The Observation Deck

Lori Allen _ wrote:The deal is already signed and set in stone, and probably has been for months, if not years. Any attempt at a public meeting or hearing is nothing more than a dog & pony show.

I hope this isn't the prevailing sentiment. Council will have to vote on one of these proposals in the fall, and I am keeping an open mind and would really like to hear honest feedback from residents on what we'll be considering. I am a councilmember and I believe all of the information I've been given to date is the same that has been made available to the public.

Dan OMalley wrote:I am keeping an open mind and would really like to hear honest feedback from residents on what we'll be considering.

Are there any meeting scheduled? Scene announced a Planning Commission meeting on July 25, and I've also heard mention of July 26.

But both dates are completely blank on the city's calendar. I haven't found any relevant meetings listed on other dates, either.

mjkuhns wrote:

Dan OMalley wrote:I am keeping an open mind and would really like to hear honest feedback from residents on what we'll be considering.

Are there any meeting scheduled? Scene announced a Planning Commission meeting on July 25, and I've also heard mention of July 26.

But both dates are completely blank on the city's calendar. I haven't found any relevant meetings listed on other dates, either.

The 25th is the correct date. I will ask that it be added to the calendar - thanks for catching it.

I, too, am an optimist especially when it comes to public officials and our democratic processes.

However, since January 15, 2015, I have reviewed enough documents related to the liquidation of Lakewood Hospital that, as a former federal antitrust lawyer, I was and am convinced that the bidding process held by LHA was both conflict-ridden and conducted in a manner that successfully suppressed the better bid (Metro).

I also know that the City of Lakewood continues to delay the production of relevant documents on that process that were requested years ago. The documents that have been produced continue to support the fact that public officials knowing made material false statements about the transaction in likely violation of the federal securities laws.

Now that a former LHA board member (and an active campaigner for liquidating the Hospital) is on one of the bidding teams, I remain seriously concerned that the award of the redevelopment contract will be tainted.

I am with Ms. Allen on this. While I hope this is an above-board and legitimate process, the prior conduct of elected and appointed public officials raise serious concerns for me as a taxpayer, voter and citizen.

I would encourage you to review the City's emails related to its treatment of Surgical Development Partners. I would encourage you to reread the Metro Health System Proposal ($100 million investment across 10 years).

After you read those documents, consider why experienced lawyers, accountants and doctors continue to question the conduct of our local public officials.

The City of Lakewood faces deep issues related to trust, governance and ethics that have not been addressed at all.

With respect to process integrity:

Former members of LHA who serve on city council and city council members who have received political contributions from LHA board members, LHF board members or CCF-related entities or board members have a continuing ethical duty to recuse themselves from voting on any measure before them that relates to the liquidation of the Hospital or Hospital property.

Those members in doubt of this have an ethical duty to fully raise the issue with the Ohio Ethics Commission.

At a minimum, they need to seek the advice of independent ethics counsel.

Nor should the requests for ethical guidance from the Ohio Ethics Commission be "gamed" to achieve the opinion sought.

Had the Ohio Ethics Commission been fully-informed that the ex officio members of the LHA board were not acting under express written guidance from the City, its earlier opinions would likely have been considerably different and onerous.

The City of Lakewood has never been able to demonstrate that these board members had actual guidance from the City. (I have written about this elsewhere on the Deck.)

I am still concerned with some elemental questions. Who owns this parcel? Why is it not put up for public bid? Who gives a rat's ass what the proposals are-this is the concern of the prospective purchaser and any prospective profits that might be made from investing in the site.
Needless to say, the parameters I have set out pretty much put off to the side many millions of dollars of value cast aside.
So now, we're dealing with a rickety old building on a plot of land.

Bridget Conant wrote: All they have is a local ice cream shop.

And the Sweet Spot's gelato will always be better.

Oh, by the way, a note to these shrewd marketers--- the upscale pet food store at Wagar and Madison closed a few months ago. You're really up to date on the trends. Hence my warning-- the West End developers could only proceed if the City guaranteed its borrowing with the City's credit. With that kind of backstop a developer doesn't have to care At All about the feasibility of the risk of investment.

Stan Austin wrote:I am still concerned with some elemental questions. Who owns this parcel? Why is it not put up for public bid? Who gives a rat's ass what the proposals are-this is the concern of the prospective purchaser and any prospective profits that might be made from investing in the site.Needless to say, the parameters I have set out pretty much put off to the side many millions of dollars of value cast aside.So now, we're dealing with a rickety old building on a plot of land.

Don't be such a worry wart......Fitzy will take care of it!
Has he ever steered you wrong?

#Progress

I would like to continue to discuss the point raised between Ms. Allen and Council-member O'Malley:

The redevelopment of the former Hospital site has two significant problems, both of which we all witnessed in the closure of the Hospital.

