Have You Taken the LakewoodAlive Survey?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Thanks for the information Mike regarding the building in front of the hospital.

Danielle

Part of the hospital expanision and Vision of Tomorrow which will see the Hospital add to
their buildings as the invest more money into Lakewood Hospital.

This is good as it will move some hospital offices into the 3 floors being vacated by Social
Security, moving outside of the DowntowN footprint, and UTU's 4.5 floors as they sadly
move to Westlake.

Stephen

Please now figure that empty footage into your DowntowN half full numbers.


Mike

I believe that if you go back to the meeting you are referring to, it was "decided" by the
community committee much like the "logo" and "closing Grant." In actuality it was
predetermined in a series of private meetings that "claimed" the area that was being
heavily rebuilt anyway with the Hospital, Lakewood Library, and plans that have since
fallen through at Medic Drug and Rego's Supermarket.

Then packaged to get some form of community buy in as if the community decided it.

You know, grab the place with most development dollars and take all the credit for it.
(All smoke and mirrors, no substance, no transparency, and ZERO accountability)

Which brings me to the survey? When a group has lost all accountability and credibility
does it really matter about the survey? I am sure it will underline they are wonderful
and powerful and that Lakewood desperately needs big box stores and places to shop
so that we can feel good about ourselves. As the director screeched in a meeting years
ago, "Don't you get it WE NEED SHOPPING, SHOPPING, SHOPPING!" Since then the
economy has tanked, the region* has tanked, retail has tanked, but this one tune act still
remains dedicated to the only battle cry they know, "Don't you get it WE NEED SHOPPING,
SHOPPING, SHOPPING!" Which translates to, how can we use all the property south of
Lake to reduce the taxes for 97% of the LA Board that lives north of Lake.


FWIW

.

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen

Please now figure that empty footage into your DowntowN half full numbers.

huh?

[Shawn Juris]

Yes, I took it.

[Stephen Eisel]

I just took the survey and it was painless

[Jim O'Bryan]

Shawn

Welcome back.

Do you have numbers on "Downtown"? Costs? Effectiveness?

Good luck with Pillars' Big Chili Cook Off for "Operation Ta-Tas Breast Cancer Research"
at Around the Corner. Saturday, February 27 at 5pm!


.

[Mike Davis]

Jim,
Your assumption about the community meeting at the Beck Center Armory could not be further from the truth. The event was primarily underwritten by the Chamber of Commerce as was the initiative to start the Mainstreet project. These initiatives started in the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development comm. (I was a member at the time)

The Armory meeting was facilitated by outside Mainstreet consultants. There were NO discussions of the desired outcomes before the community forum took place. This all took place many years before the merger of LCPI and Lakewood Alive.

[sharon kinsella]

Heh, heh.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim,
Your assumption about the community meeting at the Beck Center Armory could not be further from the truth. The event was primarily underwritten by the Chamber of Commerce as was the initiative to start the Mainstreet project. These initiatives started in the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development comm. (I was a member at the time)

The Armory meeting was facilitated by outside Mainstreet consultants. There were NO discussions of the desired outcomes before the community forum took place. This all took place many years before the merger of LCPI and Lakewood Alive.

Mike

I really do not need to tear this apart, but the whole Mainstreet thing actually came about
from the city down to the Chamber. Many meetings were had before that public meeting,
perhaps you were not at them, I know you were not at the ones I attended. It was always
my understanding that this came about from meetings Tom Jordan had attended, and it
was latter moved to the Chamber for implementation. By the time it actually hit the
meeting it was to underline to "fit the Mainstreet concept" the entire project needed to be
drastically downsized and what was best. ie low hanging fruit. I had the outline of the area
before that meeting.

So you are telling me that it was a group of 300 people that were trusted to define the
area and come up with Bunts to Arthur? Who lead this discussion from the city? Who
handled the talking points, and how did that arbitrary area get set aside?

While I realize it was many years before the merger, it still becomes very confusing as
the various factions started to immediately drool over the "Mainstreet" pie and funding
which say some pretty bitter infighting behind the scenes for where the office and funding
would be located.

While the meeting might have been used to finalize the "public zones" I have emails and
conversation that go back way before the actual meetings and announcements.

But I am more than happy to go back and see when Tom Jordan, some mebers of LCPI
and Kathy first approached me about backing the idea.


.

[Mike Davis]

The mainstreet initiative first came up in conversation with the chamber of commerce and the school superintendent who came to lakewood from wooster? I think. Any way, the city he came from was a mainstreet city and the he invited the chamber to see what they had accomplished under the mainstreet program.

