Great questions - if the plan AGAINST Lakewood hates the leaders, why do they trust the leaders to make a plan for them?

[Corey Rossen]

The plan AGAINST Lakewood, which is really not a plan as Jim states, wants to knock down the current leaders as much as possible. At the same time, they want these leaders to come up with a plan for the future if they win their battle.

Great questions below to for those who are AGAINST Lakewood.

Along this line, here is one thing I don't understand:

Let's say 64 fails. How do we force the CCF to take Lakewood Hospital back to what it was before they gutted it?

Correct me if I am wrong, but though CCF may have had a contract, can't they just throw money and lawyers at it and make it near impossible for us to force them to reopen it? And who represents the city? Is it the the same City Hall that made the deal in the first place? Why would they want to throw the city's money and resources at suing the very institution that they previously had a deal with before issue 64 failed?

Or, do we just leave CCF alone and try to negotiate a better deal. And, a similar question, who are we entrusting to negotiate that better deal if 64 fails? Would it be back in the hands of City Hall? I seriously am confused about who is taking responsibility for what happens next if 64 fails.