Lakewood's Needed Debate On Hospital Falls Apart

[todd heckeler]

Are we looking at Mike Summers - Cain v.2?

Or are we looking at Mike Skindell - George v.2?

[Michael Deneen]

Is Todd here as part of Build Lakewood's new "charm offensive"?

[Brian Essi]

Mayor Donley and Summers have been running from the hospital since CCF's push poll showed it was a loser.

That's why Summers is running from the debate and they send negative Ned-Todd here.

Same as when they sent Todd here on the bugus ballot language hoax.

No worries he's gone for the night. He'll return with new orders and more fibs for tomorrow.

[todd heckeler]

Damage control.

[Brian Essi]

I don't watch TV

Is that a reference to Suspect-Defendant Summers involved in minimizing a crime?

[Michael Deneen]

They should have debated. Too bad Skindell and his negotiator(mm) couldn't agree to terms.

Patrick

I had the pleasure of talking to both negotiators this week.

Matt would have done nearly anything to get the debate on the hospital done. Nate seemed very positive in the week earlier.

It is terrible for the voters this did not get done.

If this deal was so good, why not take the time to crow about it?

.

The Mayor was NEVER going to agree to this.
The hospital deal is toxic, he doesn't want to be associated with it.
That's why he has folks like Build Lakewood, Jen Pae and Bullock doing his dirty work.

[Bridget Conant]

I think Lynn Foran missed the Plain Dealer
endorsement of Mike Skindell:

He has distinguished himself as an environmental steward of the Great Lakes and an advocate for the disenfranchised.

Skindell's experience, hard work, deeply informed positions and common-sense approach to hot-button issues make him the clear choice in this race.

[todd heckeler]

I think Lynn Foran missed the Plain Dealer
endorsement of Mike Skindell:

He has distinguished himself as an environmental steward of the Great Lakes and an advocate for the disenfranchised.

Skindell's experience, hard work, deeply informed positions and common-sense approach to hot-button issues make him the clear choice in this race.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... io_se.html

From: October 10, 2014

Article: Michael J. Skindell for Ohio Senate District 23

[Dan Alaimo]

So the Mayor wanted to spend only 25% of a debate about the Lakewood Hospital issue discussing the Lakewood Hospital issue? And now they are saying Mike Skindell backed out? And people believe this spin? Oi.

[Bridget Conant]

Thanks for the link, Todd! I posted it earlier and I'm sure people would like to know what the PD editorial staff thinks of Skindell.

Obviously, they were very impressed with his

experience, hard work, deeply informed positions and common-sense approach to hot-button issues make him the clear choice in this race.

[Dan Alaimo]

Curious: On Facebook, Build Lakewood hasn't commented on this - so far. It's only Rick Uldricks.

[Phil Florian]

As a Democrat I am still torn as to which candidate to support for President. I love the moxie and socialistic leanings of Bernie Sanders but there is something to be said for the strong leadership, quick wit and worldly experience of Clinton. I am concerned with some decisions she made up to and including the private e-mail server. though.

That being said, I was impressed when Sanders, who could have made easy political hay over it, decided to leave the issue of emails off the table to get to the real meat of their differences during the debate last week.

I know the Republicans when their chance to debate the likely Democratic nominee Clinton next year will not be so nice. For the Republican candidate this is a boxing match and not a venue of comparing ideals so they will use the e-mail and even the trumped up Bengazi issue to their benefit and will put the heat on her to avoid the electorate having to take a serious look at them.

The comparison to the current mayoral race seems apt. By talking only Lakewood Hospital, the area that Summers is clearly the weakest, it allows Skindell to "what if" his way and talk hypothetical situations the entire time without ever having to address any concerns a voter might have about HIS record. To the Pro-Skindell crowd any attempt to question Skindell's qualifications by Summers during such a debate will be seen as deflecting or pivoting. So this won't be a debate as much as it would be a public trial of Summers. Which is what people want but, as Brian Essi repeatedly points out, we have plenty of opportunities for this with the multiple lawsuits and injunctions out there so why yet another one? If any of the other legal entities decide to follow up on the filings (be it the AG, FTC or Court of Common Pleas) then SLH folks will get their day in court. In fact, I would think that with so many lawsuits out there Summers is likely unable to do much to publicly discuss these issues. We have taken the issue of public trial by electoral process and instead put it in the hands of the courts to resolve.

Attorneys of the Deck, what can Summers legally say about issues that are now being reviewed at the highest judicial levels?

But back to my original comparison. While I am very concerned with how Summers handled the LH issue as much as I am concerned with how Clinton handled the e-mail issue I also do not want to see a full debate to deal with either of these. The e-mail issue is being handled by investigative committees as now the LH issue is being presented at, well, just about every legal level possible. Time to let these two guys talk about the rest of their ideas on how to lead this City.

[Brian Essi]

Attorneys of the Deck, what can Summers legally say about issues that are now being reviewed at the highest judicial levels?

Phil,

I like your posts.

The short answer is: The Truth.
Long answer: The facts Mike, nothing but the facts, no spin no dancing.

There is no getting around the fact that Summers created this problem, he is not a victim of me or anyone else, he brought it on himself---he should own it but he is running from it.

So while I respect your views, I respectfully disagree and see it differently.

The choice here is between squeaky clean and someone who has clearly mismanaged a very important issue--and then lied to cover parts of it up---yet Summers crows that the squeaky clean guy has no management experience--I disagree with that false assertion which will be dealt with separately.

Summers has also mismanaged host of other City problems--Planning, Housing, Building, Public Works to name a few.

If it was not for Summers' mismanagement, we are left with nominal management successes on his part even though he is perceive as a good CEO--he is not.

Phil,

I have just received public records from Kevin Butler in a tardy response which records allegedly support Summers' claim of 75 new businesses and $80 million private investment under his regime in his campaign literature. While I am not done reviewing it, I can share a couple of examples of what he is claiming:

1. On October 15, 2015, apparently in response to my document request, he added a page of businesses to the onelakewood.com site--Among them was Georgetown. Do you think that constitutes a business that he should claim as due to his leadership when it was a sale of Three Birds to a new owner? I see it zero sum.

2. To justify the $80 million investment, he had Dru Siley compile a list of numbers from building permits---mostly residential. For example, he claims that he is responsible for an addition I made on my home or when someone replaced their air conditioner at their home. Do you think that is something he should take credit for?

Do you think that is honest leadership?

[Corey Rossen]

Brian,

To address #1 - if the building were vacant after 3 Birds and no one wanted to move a business into Lakewood or that location the Mayor, any Mayor, would be at fault. So either way the Mayor loses, or wins.

#2 - if a house or neighborhood feel into disrepair the Mayor, any Mayor, would be at fault. So either way the Mayor loses, or wins.

Corey

[Brian Essi]

Three Birds was not failing

Summers had nothing to do with my decision to build an addition--but if I were considering it now I would not have built because of him.

The bigger point is using the 75 business claim and the $80 million claim in the same sentence is classic misinformation and deceives the reader into believing there was an $80 million business investment.

Much like the $120 million lie on the hospital that remains on the public website

You can't spin this. It's false and misleading

Defendant Summers has Horrible record Otherwise he would not have to lie about it