The Observation Deck

Jill

Thank you for your post and all points are well taken.

My single biggest problem is loyalty to friends and family.

Go back and read Ryan's post.

"This is a sham to cover Mayor George, more business as usual at the Observer."

This did not say, business as usual for Jim O'Bryan, the Advisory Board, and committee. It said Observers. When you signed in, the advisory board made promises in return for you using your real name. In fact, maybe my fault, I see the Observer as a family working together to move the city forward with so many individual agendas, there is no single agenda but information out to the city.

Ryan attacked the Observer(s). Unfairly, and it was a lie. Again I take that personally.

Now read my post, I thanked each candidate for taking the time to answer. However 1 person wanted to make sure he was not late. He wanted to make sure so bad he sent it in 9 hours early. So we should herald the last minute people? Or the one that needed to make sure nothing stopped him from making the deadline.

Ask Ed FitzGerald. Who I spoke with often that morning. I was working my ass off to get everything in and set. I completely understand his frustrations, and I voiced them to Jeff. In the end the debate was killed.

In the end a simple enough question. Would a teacher allow for an extra 5 minutes on a timed test? Jeff had sent a time deadline, even with the late questions of 9:00am sharp. One candidate made sure late was not an issue. Is that not a true statement?

Let me assure you no one is more frustrated than me. This was to be the kick-off of LO TV. Now that will be put back a month, while we film in town.

On the apology, you are not aware of what went on behind the scenes. Everyone character and honesty was called into question by one candidate, over and over and over again. I could care less what people think of me, I live my life and chips fall where they may. But to question the honesty and integrity of the Advisory Board, makes me sick. They have given their time and effort to create a forum, newspaper and project that is 100% fair, transparent and open. I will not turn away from those who have helped move this city forward without an agenda.

.

I don't think anyone should be "heralded" actually.

I read Demro's comment. I'm not questioning whether you should or should not to be angry about it.

My frustration is the tit for tat aspect. Do you truly believe that no one but Mayor George cared about being on time, as you stated? If yes, then fine. If not, then why even say it?

I think that it's high time that those involved with this election take a deep breath and step back from the abyss.

Over the years, there have been issues that have ripped this city apart at the seams. As we all are aware, it is so much more difficult to build than it is to destroy.

Think historically: "West End", "Teachers' Strike"... and nowadays? "Kauffman Park" (now with nearly 5000 people looking at the LO thread), the "Section 8" discussion, as well as the postings related to this election cycle.

People are saying and writing things that I cannot begin to understand. This seems to be turning into a Lakewood that I am NOT proud to be a part of.

It may be a human fallacy that people need to bicker and get bitter every once in awhile. It certainly seems that way.

Awhile back, in deference to the old Chicken Little story, I wrote that the sky was not falling around here. These days, I'm not so sure.

The old banjo might develop some broken strings.

Gary Rice wrote:I think that it's high time that those involved with this election take a deep breath and step back from the abyss.

I can understand passionate political debates regarding goals, visions, programs, ideas, budgets, etc. but I really cannot understand or respect passion only for election or re-election.

If you support a tax increase say so and say why.

If you oppose a tax increase say so and say why.

Defend your ideas, defend your vision, defend your five year plan but don't waste time defending or attacking the shape of the negotiating table.

Okay - it startles me, but I agree with you Bill.

Bill has it nailed today.

Issues, not personalities.

Issues, not sound bites and smoke screens.

Issues, not one-upping each other.

Issues, not the shape of the negotiating table.

Is there a tax issue, or not? Will there be tax plans on the horizon, or not? Is there to be a long term civic vision, or not? Can it realistically be adopted by our diverse populace?

Then too, we need a mayor who, at the end of this election cycle, will work hard to heal some of these ugly wounds that have opened in the matter of our late civil discourse.

That, I would think above all else, will be needed sorely.

WYSIWYG

Here you have two candidates challenging the current mayor and all you see is whining, backbiting, complaining, accusations, and behind the scenes intrigue.

How in the heck would these people govern?

Would they be able to compromise, reach consensus, or as Gary Rice stated, "heal some of these ugly wounds that have opened in the matter of our late civil discourse?"

Are they really capable of putting feelings, emotions, and personalities aside and being a sagacious leader?

What you see is what you get. It won't get any better if they are elected.

Proceed with caution.

Grace,

I'd like to play the devil's advocate with you. I haven't decided who I am voting for yet. I don't think any of the three are the "perfect" candidate - yet all have strengths and weaknesses. You may have hit on the weaknesses - but let's talk about a little about the strengths.

WYSIWYG

Leaders are sure of their view and are willing to present them to the public and let them be challenged whether in a debate format or on line - not worrying that someone else may steal their ideas. (You all know that I think the world of Jim and think he is a leader - I'm sure he would be delighted to have all of his ideas to improve Lakewood stolen and implemented.)

If in fact Ryan arranged the debate - Ed attended and let his ideas be challenged and we had an excellent exchange. Who knows who won the debate - I thought they both did amazing.

Both Ryan and Ed have shown up at Safety meetings and really listened to the residents. They have been enthusiastic and forward thinking and eager to have community discussions - to include the public - the citizens.

I challenge the Mayor to post his answers - I want to know what he wants to do in the future. Does he plan on regionalism? raising taxes? why did he take the hoops down? I have a good feeling for where Councilmen Demro and Fitzgerald want to lead us. I don't know the reasons for some of the Mayor's decisions (which may or may not be good ones) I don't know where the Mayor wants to take us in the next 4 years.

