The Observation Deck

There is a police call log indicating that someone asked for police assistance.

Did the dispute reach the level of needing police intervention? I'd say that it did not appear that way to me.

However, SOMEONE took it upon themselves to call Lakewood police. That's a fact.

Patrick Wadden wrote:The headline of the thread is misleading. Shocker!
Sounds like the police were already there and a couple of people got into a elevated (heated) conversation in the hallway leading into the pavilion.
So the chaos was procedural and there was no crazy, elevated, bar room brawl that happen as a result of the vote.

It was chaotic, and the police were called.
The scuffle in the back was mild relative to the disputes over Roberts Rules of Order, but considering the thread was started and the headline written while the meeting was still going on, it was accurate.

From a person near the argument, someone that was "pro SLH" tried to approach the Mayor and was intercepted by ????

They got into the scuffle, and police were told to come in. That is when the call for help was sent out.

Police are most likely to get hurt breaking up arguments and domestic stuff. This is why they like back ups, not because the fight was huge.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:From a person near the argument, someone that was "pro SLH" tried to approach the Mayor and was intercepted by ????

They got into the scuffle, and police were told to come in. That is when the call for help was sent out.

Police are most likely to get hurt breaking up arguments and domestic stuff. This is why they like back ups, not because the fight was huge.

.

If that was the case, I don't think that person got anywhere near the Mayor. Everything seemed to happen in the back of the room, until the officer escorted some people out through the back doors (the front of the room). I was sitting in a place where I could see the Mayor and Sam O'Leary during most of the meeting, and there was no trouble near them.

The headline for many was that the meeting resulted in a big win - their first win - for Save Lakewood Hospital.
It also marked the re-emergence of Sen. Mike Skindell as a leading force in the debate.

Meanwhile, it highlighted that others have joined the battle. See this article in the Daily Kos by Tristan Radar. He came to town as an organizer with the Bernie campaign, and is a leader in the recently formed Cuyahoga Progressive Caucus.
http://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/26 ... nt-Process
He got it mostly right except what happened with the police, and I've yet to see a definitive account of that situation even though I was there.

It's not just SLH anymore fighting alone for inpatient beds. Brian Essi is working separately to support the effort, as is Lori Allen. Obviously the Republican opponents of the deal were not at the Dem Club meeting. JOB has said he is not sure about the need for a hospital, but is a staunch advocate of good, accountable, transparent government in Lakewood. And there are others who are less visible. To me, this is as good a reason for supporting the referendum (remember to vote "against") as the hospital beds. Let City Hall know that the old way of doing business is not acceptable to us.

Dan Alaimo wrote: JOB has said he is not sure about the need for a hospital, but is a staunch advocate of good, accountable, transparent government in Lakewood. And there are others who are less visible. To me, this is as good a reason for supporting the referendum (remember to vote "against") as the hospital beds. Let City Hall know that the old way of doing business is not acceptable to us.

Dan

To me the single biggest problem in Lakewood City Hall is accountability.

The hospital debacle, losing hundreds of millions in public assets, kauffman park courts, city side of McKinley and others are the visible symptoms of a government that is accountable to no one.

The single biggest reason I do not align myself with Lakewood Voters For Progress or Save Lakewood Hospital, is the problem that needs fixing is bigger than that.

When a small handful of people can in secret conspire to liquidate a $350 million dollars asset to $19.7 million going to close friends and associates, for secret plans yet to be reveled.

I call foul, stop everything.

When the City fights for over a year to keep public documents secret. I call foul.

Mayor Summers, you got the place closed, nearly impossible to bring back. Tell us the truth?

Show us the facts. The deal stunk, the cover up is getting nasty.

PLEASE BE HONEST, TRANSPARENT, STOP THE CIVIL WAR. You are the only one who can do it.

For the record, I am a entrepreneur/photographer, that has only made money in the medical field, doing art and photography. I am a bad person at judging merits of a multi-million dollars medical business, any opinion I offer in running a hospital I may offer, please remember that.

