Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:02 pm
I can name those prospects in four notes, Pam ...Pam Wetula wrote:
Papapandreas said, “Our prospects are asking, when can we deliver?” Name those prospects.
The Observation Deck
Neighbors Celebrating Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity While Speaking Over The Digital Fence
https://deck.lakewoodobserver.com/
One Lakewood Place
Page 3 of 4
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:42 pm
The 2 hour video of Monday’s Special Meeting is now available at onelakewood.com, but, I still want to post my notes, in the hopes of getting increased viewers. The more minds that are informed…. the better. I have no idea, how many folks might invest 2 hrs. of their time, into watching the video.
http://www.onelakewood.com/downtowndevelopment/
From Wikipedia:
Privately owned public space (POPS), or alternatively, privately owned public open spaces (POPOS), are terms used to describe a type of public space that, although privately owned, is legally required to be open to the public under a city's zoning ordinance or other land-use law. The acronym POPOS is preferentially used over POPS on the west coast of the US. Both terms can be used to represent either a singular or plural space or spaces. These spaces are usually the product of a deal between cities and private real estate developers in which cities grant valuable zoning concessions and developers provide in return privately owned public spaces in or near their buildings. Privately owned public spaces commonly include plazas, arcades, small parks, and atriums
Privately Owned Public Spaces aka POPS
There are Three Criteria for POPS (to succeed)
1. Well designed and constructed.
2. Operation and maintenance in place.
3. Welcoming and Vibrant.
“Vibrancy in Lakewood Downtown is IMPORTANT. Having shared experiences in a public space is an important element.” (I don’t recall, who said this, but I’m leaning towards the mayor.)
There are over 500 POPS in NYC. There are POPS in San Francisco, London and other places around the world. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/17/166676 ... ncil-fines
But, the difference between those POPS, and the proposed one at One Lakewood Place, is that it will actually be serving as the building’s front yard, as it were.
The front door of the building will be in the POPS area. Well, Smyers says this is a concern. To paraphrase her question: Why would Carnegie want the city (Lakewood) to control the space that leads to the front door of the building?
Yes. That is a concern.
The mayor brought up things like protests and demonstrations.
I’m supposing that there will be cameras posited in the space. This way, if the Carnegie maintenance manager sees a ‘questionable person’, he can come out and bounce them.
(Or, maybe call the Lakewood Police and have them enforce upon the individual(s) that this is a private space and to clear out.)
I’m wondering….will be okay to use the restroom without a food purchase, if everything is privately-owned?
I did a little research and found some interesting information at: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/05/ ... blic-space
On the downside of privately owned public spaces
"The downside is that you have the fox guarding the henhouse. So the developers and owners of these buildings provided these spaces not necessarily, and really not because they loved the public space and wanted to serve the public. They wanted these zoning concessions that delivered financial value to them. So when the public started to use these spaces, these owners said, 'Well, we don't really want the public on these spaces,' and too often they privatized these public spaces, and they did it through denial of access — so they would say, 'Sorry this isn't a public space,' or they'd keep it closed when it was supposed to be open. Or they'd allow adjacent, private uses to annex the public space. What I sometimes call 'café creep,' or 'brasserie bulge' or 'trattoria trickle.' And I'm not against cafés, but it makes people have to pay to enjoy public space, which violates one of the central tenets of public space.”
On the effect privatizating public spaces
"The privatization of the public realm, I think at the end of the day, results potentially in a feeling that we're not really all in this together. That there's not a level playing field. There are areas for wealthier people, and then there are areas for poorer people. I mean the signature element of public space is that it is open to all, regardless of income, regardless of status, with a relative lack of interference. A sense of possibility. A sense of freedom. Even disagreements are all right, because that's the nature of society that goes beyond family or company, that everybody is involved. That gets harmed, or reduced, when people no longer feel that public spaces are truly public."
Arriving half-way through the meeting, Ward 1 David Anderson asked Papapandreas for an example of other privately-owned public spaces, that Carnegie has managed.
Papapandreas spoke words….. but did not directly answer the question.