I agree with Gary. I want to see the issues addressed - not just who endorsed who and pretty pictures of the candidates.

Jill Jusko wrote:I don't think anyone should be "heralded" actually.

I read Demro's comment. I'm not questioning whether you should or should not to be angry about it.

My frustration is the tit for tat aspect. Do you truly believe that no one but Mayor George cared about being on time, as you stated? If yes, then fine. If not, then why even say it?

Jill

Do not know you but ask my friends, I get very touchy when their integrity and hard worked is attacked. Especially when that person uses it as often as Ryan does. I think and might be wrong that Ryan has been on the cover of the paper more than any other politician.

I know for a fact that Tom George sent that in an time because he wanted to make sure nothing happened at the last minute that would cause him to be late. He sent the email to Jeff and then sent me a message that said that.

My frustration is the only person to do it right is now vilified.

Yesterday, I ran into Tom George while applying for a sign permit. He stopped and asked me why it had not been posted. He was very happy with his answers.

FWIW


.

Lynn Farris wrote:Both Ryan and Ed have shown up at Safety meetings and really listened to the residents. They have been enthusiastic and forward thinking and eager to have community discussions - to include the public - the citizens.

I challenge the Mayor to post his answers - I want to know what he wants to do in the future. Does he plan on regionalism? raising taxes? why did he take the hoops down? I have a good feeling for where Councilmen Demro and Fitzgerald want to lead us. I don't know the reasons for some of the Mayor's decisions (which may or may not be good ones) I don't know where the Mayor wants to take us in the next 4 years.

I agree with Gary. I want to see the issues addressed - not just who endorsed who and pretty pictures of the candidates.

Lynn

I went to all the meetings and some safety and park meetings you did not attend.

Let's work through this one for a second, while looking at the rhetoric provided by some. Do you think it would have made ANY difference if the mayor had been there? I am sure we would be hearing that he spun everything and never let the chief talk.

Instead he took a step back, grabbed no stage and allowed the resident to talk with the chief and law department directly. At no point did the chief say, "I have to check with the mayor." At those meetings we got the straight scoop. Violent crime down.

I am not choosing a candidate based on that alone, but as you point out, it is an imperfect election. One thing I know, we do not need petty bickering for the next four years. Or other people posting for the mayor.

FWIW


.

If live debates were summarily cancelled every time a speaker went over their allotted time a little, we'd never have any.

I was happy to see this experiment launched because it really offered an opportunity to strip away personalities and focus on ideas. I'm sorry that the Mayor isn't going to give me the opportunity to compare his answers to those of the other two candidates, but I suppose I can respect the reason why. It doesn't help me change my perception of him in the least, though.

I truly don't understand why the one candidate who 'played by the rules' as you put it, seems to be getting penalized by NOT having his answers shared.
Either post his and remove the others or post all three. Unless of course, the Mayor thinks he's put at an advantage by not revealing his answers.

Brian Pedaci wrote:Either post his and remove the others or post all three. Unless of course, the Mayor thinks he's put at an advantage by not revealing his answers.

Brian

The other two went around the LO rules, but took full advantage of our posting no editing rules.

They could have submitted to the paper as well. This is how open the Observer is.

The good news, is Jeff got a call from the mayor, and was asked to post his original answers. As soon as Jeff gets the clients out of the office, up it goes.

.

Bryan,

You're awesome! You took the question right off of my keyboard.

Thanks for the clarification Jim.

It will be good to see the Mayor's answers up there too. Now we will have a baseline for fair questions and discussion.

However all this got posted, at least we'll SEE ALL THREE responses to the initial group of questions.

Can we go one step further and make the best of this?

By all of us asking respectful and meaningful questions of the candidates?

We owe them the best questions we can come up with. They owe us the best answers they can come up with. We owe them our gratitude for wanting to lead us, and they owe us enough of their time to answer our concerns and tell us why each of them is the best for the job.

This debate has JUST begun. Only NOW- it's being placed directly into the hands of the candidates and the people.

Let's all rise to the occasion here.

This is, after all, LAKEWOOD!

This city is worth it.

The candidates are worth it.

And so are you all!

Tune that old banjo back up!

Hi,
Mr. Warren, you said,

"Fork time, Lynn."

Why are you punn-ishing us? Nice tie in to Chef Geoff articles!

There might be an endorsement for Fitz! coming. The POL Club (Procrastinators of Lakewood) think he's their man. But President Mulready has not been able to set a date for the Club vote.

Grace O'Malley wrote:Would they be able to compromise, reach consensus, or as Gary Rice stated, "heal some of these ugly wounds that have opened in the matter of our late civil discourse?"

An army inspector general once told me that he knows when the captain is doing his job when the troops start complaining.

One of the strengths of Mayor George is his good relationship with the City bureaucracy. That is also on of his weaknesses.

The City will have to raise taxes by a record amount or cut 10% of the City budget next year to avoid a deficit. A more aggressvie stance against the bureaucracy may have avoided that Hobson's choice. Such a stance would also have led to an ugly fight with the City unions, a fight the Mayor (wisely?) chose not to make.

There is a price to pay for government by consensus, compromise and concession.

In any case next year the surplus is gone and the bill comes due.