Drick from the city development office sat in on some of these chamber comm. meetings. The chamber brought the idea to the city. There was a half day of presentations, Q&A, solicitation of ideas, etc. at the armory discussing many different boundary options before the final boundary was voted on by all in attendance. I voted and no one influenced my vote. I actually voted for a larger footprint, but the majority opinion won the day for the current boundary.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Drick from the city development office sat in on some of these chamber comm. meetings. The chamber brought the idea to the city. There was a half day of presentations, Q&A, solicitation of ideas, etc. at the armory discussing many different boundary options before the final boundary was voted on by all in attendance. I voted and no one influenced my vote. I actually voted for a larger footprint, but the majority opinion won the day for the current boundary.

My notes not that any of this really matters has Tom Jordan finding out about the entire
program while he was working for the city of Cleveland, and being reintroduced to it at
a meeting in Columbus, where he brought it back and the mayor thought it was good,
but they needed some group to actually implement it. As LCPI was basically
non-functional, and the city had closed their inhouse CDC, when I was introduced to it,
they were just talking about kicking it off to the Chamber, but only for temporary space,
as part of the plan involved a $30,000(?) fee upfront to even be considered, and a
promise of continued subscriptions and the need to raise at least $40,000 a year for
salaries as spelled out by "Mainstreet." It was at that point the city came to me to see
if I and/or the Observer would be willing to help underwrite it. While I agreed, can't think
of many things I have ever said no to, but did seem that it was like trying to put a size
6 shoe on a ize 14 foot. I have always favored using areas of Chicago for our model.

Again, I am just pulling my notes out, but I am sure much of this predates the Chamber's
involvement. But I could be wrong seems like decades ago.

So how did you loose the argument for a much larger footprint? Who steered it a different
way? As I said from the earliest days of me being talked to it was always a pretty narrow
place, thought "as far as "Rosewood" was mentioned, which I took to mean only because
Tom Barrett's Rosewood project was on the drawing boards.

.

[Mike Davis]

The initial money and pledge of continued financial support came from the Chamber. The chamber's initial interest in this program did not come from the city. It came from the work of the Chamber's Economic Dev. Comm. I was a member of this comm. at the time this idea was explored, discussed, and voted on.

[Shawn Juris]

Thanks for the plug Jim. The event went very well.

No, I don't have any numbers or reports beyond what is available. Did you have something in mind?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Thanks for the plug Jim. The event went very well.

No, I don't have any numbers or reports beyond what is available. Did you have something in mind?

Shawn

Glad to hear that I know you are trying.

No I was thinking more of our ongoing discussion, and Stephen's comments about half full.
I realize he meant he looks at the Lakewood Glass half full, but I was wondering if the facts
bore that out, and more to the point with this thread, considering the money LakewoodAlive
has, and the many, many way us taxpayers contribute to their bottom line are we getting our
money's worth, or do we need to look elsewhere.

I mean I know we can contribute through events, which I call a fun tax, at least you get
something for the money spent. Which is all well and good, and I really have no trouble
with, except they seem to be forthcoming and honest how everything is divided so that
they have ZERO accountability there.

But they also get money from the city, which comes directly out of our pockets, so how
much is that and where is that accountability. Also it would seem that they get a good
many other services from the city which also cost tax payers money like banners, police
and city workers for their events. Equipment use like PAs, tents etc. So how much of our
tax dollars go to that? Then it seems like the schools which are asking for more money also
have been known to give them printing, and then the labor of filling all those backpacks
with PAC literature, and the use of the schools and the auditoriums, how much is that out
of the school's budget that comes from taxes. Throw in the support from Lakewood Hospital
that also benefits from their tax exempt status and city of Lakewood support and the
Lakewood Public Library, though many members also raise money for the library which
is a good thing, unless all of this is quid pro quo, and you are starting to see what could
be a rather large number from tax payers to basically carry out the work of a Political
Action Committee.

So while they allow you to grade them strictly on how well they are doing, no failing grades
on their survey. I still NEED to know 2 years later who si paying for all of this how much
and is there any significant positive changes for anyone outside of the businesses in a
.8 of a maile range in an area that never really needed any help to start with.

This is the survey we need to be taking.

How much does this cost us?

Would we better off giving the housing to say Lakewood Christian Services?

Do we resurrect Lakewood's CDC, or do we encourage more CDCs?

This would at least break up the perception of a monopoly and conflict of interest
that seems to permeate this city.

Maybe the city should also have a survey...

.

[Shawn Juris]

Wow, that post is all over the place. I think that much of it has already been addressed by others here. It seems unlikely that me saying the same thing is going to convince you to change your mind.
I'm satisfied with the progress and am proud to live and work around this area. It'll be exciting to see the 2010 versions of their events.

[dl meckes]

Jim-

Your memory of the origins of Mainstreet participation is correct.