Anderson asked again.
Papapandreas spoke more words…. but did not directly answer the question.
Like a dog, who won’t give up its bone, Anderson was tenacious in requesting an exact example of a site that Carnegie has managed as public space.
Papapandreas could not think of one.
But wait! Twenty-five years ago, (yes, 25!), there was a historic barn in Amsterdam, New York, that the townspeople were very fond of, and didn’t want torn down. Some arrangement was made to make it into a public space.
M. George asked if the idea of leasing the public space to the developer had been considered, thus ensuring that the property still belongs to the city.
Nichols replied, that land lease is problematic. She expounded on many of the complications that can arise.
Throughout the evening, M. George remained resolute in her belief that the public space (which might only be as large as .5 acre) should remain the property of the city.
It was no surprise to me, that at the conclusion of the meeting, to see Smyers make a move towards the dais.
As I left, she was in conversation with M. George.
I’m assuming, that she was on the move to get M. George ‘with the program’.
I’d really like to know, how many POPS gave up a hospital in favor of a ‘space.’
NOTE: Turns out that Monday’s Special Meeting has been considered the Second Reading. This was announced today, rather than at the time of the meeting.
Special Meeting of Council
April 30 @ 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
In accordance with Article Two, Section 2.4(a) of the Third Amended Charter, I am calling and there will be a Special Meetings of Council
Monday, April 30, 2018 at 6:30 PM.
The agenda is as follows:
Proposed ORDINANCE 27-18 – AN ORDINANCE to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members of Council, or otherwise to take effect and be in force after the earliest period allowed by law, authorizing the execution and delivery of an agreement by and between the City of Lakewood, Ohio, a municipal corporation and political subdivision in and of the State of Ohio (the “City” ), and Carnegie Management and Development Corporation, an Ohio corporation (Carnegie”), related to the development of City-owned property at the southwest corner of Detroit Avenue and Belle Avenue, and authorizing and approving related matters. (1st Reading 4/16/18, 2nd Reading 4/23/18)
http://www.onelakewood.com/downtowndevelopment/
From Wikipedia:
Privately owned public space (POPS), or alternatively, privately owned public open spaces (POPOS), are terms used to describe a type of public space that, although privately owned, is legally required to be open to the public under a city's zoning ordinance or other land-use law. The acronym POPOS is preferentially used over POPS on the west coast of the US. Both terms can be used to represent either a singular or plural space or spaces. These spaces are usually the product of a deal between cities and private real estate developers in which cities grant valuable zoning concessions and developers provide in return privately owned public spaces in or near their buildings. Privately owned public spaces commonly include plazas, arcades, small parks, and atriums
Privately Owned Public Spaces aka POPS
There are Three Criteria for POPS (to succeed)
1. Well designed and constructed.
2. Operation and maintenance in place.
3. Welcoming and Vibrant.
“Vibrancy in Lakewood Downtown is IMPORTANT. Having shared experiences in a public space is an important element.” (I don’t recall, who said this, but I’m leaning towards the mayor.)
There are over 500 POPS in NYC. There are POPS in San Francisco, London and other places around the world. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/17/166676 ... ncil-fines
But, the difference between those POPS, and the proposed one at One Lakewood Place, is that it will actually be serving as the building’s front yard, as it were.
The front door of the building will be in the POPS area. Well, Smyers says this is a concern. To paraphrase her question: Why would Carnegie want the city (Lakewood) to control the space that leads to the front door of the building?
Yes. That is a concern.
The mayor brought up things like protests and demonstrations.
I’m supposing that there will be cameras posited in the space. This way, if the Carnegie maintenance manager sees a ‘questionable person’, he can come out and bounce them.
(Or, maybe call the Lakewood Police and have them enforce upon the individual(s) that this is a private space and to clear out.)
I’m wondering….will be okay to use the restroom without a food purchase, if everything is privately-owned?
