 4 Kids Cove account. We will not waste the money. We could replace missing swings, or maybe replace the dragon. I will make sure a thank you note will be sent out.
I will also take any money Giltz & Ass. would care to donate. LAKEWOOD PARKS SHOULD NOT BE FOR SALE!

[Frank Murtaugh]

I'm sure I am not the only person who was disturbed by the Plain Dealer story this morning about the possible sale of Kauffman Park.

Whatever the merits of the plan are, which have continued to remain hidden, the contribution to Mayor George of $4,500 by the developers has cast a pall over the negotiations.

Mayor George, my request is that you return this $4,500 - the largest contribution you have received this year. As an alternative, I am requesting that you use those funds to help refurbish some of the facilities at Kauffman Park.

Only buy doing this can you remove the pall which has been cast over these pending development negotiations.

The developer, like any donor, has a constitutional and statutory right to contribute to any candidate's campaign. He chose Tom George. He could have contributed to your campaign. If you were the sitting Mayor, he probably would have.

Obviously developers, employer groups, unions et al have traditionally exercized their right to be politically active. There is nothing improper about the contribution. It was transparent and absolutely legal and above board.

The developer presumably got involved because he has a huge financial stake in Lakewood and its operation with regard to new development. He has surely looked around Lakewood and seen the unprecedented progress made during Mayor George's first term.

It's obvious the developer deemed it to be in his company's best interest to keep this Administration up and running through another term - without the loss of talent and skill which would result from a change of Administration just when continuity is crucial. It's that simple and there is no hidden plan.

Your campaign is now casting aspersions upon a good, honest and competent leader with a twenty year unblemished record as a honest, dedicated Lakewood elected official. This tactic I believe started with Mr. Demro's campaign.

There is no need for the Mayor to give back the legit contribution. Perhaps you should take back, clarify, or preferably bury and put a pall over your campaign's clear allegation of improper conduct. Maybe it would be best to do it now rather than after the election when its hand shake and smile time. The "pall" statement is unfair to all involved, particularly the Mayor and his family.

[Ed FitzGerald]

Frank-

Sorry, but I think taking a huge contribution just before an election from a party negotiating to buy a public asset is unseemly.

The mayor has said he will participate in a dialogue here, and I have answered all his questions. Many, many residents are still waiting for his reply to this question.

[michael gill]

It wasn't always this way.

Up to the late 19th century, corporations were not allowed to participate in the political process in this way.

In the late 19th century corporations successfully lobbied to change the Ohio consititution to give corporations the right to give money to candidates.

Time was when a corporation couldn't file a lawsuit, either. But over time corporations have gradually gained these rights which previously had been granted only to human beings.

There's a very informative documentary on the subject from the American Friends Service Committee--an arm of the Quakers--detailing how corporate powers have evolved. It's called Corp Or Nation.

[Stephen Eisel]

The developer, like any donor, has a constitutional and statutory right to contribute to any candidate's campaign. He chose Tom George. He could have contributed to your campaign. If you were the sitting Mayor, he probably would have.

Soft Money?

[Gary Rice]

I made this point on another thread but it bears repeating here:

The amount that any of our local candidates receive as campaign contributions, while more than nickels and dimes, is hardly more than chump change in the big picture of politics. To even infer (if that would indeed be the case here) that someone with the character of a Tom George, or for that matter, ANY of our candidates could be bought off for the price of a good dining room set, is patently ridiculous to me.

We're talking about someone's good name, for goodness' sake.

Remember too that campaign contributions are NOT for personal use anyway. There are STRICT federal laws concerning such funds.

Still, it's a good thing to raise questions like these. It tends to let all public officials know that the public is in fact, watching them.

And to this point, it all appears to me, to be 100% legal under Ohio law.

The sad part, to me, is how few of the public seem to turn out for input, while so many city issues are being discussed at City Hall. My own committee has looked out on far too many empty chairs, far too often...

