The Observation Deck

Marguerite Harkness wrote:Actually, to clarify.

THIS amendment, only says that IF Council votes to close the hospital, the issue MUST go to the voters at the next general or a special election.
This amendment itself, does not keep the hospital open, nor does it close it.
It only sets up an automatic referendum so the voters would have a say in such a decision.

We are fortunate that Lakewood residents are generally educated and informed citizens who we can trust to make our own intelligent decision.

Unlike some of our current batch of elected officials.

Argh, was posting my response to your response not knowing you were responding to your own response.

Still not clear. What does our say do in terms of actual impact, then?

Phil Florian wrote:

Marguerite Harkness wrote:It will remain OPEN.

If CCF decides to balk on its commitment until 2026 (as they were already interested in doing it seems) then how would this Amendment help/hinder?

Phil,

Currently CCF is racing to destroy the hospital to bend the knees of weaklings and others who just don't get how CCF and Summers operate. So if voters reject a crummy deal or even a "good" deal and CCF leaves then that would be a good thing. First, we can sue and recover damages for all harm done. Second, we can find a partner that is honest and appreciates and respects Lakewood. Given the realities of what has happened these last 9 months, there would be a referendum organized under the current charter anyway so the "N0" camp has created a bogus hype over nothing. Failed and untrustworthy leaders caused the people to resort to the amendment so those leaders are acting out in true character by blaming others for a problem they brought upon us.

Brian Essi wrote:First, we can sue and recover damages for all harm done. Second, we can find a partner that is honest and appreciates and respects Lakewood.

It is these two points that I find concerning. So maybe we can sue and maybe we will get some damages down the road after a costly court battle. Would the hospital be usable by others during this or would it have to remain empty and unused until the dust settles? This amendment does nothing really to protect jobs or operations. It just adds a new wrinkle when the city and CCF negotiates.

In point 2 there is nothing in the amendment that would support this claim. As written the amendment is a cliff the citizens are asked to leap off of in hopes there is a parachute on their back or a giant pile of pillows at the bottom. Do we have any assurance that there is such partner out there? Metro and UH seem to be the only other two choices. Has Metro ship already sailed? Has anyone reached out to UH to see if they, in fact, appreciate and respect Lakewood? They have been around long enough that I would assume we would know if they are an honest partner based on other dealings.

I am curious if any similar amendments like this exist in cities around the country. How do large corporate entities (or heck, any business interest of any size) see this kind of amendment when they look to a city as a place to develop? As the amendment was crafted, were there other examples used as a starting point? Is there any blog or story or something that shows how this was developed, who developed it and what was rationals given or a study of potential impact?

Thanks!

Phil

Phil Florian wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:First, we can sue and recover damages for all harm done. Second, we can find a partner that is honest and appreciates and respects Lakewood.

It is these two points that I find concerning. So maybe we can sue and maybe we will get some damages down the road after a costly court battle. Would the hospital be usable by others during this or would it have to remain empty and unused until the dust settles? This amendment does nothing really to protect jobs or operations. It just adds a new wrinkle when the city and CCF negotiates.

In point 2 there is nothing in the amendment that would support this claim. As written the amendment is a cliff the citizens are asked to leap off of in hopes there is a parachute on their back or a giant pile of pillows at the bottom. Do we have any assurance that there is such partner out there? Metro and UH seem to be the only other two choices. Has Metro ship already sailed? Has anyone reached out to UH to see if they, in fact, appreciate and respect Lakewood? They have been around long enough that I would assume we would know if they are an honest partner based on other dealings.

I am curious if any similar amendments like this exist in cities around the country. How do large corporate entities (or heck, any business interest of any size) see this kind of amendment when they look to a city as a place to develop? As the amendment was crafted, were there other examples used as a starting point? Is there any blog or story or something that shows how this was developed, who developed it and what was rationals given or a study of potential impact?

Thanks!

Phil

Phil,

I understand your concern, but consider the fact that the Family Health Center is the only "development" on the table. Even Bullock admits it will have only 150 employees and the majority of the "doctors" will be inexperienced residents in training. The rest of the doctors are already in Lakewood and will be relocated to the FHC leaving their existing buildings empty. So to over simplify a complex matter, why would we take $26 million of our cash now to demolish buildings and give away equipment to CCF for FREE that are together worth an estimated $70 million. Stated differently, why would we as taxpayers subsidize CCF and the yet to de identified developer(s) of the land to the tune of $96 million when that means releasing CCF from a $400 million claim? Discount the claim to 5% and the "deal" still makes no economic sense.