I did a little research and found some interesting information at: http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/05/ ... blic-space
On the downside of privately owned public spaces
"The downside is that you have the fox guarding the henhouse. So the developers and owners of these buildings provided these spaces not necessarily, and really not because they loved the public space and wanted to serve the public. They wanted these zoning concessions that delivered financial value to them. So when the public started to use these spaces, these owners said, 'Well, we don't really want the public on these spaces,' and too often they privatized these public spaces, and they did it through denial of access — so they would say, 'Sorry this isn't a public space,' or they'd keep it closed when it was supposed to be open. Or they'd allow adjacent, private uses to annex the public space. What I sometimes call 'café creep,' or 'brasserie bulge' or 'trattoria trickle.' And I'm not against cafés, but it makes people have to pay to enjoy public space, which violates one of the central tenets of public space.”
On the effect privatizating public spaces
"The privatization of the public realm, I think at the end of the day, results potentially in a feeling that we're not really all in this together. That there's not a level playing field. There are areas for wealthier people, and then there are areas for poorer people. I mean the signature element of public space is that it is open to all, regardless of income, regardless of status, with a relative lack of interference. A sense of possibility. A sense of freedom. Even disagreements are all right, because that's the nature of society that goes beyond family or company, that everybody is involved. That gets harmed, or reduced, when people no longer feel that public spaces are truly public."
Arriving half-way through the meeting, Ward 1 David Anderson asked Papapandreas for an example of other privately-owned public spaces, that Carnegie has managed.
Papapandreas spoke words….. but did not directly answer the question.
Anderson asked again.
Papapandreas spoke more words…. but did not directly answer the question.
Like a dog, who won’t give up its bone, Anderson was tenacious in requesting an exact example of a site that Carnegie has managed as public space.
Papapandreas could not think of one.
But wait! Twenty-five years ago, (yes, 25!), there was a historic barn in Amsterdam, New York, that the townspeople were very fond of, and didn’t want torn down. Some arrangement was made to make it into a public space.
M. George asked if the idea of leasing the public space to the developer had been considered, thus ensuring that the property still belongs to the city.
Nichols replied, that land lease is problematic. She expounded on many of the complications that can arise.
Throughout the evening, M. George remained resolute in her belief that the public space (which might only be as large as .5 acre) should remain the property of the city.
It was no surprise to me, that at the conclusion of the meeting, to see Smyers make a move towards the dais.
As I left, she was in conversation with M. George.
I’m assuming, that she was on the move to get M. George ‘with the program’.
I’d really like to know, how many POPS gave up a hospital in favor of a ‘space.’
NOTE: Turns out that Monday’s Special Meeting has been considered the Second Reading. This was announced today, rather than at the time of the meeting.
Special Meeting of Council
April 30 @ 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
In accordance with Article Two, Section 2.4(a) of the Third Amended Charter, I am calling and there will be a Special Meetings of Council
Monday, April 30, 2018 at 6:30 PM.
The agenda is as follows:
Proposed ORDINANCE 27-18 – AN ORDINANCE to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members of Council, or otherwise to take effect and be in force after the earliest period allowed by law, authorizing the execution and delivery of an agreement by and between the City of Lakewood, Ohio, a municipal corporation and political subdivision in and of the State of Ohio (the “City” ), and Carnegie Management and Development Corporation, an Ohio corporation (Carnegie”), related to the development of City-owned property at the southwest corner of Detroit Avenue and Belle Avenue, and authorizing and approving related matters. (1st Reading 4/16/18, 2nd Reading 4/23/18)
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 9:09 am
Oh, but the truths got slung at last night’s Special Meeting of Council. If they had been rotten tomatoes, nearly everyone would have been covered with a red, pulpy mess.
And, who slung the truths? Several speakers did the honors. Rather than trying to condense the many comments, it’s really best that you watch the recorded video. Once there’s a link, just get yourself a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show.
The first 45 minutes of the meeting was spent on discussion of the Temporary Restraining Order.
The mayor stated that he is disappointed. He feels that "the court was misled". “…..that courts can be used appropriately or inappropriately (as in this case).”
Council-At-Large Meghan George asked, “Why do you feel the court was misled?
Later, she stated that she does not agree with his opinion.