.

Sorry folks, Ryan is right, Summers is a Democrat. Prior to 1968, Hilary Clinton was a Republican. Is she faking too? I believe Summers has his own political party, the Lakewood mafia, minus the weapons!

Lori Allen _ wrote:Sorry folks, Ryan is right, Summers is a Democrat. Prior to 1968, Hilary Clinton was a Republican. Is she faking too? I believe Summers has his own political party, the Lakewood mafia, minus the weapons!

Why don't we just call him a "Republicrat" or a "Dempublican"?

Or call him what he really is, an OPPORTUNIST.

Fitzgerald taught him well.

Bridget Conant wrote:Mike is right. You don't vote Republican your entire life then suddenly claim to be a Democrat. He changed his affiliation for political purposes, not because of any ideological change of heart. Party switching is done for political gain, rarely for any other reason: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_s ... ted_States

cmager wrote:Reasonable people will argue as to whether Defendant Summers is a Democrat or a Republican. I think the confusion stems from Summers following the Republican Corporatist playbook of privatizing public assets, and doing so using sketchy undemocratic and non-transparent tactics. Based on that behavior, I would tend to label Summers as a Republican. But I digress.

What is clear is that many Democrats find it wrong for Summers to conveniently claim the Democratic label, that his actions belie that for which progressive Democrats stand, and they don't believe that Summers is on their team, or should not be. Yet at least some Republicans strongly object to any connection with Summers and want nothing to do with him and his actions, either.

Yay! We agree!

IMO Summers is a "Democrat" of convenience who behaves and votes as a "Republican." It's not worth defending his party label either way. What I think we can all agree upon is that neither side wants to be embarrassed by any connection to him and his actions.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Dan Alaimo wrote: JOB has said he is not sure about the need for a hospital, but is a staunch advocate of good, accountable, transparent government in Lakewood. And there are others who are less visible. To me, this is as good a reason for supporting the referendum (remember to vote "against") as the hospital beds. Let City Hall know that the old way of doing business is not acceptable to us.

Dan

To me the single biggest problem in Lakewood City Hall is accountability.

The hospital debacle, losing hundreds of millions in public assets, kauffman park courts, city side of McKinley and others are the visible symptoms of a government that is accountable to no one.

The single biggest reason I do not align myself with Lakewood Voters For Progress or Save Lakewood Hospital, is the problem that needs fixing is bigger than that.

When a small handful of people can in secret conspire to liquidate a $350 million dollars asset to $19.7 million going to close friends and associates, for secret plans yet to be reveled.

I call foul, stop everything.

When the City fights for over a year to keep public documents secret. I call foul.

Mayor Summers, you got the place closed, nearly impossible to bring back. Tell us the truth?

Show us the facts. The deal stunk, the cover up is getting nasty.

PLEASE BE HONEST, TRANSPARENT, STOP THE CIVIL WAR. You are the only one who can do it.

For the record, I am a entrepreneur/photographer, that has only made money in the medical field, doing art and photography. I am a bad person at judging merits of a multi-million dollars medical business, any opinion I offer in running a hospital I may offer, please remember that.

.

Jim
What do you think the chances of that happening are? My guess: slim to none.
In lieu of that, isn't the referendum our best option to send a message about accountability and transparency? To me, it's less about the hospital and SLH, and more about a very bad deal for the City. Even if what they say is true and the deal can't be stopped, if enough people vote against the deal, maybe the Mayor and his friends will start to get the message. And if it can be stopped - or at least partially stopped - then we have the chance to either start over, or at least get some answers. Maybe.

Important parts of the Master Agreement can be stopped by a vote "against" the ordinance this November, don't be fooled!