Back on April 13th I wrote my first epistle to Council (Jim O'Bryan posted here back in April) that included the following:

"You on behalf on our City currently have at least five aces in your hands:
1. If my analysis is valid the Lease and DA are assets;
2. CCF needs and wants to retain its share of Lakewood’s valuable market;
3. CCF desperately wants the prime real estate location owned by the City upon which the hospital rests—tearing down the hospital insures their monopoly in the Lakewood Service Area for years to come—25,000 hospital admissions;
4. The possibility of a hospital continuing at that location after 2026—keeping this option open is very important for our City and any future negotiations.
5. The ability to seek competitive bidding for well thought out options with many others besides just CCF."



Since then, my analysis have been verified by others--if CCF stays, they are on the hook and they pay.

So you are right that there is nothing in the amendment that guarantees another partner, but the FHC does more harm than good and hurts rather than helps Lakewood's healthcare. It guarantees we will never have a hospital. We really have nothing to lose and great potential for gain (i.e. the possibility of retaining a hospital) by telling CCF and LHA to pound salt.

Rewarding failure, manipulation and potentially criminal behavior can never help Lakewood.

Brian Essi wrote:Phil,

I understand your concern, but consider the fact that the Family Health Center is the only "development" on the table. Even Bullock admits it will have only 150 employees and the majority of the "doctors" will be inexperienced residents in training. The rest of the doctors are already in Lakewood and will be relocated to the FHC leaving their existing buildings empty. So to over simplify a complex matter, why would we take $26 million of our cash now to demolish buildings and give away equipment to CCF for FREE that are together worth an estimated $70 million. Stated differently, why would we as taxpayers subsidize CCF and the yet to de identified developer(s) of the land to the tune of $96 million when that means releasing CCF from a $400 million claim? Discount the claim to 5% and the "deal" still makes no economic sense.

Back on April 13th I wrote my first epistle to Council (Jim O'Bryan posted here back in April) that included the following:

"You on behalf on our City currently have at least five aces in your hands:
1. If my analysis is valid the Lease and DA are assets;
2. CCF needs and wants to retain its share of Lakewood’s valuable market;
3. CCF desperately wants the prime real estate location owned by the City upon which the hospital rests—tearing down the hospital insures their monopoly in the Lakewood Service Area for years to come—25,000 hospital admissions;
4. The possibility of a hospital continuing at that location after 2026—keeping this option open is very important for our City and any future negotiations.
5. The ability to seek competitive bidding for well thought out options with many others besides just CCF."



Since then, my analysis have been verified by others--if CCF stays, they are on the hook and they pay.

So you are right that there is nothing in the amendment that guarantees another partner, but the FHC does more harm than good and hurts rather than helps Lakewood's healthcare. It guarantees we will never have a hospital. We really have nothing to lose and great potential for gain (i.e. the possibility of retaining a hospital) by telling CCF and LHA to pound salt.

Rewarding failure, manipulation and potentially criminal behavior can never help Lakewood.

Great response, thanks! I appreciate your passion for this. This is so complicated.

I think you did a good job of boiling down possible outcomes and I am glad you acknowledge the uncertainty that I have. I have read some and understood less about this issue. I worry that if I am representative of the average voter in Lakewood when such a vote comes up that we will be making gut-level decisions vs. informed ones. This is why we have representative governance. We elect people we hope will make the right decisions for the city on our behalf. When their job comes up we review and if they did a good job of it as far as we can see we vote for them. If they do not, we send them packing. We work in generalities. Is the city better off, safer, run more efficiently, etc. We talk with some level of specificity on how they attained that, too. But when it comes to understanding the level of relationships between a City, the LHA and CCF and all its complexities and responsibilities just seems like a lot to ask of the electorate (per the Amendment).

Does the amendment indicate what information (if any) is to be shared with the voters when making decisions? Who decides what is shared? The City Council? The current resident of the property? The LHA? A 3rd party? The Lakewood Observer? Or is it simply a ballot that says, "City Council has voted to close the hospital located on the corner of Belle and Detroit. Do you approve of closing this facility: Yes or No. " (prompting the usual, "wait, Yes keeps it open or Yes closes it? I am so confused!" discussions, of course).

Thanks for this discussion! It is really helpful in figuring this mess out.

Phil

Phil Florian wrote:
Does the amendment indicate what information (if any) is to be shared with the voters when making decisions? Who decides what is shared? The City Council? The current resident of the property? The LHA? A 3rd party? The Lakewood Observer? Or is it simply a ballot that says, "City Council has voted to close the hospital located on the corner of Belle and Detroit. Do you approve of closing this facility: Yes or No. " (prompting the usual, "wait, Yes keeps it open or Yes closes it? I am so confused!" discussions, of course).

Phil

I have some of the same concerns you expressed about the amendment and representative government--a cynical way of looking at it could be that the amendment may prevent a powerful institution like CCF from corrupting or hoodwinking an elected leader like say Summers or Madigan and then getting away with something before the next election.