The mayor almost looked mournful, when he said, “A big empty building is unattractive.” “It’s old. It’s empty.”
Ed Graham brought to council’s attention that the City of Beachwood has a lawsuit against George Papapandreas for failure to file employee’s income tax during the years of 2012, 2013 & 2014.
“Do your due diligence!” he shouted at council. To paraphrase Mr. Graham, he went on to say, that council should know with whom they are doing business. (Actually, he said a whole lot more, but it's better if you watch the video.)
Now, here’s one for you. “Don’t Go Wobbly,” warned Jay Carson to council. “Don’t Go Wobbly.” He said it twice.
I guess those words have special meaning to him.
Meanwhile, Tracey Nichols did some more speaking. Khouri of Carnegie never speaks. Well, I take it back. I heard him speak once.
As for One Lakewood Place, these prospective tenants that Papapandreas speaks of, have yet to be named. He has never even alluded as to the type of business these prospective tenants might be in.
Sylvester stated that Carnegie ‘is required to provide the city an operations and maintenance plan for the Public Plaza.”
Well, the Cleveland Clinic was required to keep Lakewood Hospital updated and maintained until 2026. We all know the outcome of that.
Council is to vote next Monday May 7th.
And, who slung the truths? Several speakers did the honors. Rather than trying to condense the many comments, it’s really best that you watch the recorded video. Once there’s a link, just get yourself a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show.
The first 45 minutes of the meeting was spent on discussion of the Temporary Restraining Order.
The mayor stated that he is disappointed. He feels that "the court was misled". “…..that courts can be used appropriately or inappropriately (as in this case).”
Council-At-Large Meghan George asked, “Why do you feel the court was misled?
Later, she stated that she does not agree with his opinion.
The mayor almost looked mournful, when he said, “A big empty building is unattractive.” “It’s old. It’s empty.”
Ed Graham brought to council’s attention that the City of Beachwood has a lawsuit against George Papapandreas for failure to file employee’s income tax during the years of 2012, 2013 & 2014.
“Do your due diligence!” he shouted at council. To paraphrase Mr. Graham, he went on to say, that council should know with whom they are doing business. (Actually, he said a whole lot more, but it's better if you watch the video.)
Now, here’s one for you. “Don’t Go Wobbly,” warned Jay Carson to council. “Don’t Go Wobbly.” He said it twice.
I guess those words have special meaning to him.
Meanwhile, Tracey Nichols did some more speaking. Khouri of Carnegie never speaks. Well, I take it back. I heard him speak once.
As for One Lakewood Place, these prospective tenants that Papapandreas speaks of, have yet to be named. He has never even alluded as to the type of business these prospective tenants might be in.
Sylvester stated that Carnegie ‘is required to provide the city an operations and maintenance plan for the Public Plaza.”
Well, the Cleveland Clinic was required to keep Lakewood Hospital updated and maintained until 2026. We all know the outcome of that.
Council is to vote next Monday May 7th.
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 9:12 am
DON’T GO WOBBLY!
DON’T GO WOBBLY!
ALl together now:
DON’T GO WOBBLY!
Let’s make this a well worn phrase around town!
DON’T GO WOBBLY!
ALl together now:
DON’T GO WOBBLY!
Let’s make this a well worn phrase around town!
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 9:18 am
The Build Lakewood crew has “Jamminman” and now they’ve got Wobbly Man! 
- C53FEEF2-0067-4B43-A6A4-922B1642A3FB.jpeg (116.21 KiB) Viewed 5769 times
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 9:37 am
Well, he just returned home from China on Sunday. Maybe, he had met up with a Taoist Master, and is feeling all 'sage-y.'
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 11:21 am
As part of a legal brief filed with the Ohio Appeals Court opposing a request for a temporary restraining order, since granted, Bryce Sylvester submitted and affidavit with this claim:
So is this the “misleading” the court that Summers talked about?
