Brent Larkin's "Unloveable Losers"

[Michael Deneen]

A few weeks ago PD writer Brent Larkin launched the newspaper's attack on Lakewood by labeling Issue 64 opponents as "Unloveable Losers".
This was followed by an official endorsement of Issue 64 by the PD board last week.

Meg Ostrowski, who is widely known to be both loveable and not a loser, had an excellent response in this week's edition of the print Observer.
Unlike Mr. Larkin, she lives here in Lakewood and has closely studied the issue.
I highly encourage everyone to read and share it.

http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/20 ... -activists

[Lori Allen _]

I wonder if a look at Mr. Larkin's bank account would show a recent wire of a certain amount of money from an offshore account. I wonder whose name the offshore account would be in?

[Bridget Conant]

The article was eloquent, impassioned, and showed great perspicacity.

It was an honest look at the situation and I heartily agree.

[Michael Deneen]

I wonder if a look at Mr. Larkin's bank account would show a recent wire of a certain amount of money from an offshore account. I wonder whose name the offshore account would be in?

No, Larkin does not get any "hush money".

However, he does run in the elite "one percent" social circles with people like Toby Cosgrove.
As Roldo Bartimole has pointed out countless times, there is definitely a corporate "groupthink" among the PD, Cleveland's business community, and our so-called "non-profits".

[Jim O'Bryan]

I wonder if a look at Mr. Larkin's bank account would show a recent wire of a certain amount of money from an offshore account. I wonder whose name the offshore account would be in?

No, Larkin does not get any "hush money".

However, he does run in the elite "one percent" social circles with people like Toby Cosgrove.
As Roldo Bartimole has pointed out countless times, there is definitely a corporate "groupthink" among the PD, Cleveland's business community, and our so-called "non-profits".

Funny

One of the many things that started this project was the fact that "corporate media" favored corporate friends, and with good reason for their own self interest. You know, there are millions of reasons for millions of thoughts and actions on all of the hospital debacle, most have nothing to do with "offshore accounts and payoffs" but much of it does have to do with self interests. AS many people that were around during the WestEnd can attest to. The PD was firmly with the Strip Mall people. Why? Who knows, but it made sense for the PD, more stores, more ads. Of course the PD and Mr. Larkin spoke of the end of Lakewood if the strip mall project did not go through. For the next handful of years Mr. Larkins comments of Lakewood, mostly at Kiwanis functions, was Lakewood is failing. Even though Lakewood itself was doing better than ever, and was starting to really get a groove, just as the George Administration ended.

At the end of the WestEnd, we had found out that the "rumors" and "questions" on the street, had more truth than many of the "unbiased reporters." A small group of us looked for a sustainable and credible way to grab and try to vet that information, then both save and rebroadcast it to the community. It is now known as the Lakewood Observer.

Speaking out against corporate interests has cost the LO advertisers, and money, but the Lakewood Observer is our joint labor of love to the community, not our profession. We could afford the hit, as we are not professionals, but one could ask themselves if the PD could survive without the Clinic's and suppliers' ad revenue?

.

[Bridget Conant]

but one could ask themselves if the PD could survive without the Clinic's and suppliers' ad revenue?

They are barely surviving WITH it!

[Lori Allen _]

Did Cuyahoga County Give the PD A Property Tax "Gift?"

The paper is so terrible and written at a juvenile level, they must give it away for free at Drug Mart.

Perhaps this is the PD's hush money, a sudden reduction in the value of their building at 1801 Superior by Cuyahoga County! It is a common misconception that the Pee Dee moved all of their operations to Tiedeman. Advance Ohio (Cleveland.com, Sun News, and the Plain Dealer all rolled into one) still do operations out of this building. The building is owned by Forest City Publishing, which was the corporate title of the PD prior to 2/15/1980. According to AFN # 00533256 on file with the recorder's office, Forest City Publishing changed its corporate title to the Plain Dealer on 2/15/1980. In other words, Forest City Publishing is the Plain Dealer.

In 2013, Forest City Publishing (A.K.A. the Plain Dealer) paid $1,133,060.10 in property taxes. In 2013, the PD building at 1801 Superior was valued at $32,662,600.

PD Taxes Forest City 2013.jpg (123.1 KiB) Viewed 2904 times

In 2014, the building suddenly dropped in value to exactly $20,000,000!

PD Taxes Forest City 2014.jpg (114.49 KiB) Viewed 2904 times

In 2015, Forest City is only paying $741,531 in property taxes.

PD Taxes Forest City 2015.jpg (122.04 KiB) Viewed 2904 times

Why the sudden drop in value in such a short time? Was this a "gift" from Armond Budish and Ed Fitzgerald to keep the PD quiet about alleged illegal activity is Lakewood?

[Michael Deneen]

Did Cuyahoga County Give the PD A Property Tax "Gift?"

You're looking way too deep.

Favors are more often done in exchange for influence and access than for money.

It's a simple matter of familiarity and friendship among similarly privileged folks. I bet a lot of Clinic and PD management will be down at the ball game tonight rubbing shoulders and living the high life.
For them, everything is great.....issues like healthcare, education, and poverty aren't a problem for their friends and neighbors.
They will toast the "Cleveland is on the rise" narrative....ignoring unemployment, troubled schools, third world levels of infant mortality, etc.