1. City council is given only one option to vote upon. This is presented as a use-it or lose-it option. City council then, voting in lock-step, rubber-stamps the sole option provided by the administration. Then it takes years for citizens to collect the relevant documents that establish that better options were intentionally suppressed. When Ms. Allen describes the deal as being "locked-in". This is one aspect of what is meant. Council has nothing to vote upon, since only one option is presented.

2. The City council is already tainted by existing conflicts of interest. Former LHA board members sit on city council and vote on matters related to LHA. City council members received political contributions from LHA board members, LHF board members and CCF-entity related employees or board members and then vote on matters related to LHA. (For purposes of clarity, "matters related to LHA" include the Master Agreement and its implementation, including the non-compete covenant that impels non-health care redevelopment.)

3. How will the vote on redevelopment of the former Hospital site be any different? It has the same problem as both No.1 and No. 2 above. Any vote to redevelop is already tainted by prior political contributions and prior participation on the board of LHA. It has the further wrinkle that City council members may received additional political contributions that exacerbate the existing conflicts.

These problems can only be addressed by Council members recusing themselves from voting. This is not something that we have seen in the past related to LHA matters. I doubt we will see it in the future on Hospital site redevelopment.

I know I sound like the proverbial "broken record", but the City of Lakewood needs to promptly enact a robust set of ethics-in-government policies to stem these pernicious conflicts.

Stan Austin wrote:Oh, by the way, a note to these shrewd marketers--- the upscale pet food store at Wagar and Madison closed a few months ago. You're really up to date on the trends. Hence my warning-- the West End developers could only proceed if the City guaranteed its borrowing with the City's credit. With that kind of backstop a developer doesn't have to care At All about the feasibility of the risk of investment.

Indeed, the City's credit and hospital revenue bonds and Cuyahoga County Port Authority credit, in any combination, could all have been used to upgrade the then existing Lakewood Hospital. Oh, I forgot, Metro Health System was also going to invest $100,000,000 in a ten year upgrade.

Yes, let's deploy municipal guarantees and other tax incentives to benefit additional private parties to provide ice cream and apartments. Bravo!

Dan OMalley wrote:I am a councilmember and I believe all of the information I've been given to date is the same that has been made available to the public.

Mr. OMalley,

I have great respect for your honesty and do not question your sincerity. I accept the statement of yours that I have quoted, but that still presents a huge problem with the historical and ongoing process.

What about the information that other public officials and your colleagues on council posess that has been kept from the public? Given that the City and its law director have acknowledged in court that there may be nearly 500k pages of records currently withheld relating to the process that led to the piece of land in question becoming available for development (records that you likely are not privy to either) does that give you any pause in proceeding when there may be more recent information and records withheld that would inform your upcoming decision?

For example, the city and its law director recently released almost 4,000 pages in response to just 8 public records requests when they claimed last year (prior to court orders) that they had only 13 pages responsive to those same 8 requests.

Does that cause you any concern that the same public officials and colleagues in control of and providing you with your information may not be providing the full story?

May I suggest that a direct and detailed answer to these questions would dispell the potential of any prevailing sentiment you commented about above that concerns you.

Dan O'Malley wrote:

I hope this isn't the prevailing sentiment. Council will have to vote on one of these proposals in the fall, and I am keeping an open mind and would really like to hear honest feedback from residents on what we'll be considering. I am a councilmember and I believe all of the information I've been given to date is the same that has been made available to the public.

Here's feedback you need to keep in mind.

What business does Ed Fitzgerald have in this development? He is profiting off something he himself facilitated. It is ethically WRONG and possible legally wrong.

This is the guy who pulled down the ENTIRE Dem ticket in Ohio by being a complete amadan (you should know what that is if you're Irish), with an ego to boot!

He's like dog crap on your shoe - you just can't get rid of it or the stink.

Mr. O'Malley, since you read the Observer all the time, I believe you already know how the residents feel.

Why don't you start by telling the truth about all the alleged back door deals and kick backs?

How about releasing all the documents? You represent the people, not Butler or Summers.

You sat through meeting after meeting knowing good and well the alleged illegal dealings that were going on, and yet, you remained silent. I believe sir, that that is aiding and abetting the crimes and being just plain out complicit.

You willingly aligned yourself with Council, Butler, Summers and Antonio, and even infiltrated some Save Lakewood Hospital meetings. I believe you spoke of wanting to save the hospital. I assume now, you were lying.

The best thing you can do now is to resign! I believe you will be passing GO, and collecting your $200.00, like others, on your way out.

Is anyone getting any "deals" for giving FitzGerald's company this deal?

The sad part is, you all appear to be able to blatantly lie and not feel a bit of remorse!

You ALL need to resign now! Or, wait for more of the truth to filter out.

The citizens don't need to hear your suck up speeches now. Your true colors have been visible now for a long time!

Quick Mr. O'Malley, call one of your Deck Watchers!