It was pointed out by pjbennett in this thread that that amount is expected to be collected, but only a small portion will actually come to Lakewood - the county, the port authority, and other entities are entitled to a large chunk of it.It is estimated that the City will receive property and income taxes annually ranging from $1,434,790 to $2,275,081 from Carnegie’s mixed-use development. These estimates are based on information provided to the city in Carnegie’s RFP response, as well as the city’s understanding of the marketplace.
So is this the “misleading” the court that Summers talked about?
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 12:01 pm
I vote for more meeting synopses from pj bennett. This is delicious laugh-out-load worthy, and truth to power. Bravo!pj bennett wrote:Oh, but the truths got slung at last night’s Special Meeting of Council. If they had been rotten tomatoes, nearly everyone would have been covered with a red, pulpy mess.
And, who slung the truths? Several speakers did the honors. Rather than trying to condense the many comments, it’s really best that you watch the recorded video. Once there’s a link, just get yourself a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show.
The first 45 minutes of the meeting was spent on discussion of the Temporary Restraining Order.
The mayor stated that he is disappointed. He feels that "the court was misled". “…..that courts can be used appropriately or inappropriately (as in this case).”
Council-At-Large Meghan George asked, “Why do you feel the court was misled?
Later, she stated that she does not agree with his opinion.
The mayor almost looked mournful, when he said, “A big empty building is unattractive.” “It’s old. It’s empty.”
Ed Graham brought to council’s attention that the City of Beachwood has a lawsuit against George Papapandreas for failure to file employee’s income tax during the years of 2012, 2013 & 2014.
“Do your due diligence!” he shouted at council. To paraphrase Mr. Graham, he went on to say, that council should know with whom they are doing business. (Actually, he said a whole lot more, but it's better if you watch the video.)
Now, here’s one for you. “Don’t Go Wobbly,” warned Jay Carson to council. “Don’t Go Wobbly.” He said it twice.
I guess those words have special meaning to him.
Meanwhile, Tracey Nichols did some more speaking. Khouri of Carnegie never speaks. Well, I take it back. I heard him speak once.
As for One Lakewood Place, these prospective tenants that Papapandreas speaks of, have yet to be named. He has never even alluded as to the type of business these prospective tenants might be in.
Sylvester stated that Carnegie ‘is required to provide the city an operations and maintenance plan for the Public Plaza.”
Well, the Cleveland Clinic was required to keep Lakewood Hospital updated and maintained until 2026. We all know the outcome of that.
Council is to vote next Monday May 7th.
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 12:35 pm
Clearly, in City documents (spreadsheets) that I have posted in other threads, such a statement is entirely unsupported by the City's own tax estimate projections. They come nowhere near those amounts.Bridget Conant wrote:As part of a legal brief filed with the Ohio Appeals Court opposing a request for a temporary restraining order, since granted, Bryce Sylvester submitted and affidavit with this claim:
It was pointed out by pjbennett in this thread that that amount is expected to be collected, but only a small portion will actually come to Lakewood - the county, the port authority, and other entities are entitled to a large chunk of it.It is estimated that the City will receive property and income taxes annually ranging from $1,434,790 to $2,275,081 from Carnegie’s mixed-use development. These estimates are based on information provided to the city in Carnegie’s RFP response, as well as the city’s understanding of the marketplace.
So is this the “misleading” the court that Summers talked about?
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 1:08 pm
Part of the error in this "projection" of income is a difference in the timelines. If you start with today--- no income from the property and a vacant building then, of course, any development from here on would be an addition to taxes. That totally ignores the total giveaway and derelict execution of responsibilities which caused the evaporation of assets of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The only resolution that can possibly recapture the disappeared millions is to somehow resurrect the Metro general proposal.
The only resolution that can possibly recapture the disappeared millions is to somehow resurrect the Metro general proposal.
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 6:24 pm
Grab some popcorn and your favorite beverage, and get comfy to watch the recording of last night's Special Meeting of Council.
http://www.onelakewood.com/downtowndevelopment/
It was actually a rather interesting meeting, considering......
Again, I want to commend Council-At-Large Meghan George. She is doing her job and really digging into this very complex matter.