[Bill Call]

There is no need for the Mayor to give back the legit contribution. Perhaps you should take back, clarify, or preferably bury and put a pall over your campaign's clear allegation of improper conduct. Maybe it would be best to do it now rather than after the election when its hand shake and smile time. The "pall" statement is unfair to all involved, particularly the Mayor and his family.

The Mayor's acceptance of the campaign contribution was poor judgement on his part. I am sure some of his supporters wish the contribution was never made. I'm sure at this point the Mayor wishes the contribution was never made. But it was and now it is a legitimate campaign issue.

Why?

The Mayor's campaign owes him $15,000. It is perfectly lawful for him to pay himself back from his campaign balance. So in a sense the money from the developer will end up in the Mayors pocket.

And...The donors just paid $5.7 million for a property worth $2 million. What do they know that we don't? And isn't the sale of a public space a legitimate campaign issue?

[Dee Martinez]

And...The donors just paid $5.7 million for a property worth $2 million. What do they know that we don't? And isn't the sale of a public space a legitimate campaign issue?

Mr. Call

No, the property wasnt wroth $2 million. It was "worth" $5.7 million, at least in the mind of the buyer.
I tried to tell my kids this with baseball cards. A card is not intrinscially (sp?) worth $10. Its worth $10 when someone agrees to pay $10 for it. Otherwise its a piece of cardboard worth less than a penny.
Eventually, my kids got it.

And it was not the "sale of public space" it was the sale of a private property. If Glitz bought it for 150 percent markup over the appraised value on the assurance of a heavily-challenged mayor that a park would also be available, then Glitz, not the citizens of Lakewood, could be the real chumps in this. Because they just committed themselves to paying more than double the current property tax with ZERO GUARANTEE the park property will be available for sale.

You should be applauding Mayor George for rolling these Canton hicks. He got more property tax and a campaign contribution to boot.

[Bill Grulich]

Bravo Dee...Ever consider running for an elective office? You sound like a good fund raiser.

[Jeff Endress]

Are there any of you who are discussing this who actually feel that somehow ANY mayor could actually sell ANY public park without the action/advice/consent of council?

If ANY mayor were to promise such an action, unless he had a rubber stamp council, he would have to be in lala land. If any developer thought Mayoral action was all that was needed, he'd be even dumber.

One last time. There's nothing to talk about until someone puts forth a proposal. Any proposal will HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL. THE MAYOR DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE ON ANY SALE OF PUBLIC LAND WITHOUT ACTION BY COUNCIL.

Anyway, the actual plan is to turn the McKinley school property (closing next year) into a ball field/recreation center thereby rendering Kaufman unneeded. It will probably include moving Winterhurst and redeveloping the old Winterhurst into a Cosco. They'll probably turn Taft school (closing next year) into soccer fields. After they move the Board of Ed to Franklin, the old location is going to be made into a lacrosse field. And, best of all, it will all happen WITHOUT ANY ACTION BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE LAKEWOOD CITY EXECUTIVE!

Jeff

PS I hear that our half of the Emerald Canyon has been sold for strip mining rights.

PPS Lakewood also entered into a deal to sell Lake Erie to Las Vegas.....

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jeff

Even more to the point.

In our Virtual Debate, not one candidate said it was not for sale.


FWIW


.

[Richard Cole]

One last time. There's nothing to talk about until someone puts forth a proposal.


PPS Lakewood also entered into a deal to sell Lake Erie to Las Vegas.....

At the 3rd Main Street/Streetscape public meeting, the powerpoint presentation indicated that the Foxx Field/Kaufmann Park area, after streetscape improvements, was designated as "Mixed Use Development".

Given that public presentation, I believe that there is something to talk about.

Additionally, an Observer has related a conversation that occurred with the Mayor and the Assistant Planning Director that including a discussion of the plans for a U Shaped development.

And on a much broader, long range issue, we need to keep Lake Erie water up north!!

[Jill Jusko]

Either the Observation Deck is for open discussion or it's not--just no hiding behind false names and you own your comments. Clearly many people do find plenty to say about Kaufmann park even absent a definite plan. If nothing else, the vibrancy of the thread discussion shows public officials that the public does care about the future of this area. That's a good thing.