[Lori Allen _]

Here is the deed showing that the corporate title of Forest City Publishing was changed to Plain Dealer Publishing in 1980:

Forest City PD Deed JPG.jpg (415.06 KiB) Viewed 2818 times

[Michael Deneen]

On this election eve, I thought Meg's wonderful piece deserved a bump.

Brent Larkin and the Elites think Lakewood should roll over for the Clinic.
Will Larkin get his way tomorrow?

[james fitzgibbons]

We will never roll over, We Are The Proud People of Lakewood Do Not Take Us For Granted.

[mjkuhns]

Brent Larkin and the Elites think Lakewood should roll over for the Clinic.
Will Larkin get his way tomorrow?

I am going to say no, simply because in an important sense I think that their way has already been defeated.

I think that Larkin & co's way was avoiding any public vote, entirely. I feel safe in saying that proponents of this deal have always wanted it to be a decision made for the public, not by the public.

And they did not get that. Thanks to Lakewood's Audacious Activists, the people of Lakewood are going to decide* whether our hospital is closed, and turned over to the Cleveland Clinic for a health center which the Clinic will own.

The people may well choose that. But if that still constitutes rolling over for the Clinic, I think it will essentially be a voluntary choice rather than something imposed by the powers that be. And I will live with that. I won't like it, but while I can complain of this or that circumstance in which we have campaigned, I believe that overall this election will be about as fair as it ever gets in the real world. Which is frequently flawed, in all kinds of ways, but we make do and have reason to be glad of it.

If we end up with what elites wanted in the first place, going through all of this certainly will have been a big pain, but that's democracy. Decision-making by the few avoids a lot of nuisance. I happen to believe that democracy's aggravation is, all the same, a price worth paying. Not only because it's more fair, but because from a historian's perspective, it also seems like societies which permit argument and dissent fare better over time than those where challenging the edicts of the few is forbidden.

I'm not going to go so far as to say "we have already won," or anything like that. Abstract liberties are important, but more pragmatic ends have been a large part of my investment of enormous time and energy in this campaign.

But I don't think Brent Larkin can entirely get his way tomorrow, whatever the outcome.

* I choose to dismiss Sam O'Leary's pretzel logic, by which the deal absolutely positively cannot by any possibility be overturned ever… yet he and his friends are furiously campaigning to avoid an Against vote anyway, because somehow it will enable a handful of volunteer attorneys to hold things up in court long enough to cost the city at least two million dollars in legal expenses. I fail to understand how it is that O'Leary and Kevin Butler can be so certain of any potential litigation's outcome, yet anticipate that any court would spend more than a token amount of time before dismissing the matter, let alone so much time that it cost anyone two million dollars. Which sure seems like it would require a lot of court time even at premium attorneys' rates.

[Dan Alaimo]

In one of the many online discussions, Jay Foran was mocking our insistence on 'transparency.' Let's hope that as we move forward there is a commitment to real transparency regardless of the outcome.

[Brian Essi]

Brent Larkin and the Elites think Lakewood should roll over for the Clinic.
Will Larkin get his way tomorrow?

I am going to say no, simply because in an important sense I think that their way has already been defeated.

I think that Larkin & co's way was avoiding any public vote, entirely. I feel safe in saying that proponents of this deal have always wanted it to be a decision made for the public, not by the public.

And they did not get that. Thanks to Lakewood's Audacious Activists, the people of Lakewood are going to decide* whether our hospital is closed, and turned over to the Cleveland Clinic for a health center which the Clinic will own.

The people may well choose that. But if that still constitutes rolling over for the Clinic, I think it will essentially be a voluntary choice rather than something imposed by the powers that be. And I will live with that. I won't like it, but while I can complain of this or that circumstance in which we have campaigned, I believe that overall this election will be about as fair as it ever gets in the real world. Which is frequently flawed, in all kinds of ways, but we make do and have reason to be glad of it.

If we end up with what elites wanted in the first place, going through all of this certainly will have been a big pain, but that's democracy. Decision-making by the few avoids a lot of nuisance. I happen to believe that democracy's aggravation is, all the same, a price worth paying. Not only because it's more fair, but because from a historian's perspective, it also seems like societies which permit argument and dissent fare better over time than those where challenging the edicts of the few is forbidden.

I'm not going to go so far as to say "we have already won," or anything like that. Abstract liberties are important, but more pragmatic ends have been a large part of my investment of enormous time and energy in this campaign.

But I don't think Brent Larkin can entirely get his way tomorrow, whatever the outcome.

* I choose to dismiss Sam O'Leary's pretzel logic, by which the deal absolutely positively cannot by any possibility be overturned ever… yet he and his friends are furiously campaigning to avoid an Against vote anyway, because somehow it will enable a handful of volunteer attorneys to hold things up in court long enough to cost the city at least two million dollars in legal expenses. I fail to understand how it is that O'Leary and Kevin Butler can be so certain of any potential litigation's outcome, yet anticipate that any court would spend more than a token amount of time before dismissing the matter, let alone so much time that it cost anyone two million dollars. Which sure seems like it would require a lot of court time even at premium attorneys' rates.

Mr. Kuhns,

Excellent logic and analysis. O''Leary has indeed employed "pretzel logic".