She continues to ask some very bold questions. Shame on the the mayor, who continues to remind her that she has been involved for only a short time.
http://www.onelakewood.com/downtowndevelopment/
It was actually a rather interesting meeting, considering......
Again, I want to commend Council-At-Large Meghan George. She is doing her job and really digging into this very complex matter.
She continues to ask some very bold questions. Shame on the the mayor, who continues to remind her that she has been involved for only a short time.
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 8:07 pm
Most of our elected officials have personified "wobbly" during the last few years. As a result they've made Lakewood wobbly.
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Thu May 03, 2018 1:30 pm
In Regards To The Appraisal
Lakewood Hospital property has yet to be independently appraised. Interestingly, Council has been promised to receive an appraisal of the hospital property on Monday May 7th, the day that they are scheduled to vote on whether to accept the Carnegie Development term sheet.
Imagine. Same day. This timeframe does not allow for any discussion or analysis. What if this number causes even further embarrassment to the fire sale giveaway of our public property???
The architects of this debacle have had plenty of time to provide an appraisal.
At a recent council meeting, the mayor patronizingly informed Council-At-Large Meghan George that, “We’ve been working on this for a very long time”. (Prior to her arrival on Council. Basically implying, that she cannot possibly understand the entire scope of this project.)
(And you know, I’m not on council, but I sure get it. Anyone, who reads the Term Sheet, the Fact Sheets, and all the other sheets, regularly attends Committee Of the Whole meetings, reads the Lakewood Observer or the many postings on The Deck, gets it. Like Kevin Young stated in an interview that aired recently on WEWS, this is a really bad deal.)
That being the case, why is this important property appraisal being handed to council members the very day of the vote? Matters, such as this, should not be rushed.
The only role that Council President O’Leary plays these days is that of the mayor’s head cheerleader, with some other council members as back up.
This is the current administration’s style of government.
Kudos to Council-At-Large M. George and Tristan Rader, who have been asking questions during the discussions of proposed Ordinance 27-18.
It’s like they actually care. It’s like they actually want to be sure, that when they vote, that they are voting for what is good for the city, and not what is 'good' for the mayor and his pals.
Lakewood Hospital property has yet to be independently appraised. Interestingly, Council has been promised to receive an appraisal of the hospital property on Monday May 7th, the day that they are scheduled to vote on whether to accept the Carnegie Development term sheet.
Imagine. Same day. This timeframe does not allow for any discussion or analysis. What if this number causes even further embarrassment to the fire sale giveaway of our public property???
The architects of this debacle have had plenty of time to provide an appraisal.
At a recent council meeting, the mayor patronizingly informed Council-At-Large Meghan George that, “We’ve been working on this for a very long time”. (Prior to her arrival on Council. Basically implying, that she cannot possibly understand the entire scope of this project.)
(And you know, I’m not on council, but I sure get it. Anyone, who reads the Term Sheet, the Fact Sheets, and all the other sheets, regularly attends Committee Of the Whole meetings, reads the Lakewood Observer or the many postings on The Deck, gets it. Like Kevin Young stated in an interview that aired recently on WEWS, this is a really bad deal.)
That being the case, why is this important property appraisal being handed to council members the very day of the vote? Matters, such as this, should not be rushed.
The only role that Council President O’Leary plays these days is that of the mayor’s head cheerleader, with some other council members as back up.
This is the current administration’s style of government.
Kudos to Council-At-Large M. George and Tristan Rader, who have been asking questions during the discussions of proposed Ordinance 27-18.
It’s like they actually care. It’s like they actually want to be sure, that when they vote, that they are voting for what is good for the city, and not what is 'good' for the mayor and his pals.
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Thu May 03, 2018 4:00 pm
Ms. Bennett has really nailed this issue with considerable insight and analysis. Making a point that I had totally missed. My compliments!
The city has had more than two years to have the former hospital site independently appraised. During that time period, the city completed a 400+ page Phase I environmental review and study. That was finished months and months ago.
The city has always wanted to avoid the appraisal issue. The site is carried on the city books at $0. They want to give it to the developer for $0.