I am not an elections expert or a municipal law expert, but my understanding would be that the voters would be given a ballot question containing the details of the City Council resolution and its an up or down vote to accept of reject the resolution. I would assume the City Council and law director would propose the ballot language subject to final review by the Cuy Cty Brd of Elections and Secretary of State.

Keep in mind, the existing charter already has the referendum language--the amendment just makes it automatic.

Brian Essi wrote:I have some of the same concerns you expressed about the amendment and representative government--a cynical way of looking at it could be that the amendment may prevent a powerful institution like CCF from corrupting or hoodwinking an elected leader like say Summers or Madigan and then getting away with something before the next election.

I am not an elections expert or a municipal law expert, but my understanding would be that the voters would be given a ballot question containing the details of the City Council resolution and its an up or down vote to accept of reject the resolution. I would assume the City Council and law director would propose the ballot language subject to final review by the Cuy Cty Brd of Elections and Secretary of State.

Keep in mind, the existing charter already has the referendum language--the amendment just makes it automatic.

Good to know. Thanks for the information!

Later,

Phil

So if the idea was to simply make the referendum automatic, why not use the same language in the Charter and Ohio Constitution which says, "majority voting thereon?"

Oh please, stop the word games. People aren't stupid - they read, they see how the Clinic planned to leave and how the LHA let the city down and all you people can do is try to twist the meaning of words to confuse and move the focus away from the REAL ISSUES.

People know what the issue means and that if they VOTE YES it will pass.

/əˈlektər/
noun
noun: elector; plural noun: electors
1. a person who has the right to vote in an election.

synonyms: voter, member of the electorate, constituent
"my thanks to the faithful electors who brought me to this place

ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun
noun: majority; plural noun: majorities
1. the greater number.
"in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"
synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half;

vote
/vōt/
verb
gerund or present participle: voting
give or register a vote.
"they voted against the resolution"

The relevant wording of the proposed amendment:

referendum requiring an affirmative vote by a majority vote of the electors of the City of Lakewood at a general or special election for passage,

Just to translate for those looking for conspiracy theories:

Majorty - the most
Vote - give or register a VOTE
Elector - someone eligible to vote.

Further simplification:

"referendum requiring an affirmative vote by a majority vote of the electors of the City of Lakewood at a general or special election for passage,"

THE MOST VOTES OF THOSE ELLIGIBLE TO VOTE

I can't make it simpler than that.










synonyms: go to the polls, cast one's vote, cast one's ballot
"only half of them voted"

I am not a big fan of referendums but they have their time. I believe that the Hospital issue is one of those times.

We cannot trust the Mayor or the LHA or the LHF or the Cleveland Clinic. If Council votes to close the Hospital they will have to fully explain the reasons and show that they at least tried to keep 1,500 jobs and quality health care in Lakewood. I could be persuaded to close the Hospital but nothing that has been published so far gives me any reason to believe that it is necessary.

Indeed, some of the documents discovered during the law suite offer evidence of a lot of fraud and deceit and dishonesty on the part of the Mayor and the LHA and the Cleveland Clinic.

Jay Carson wrote:So if the idea was to simply make the referendum automatic, why not use the same language in the Charter and Ohio Constitution which says, "majority voting thereon?"

Certainly there are many ways to say the same thing. Click this link viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14002 for a legal opinion on the language.

I just imagine the hospital singing to The Beatles tune to avoid any confusion.

YOU WILL STILL NEED ME,
DON'T LET THEM BLEED ME.
VOTE FOR SIXTY-FOUR!

Meg Ostrowski wrote:I just imagine the hospital singing to The Beatles tune to avoid any confusion.

YOU WILL STILL NEED ME,
DON'T LET THEM BLEED ME.
VOTE FOR SIXTY-FOUR!

Perfect!
Meg wins the internet for today!

Meg Ostrowski wrote:

Jay Carson wrote:So if the idea was to simply make the referendum automatic, why not use the same language in the Charter and Ohio Constitution which says, "majority voting thereon?"

Certainly there are many ways to say the same thing. Click this link viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14002 for a legal opinion on the language.

I just imagine the hospital singing to The Beatles tune to avoid any confusion.

YOU WILL STILL NEED ME,
DON'T LET THEM BLEED ME.
VOTE FOR SIXTY-FOUR!

Meg,
Were you the one who mentioned the Beatles song to me at the SLH rally last night? Love it still, and your alternative lyrics are great!

Gee, that parody might work well with the old banjo...

...particularly since I'm planning on being 64 m'self, VERY shortly....

(exact date withheld to protect the innocent )

Ah, the folk process of music...

Serendipity?

Back to the banjo...