The one thing that still can happen, if the vote "against" prevails, is the lifting of the "restrictive covenant" on the hospital property. Isn't that the real goal? I think that it is, by far, the most important goal. If this weren't a part of the "deal", the deal wouldn't be quite so bad. Oh wait, I forgot about the pennies on the dollar part, my bad. And the decanting plan. And the Administration fees. And the Metro proposal. And the profits up until 2014. Oh, boy.

If Sam O'Leary and David Anderson had their way, not even the demolition of the hospital can be stopped! Please, think outside the box guys!

cameron karslake wrote:Important parts of the Master Agreement can be stopped by a vote "against" the ordinance this November, don't be fooled!

The one thing that still can happen, if the vote "against" prevails, is the lifting of the "restrictive covenant" on the hospital property. Isn't that the real goal? I think that it is, by far, the most important goal. If this weren't a part of the "deal", the deal wouldn't be quite so bad. Oh wait, I forgot about the pennies on the dollar part, my bad. And the decanting plan. And the Administration fees. And the Metro proposal. And the profits up until 2014. Oh, boy.

If Sam O'Leary and David Anderson had their way, not even the demolition of the hospital can be stopped! Please, think outside the box guys!

cameron,
For people on the fence, or even those who think the hospital should go away, I think a case for can be made for them to vote "against" in the referendum because of the way our city government has handled the issue. Send them back to the drawing board in an open process like the schools and the library, and come back with a better plan - ideally one that includes a hospital.

Dan Alaimo wrote:What do you think the chances of that happening are? My guess: slim to none.
In lieu of that, isn't the referendum our best option to send a message about accountability and transparency? To me, it's less about the hospital and SLH, and more about a very bad deal for the City. Even if what they say is true and the deal can't be stopped, if enough people vote against the deal, maybe the Mayor and his friends will start to get the message. And if it can be stopped - or at least partially stopped - then we have the chance to either start over, or at least get some answers. Maybe.

Dan

Mayor Summers has a long legacy here. I have agreed with some things, questioned some things. The Hospital Deal is a disaster. Everyone knows it, even the Mayor will admit it was handled badly.

You are on the street, you know people are more upset with the lies and BS, and intimidation on people and businesses like the Observer and others to get in line, than the deal. They do not understand the deal. They understand government hiding facts, and cover ups, and they hate it.

Residents are not as ignorant as they think.

People might not like hospitals, or talk about hospitals but NO ONE LIKES DIRTY GOVERNMENT, people assume they are corrupt. And why wouldn't they. This administration has cut the time they hold documents from 4 years to 2. Hmmmmmmmmm Seems pretty odd to me with the unbelievable low cost of online storage. Getting rid of the 3 reading rules and more movement to "emergency votes." The crack down on public input, and then the shouting down and bullying.

Go do a search I posted the very first week of this nightmare.
Governor Christy was investigated by the Feds, for moving 22 orange cones on the George Washington Bridge slowing down traffic. What if he had sold the bridge, for half the value, and channeled all of the funds to friends and business associates? Bridges and Hospital, apples to oranges? Nope. public assets to public asset.

Residents see it.

They have also seen a mayor they knew and liked, turn into someone they fear. A person that stood for Lakewood being the best place to raise a family. Has taken the steps so that it has become nearly a fascist state. I hope the Mike Summers I grew up with realizes before it is too late, this has never been the right way for government to behave.

People know they do not know the truth, or what truth they know they read in the Observer. Heck even Lakewood Voters For Progress know they don't know the truth of the deal. They don't care but voters do, and the outrage is growing on the streets.

All the mayor has to do is release documents, and explain it as he explained it to me over a year ago.

He saves his legacy, he creates a new happiness in the city, and restores trust in government. Now there is a legacy!

Then we can decide what to do with whatever is left.

Only a fool would allow the people that drove the car into the ditch, costing us $350 million, to even get near the steering wheel again.

We can all agree, honest transparent government and...



.

.

Redeem Summers? Fuhgedaboutit. He's made his choices, over and over and over again.