Council members requested an independent appraisal months ago and have, in typical manner, been "gamed".
This parallels the failure of the city administration to have any independent appraisal done on the value of Lakewood Hospital. They lost the hospital and our shirts in that abysmal deal.
The city administration consistently displays a kind of "wooden-headedness" that is oblivious to norms of competence pretty much across the board.
Public interest lawyers are not suing the city for fun. They are suing the city to achieve some level of reform. It is a wake-up call to each elected and appointed official.
Trust me, when a dozen experienced local lawyers are jumping up and down and pulling their hair-out about public misconduct, there is generally a pretty good reason.
Keep in mind that these lawyers represent a cross-section of the local legal community that is bi-partisan and experienced in government and public service.
This is a continuing wake-up call for the city.
The city has had more than two years to have the former hospital site independently appraised. During that time period, the city completed a 400+ page Phase I environmental review and study. That was finished months and months ago.
The city has always wanted to avoid the appraisal issue. The site is carried on the city books at $0. They want to give it to the developer for $0.
Council members requested an independent appraisal months ago and have, in typical manner, been "gamed".
This parallels the failure of the city administration to have any independent appraisal done on the value of Lakewood Hospital. They lost the hospital and our shirts in that abysmal deal.
The city administration consistently displays a kind of "wooden-headedness" that is oblivious to norms of competence pretty much across the board.
Public interest lawyers are not suing the city for fun. They are suing the city to achieve some level of reform. It is a wake-up call to each elected and appointed official.
Trust me, when a dozen experienced local lawyers are jumping up and down and pulling their hair-out about public misconduct, there is generally a pretty good reason.
Keep in mind that these lawyers represent a cross-section of the local legal community that is bi-partisan and experienced in government and public service.
This is a continuing wake-up call for the city.
Re: One Lakewood Place
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 8:29 pm
A Committee Of the Whole meeting was held tonight, followed by a City Council meeting.
Hmmm, what to say? Well, Ward 3 John Litten made some noise about the Emergency Room. It was pure rhetoric. He just wanted to go public with the fact that he cares that as one Emergency Room closes, that another will open. (Note: there will be no ER for 24 hours, during this transition.)
Council was given the appraisal approx. 3 hrs. prior to the COW meeting. Attached is a letter from Charles Ritley Associates.
The Term Sheet was just updated, and you can read it by clicking on this link.
http://www.onelakewood.com/wp-content/u ... 072018.pdf
Tracey Nichols just had to mention, that "it's a great opportunity that this property became available. That it's a great site."
Really, Tracey? Well..... she's not singular in that comment. What none of them have ever mentioned is the fact that a hospital was deliberately and methodically killed, in order to provide this prime site for development.
(Yes, I continue to be bitter.)
At the time that I left, Council-At-Large Tristan Rader had already stated that he will vote against. And, while she didn't say, I'm certain that Council-At-Large Meghan George will also vote against.
As for the rest of council, well.... I find those boys to be unworthy of their position.
Hmmm, what to say? Well, Ward 3 John Litten made some noise about the Emergency Room. It was pure rhetoric. He just wanted to go public with the fact that he cares that as one Emergency Room closes, that another will open. (Note: there will be no ER for 24 hours, during this transition.)
Council was given the appraisal approx. 3 hrs. prior to the COW meeting. Attached is a letter from Charles Ritley Associates.
The Term Sheet was just updated, and you can read it by clicking on this link.
http://www.onelakewood.com/wp-content/u ... 072018.pdf
Tracey Nichols just had to mention, that "it's a great opportunity that this property became available. That it's a great site."
Really, Tracey? Well..... she's not singular in that comment. What none of them have ever mentioned is the fact that a hospital was deliberately and methodically killed, in order to provide this prime site for development.
(Yes, I continue to be bitter.)
At the time that I left, Council-At-Large Tristan Rader had already stated that he will vote against. And, while she didn't say, I'm certain that Council-At-Large Meghan George will also vote against.
As for the rest of council, well.... I find those boys to be unworthy of their position.