The Observation Deck

Great, I wish you lots of luck.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

I understand this.

The West End was the city taking, without the owner's consent, private property for a private developer and development.

The hospital deal was the city handing over public property and assets to a private foundation and to make city land available for a private developer to make money.

It's sick, the way they think "development" is a magic bullet. It will cure all our ills!

All I see it doing is, yet again, creating a civil war in the city and making it unpleasant to live here.

Jim-Just my opinion on this, but I think they're 2 completely separate issues. I also don't think that "they" think development is a cure-all. Let's use the Marathon Station on Lake Ave as an example. Do you blame an owner for wanting to sell and walk away, as say, a retirement plan?

The West End issue with eminent domain was the problem. What was "fair value"? It was like the movie "Up" and the old man not wanting to sell. They could have moved on without having to take the streets with the houses, but the developer wanted it all & ultimately, the voters chose against it.

Issue 64, for what it was worth, was affirmed. Whether it was by small or large margin doesn't matter. It was affirmed. The cuts are deep, but we all need to reach across the way and shake hands and offer ideas. As someone who seems to have some pull, maybe this is something you should think about and offer to participate in with the City. I think that could go a long way. No one like to see the things of their childhood go, but sometimes, it's for the best. I watched Lincoln go, and it tugged at my heart strings. Now, I see the new school, and can't wait for my kids to attend. It was for the better.

In this day and age, you have a post office building (it seems), an old hospital, and a shopping plaza on Sloane, along with the gas station on Lake. They all are going to be developed somehow. Maybe someone comes in a refurbishes, maybe one brings in a new grocer to compete and make Giant Eagle honest. Maybe there is some housing mixed with some fantastic office space or maybe we can get a larger employer to move into our community and make up for the tax dollars.

maybe we can get a larger employer to move into our community and make up for the tax dollars.

This.

What an idea!

We HAD a large employer that provided an economic benefit and employed people who paid income tax to the city but we assisted in moving them to another county!

Bridget Conant wrote:

maybe we can get a larger employer to move into our community and make up for the tax dollars.

This.

What an idea!

We HAD a large employer that provided an economic benefit and employed people who paid income tax to the city but we assisted in moving them to another county!

Can't argue that, but the employer wasn't staying and LHA was bleeding. And you missed the point on the fact that it's not a perfect agreement, but we must now move on. I would love to see you offer any idea on something other than attacking any ideas someone else brings out

I have already posted my skepticism about the prospects for "healing," and won't waste people's time by repeating myself. But, since you seem genuinely concerned about achieving such, I would like to offer the friendly suggestion that if there is a way to do so, this isn't it:

bentleymike wrote:No one like to see the things of their childhood go, but sometimes, it's for the best.

This has been a long-running theme of the hospital-closing proponents, i.e. that opponents are just stuck in the past and have a hard time letting go; they're emotional, etc., etc.

This is a subtle but pernicious insult, packaged so as to make the person saying so sound understanding, and empathetic, and at the same time beleaguered by critics whose entire arguments are blithely dismissed as just "being unable to let go."

In addition to the many arguments which are condescendingly dismissed, by this framing, it is also at best an unwarranted stereotyping that is 100% inaccurate in the case of many individuals. I was a founding part of Save Lakewood Hospital, poured far more time and energy into it over the past two years than the majority of participants, and I have no emotional connection to Lakewood Hospital whatsoever. It holds zero childhood associations for me; I'm not from Lakewood, and I'm by no means the only person who only moved into this city as an adult, yet considers the project to dispose of Lakewood Hospital intensely harmful to our community.

I am perfectly willing to presume that you made your comment with benign intent, and did not consider that perpetuating the "it's hard for some people to let go" stereotype runs directly contrary to the concept of healing divisions. I have pointed this out not to condemn, but merely to advise. I hope you will consider it in the spirit intended.

mjkuhns wrote:I have already posted my skepticism about the prospects for "healing," and won't waste people's time by repeating myself. But, since you seem genuinely concerned about achieving such, I would like to offer the friendly suggestion that if there is a way to do so, this isn't it:

bentleymike wrote:No one like to see the things of their childhood go, but sometimes, it's for the best.

This has been a long-running theme of the hospital-closing proponents, i.e. that opponents are just stuck in the past and have a hard time letting go; they're emotional, etc., etc.

This is a subtle but pernicious insult, packaged so as to make the person saying so sound understanding, and empathetic, and at the same time beleaguered by critics whose entire arguments are blithely dismissed as just "being unable to let go."

In addition to the many arguments which are condescendingly dismissed, by this framing, it is also at best an unwarranted stereotyping that is 100% inaccurate in the case of many individuals. I was a founding part of Save Lakewood Hospital, poured far more time and energy into it over the past two years than the majority of participants, and I have no emotional connection to Lakewood Hospital whatsoever. It holds zero childhood associations for me; I'm not from Lakewood, and I'm by no means the only person who only moved into this city as an adult, yet considers the project to dispose of Lakewood Hospital intensely harmful to our community.

I am perfectly willing to presume that you made your comment with benign intent, and did not consider that perpetuating the "it's hard for some people to let go" stereotype runs directly contrary to the concept of healing divisions. I have pointed this out not to condemn, but merely to advise. I hope you will consider it in the spirit intended.

Matt-

There was no ill intent. I was making the statement as, essentially, a lifelong Lakewoodite. Jim is, also. That's why I made the statement. I was utterly pissed when I saw Lincoln was getting torn down, because of my memories there.

As for the SLH side of things. I'm not anti-SLH & I'm not pro-BL. I'm pro-Lakewood. I accept the results of what our residents say, even if not all of them agree. Even if I don't agree with a specific stance on an issue. That, again, is why I used the Lincoln example. I bitched & moaned until I saw the new school. SLH members & also those who didn't support 64 have that right. I also think we all need to work together on what makes the city best going forward. I personally think that sharing ideas and avoiding personal attacks is the best route. In fact, if the mayor, or council are reading this thread (which ultimately should probably become a new thread), let's start some idea sharing for 2017 on issues to improve the city. Let's not say throw around accusations, let's just share ideas that council and the mayor can use. Then you engage when they ask you to give your take on that particular subject so that we can improve our town.

bentleymike wrote:I also think we all need to work together on what makes the city best going forward. I personally think that sharing ideas and avoiding personal attacks is the best route. In fact, if the mayor, or council are reading this thread (which ultimately should probably become a new thread), let's start some idea sharing for 2017 on issues to improve the city.

I feel like we're probably having distinct conversations, here, but I should just make one thing explicit, and then there's probably not much more I can add without becoming a nag.

Lakewood Hospital wasn't a "side A wants elms, side B wants maples, everyone had their say and we followed the process and side A won and now that's settled and we all live with it" disagreement. If it was ever anything like that, it became something else early on.

For a lot of people, the fate of the hospital was increasingly eclipsed as the primary object of complaint by disagreement over whether everyone did have a fair say, whether an appropriate process did play out, etc. As a prominent but by no means isolated example, I would refer you to almost any Jim O'Bryan post on the issue.

The result of Issue 64 (2016 edition) was unlikely to settle these complaints—particularly after proponents declared that they would only respect a result that was favorable to their agenda—and I see nothing else which is likely to do so any time soon. Regardless of who accepts the result of Issue 64 as a final word on Lakewood Hospital, most of the people who are unhappy about that result have also, long since, become equally if not more troubled by a perception of bad faith on the part of our city's government.

Again, I sense that I ought to spell this out just to be sure: the perception of bad faith is not remotely settled, and is very likely to be high on the list of a lot of people's ideas to improve the city. What's more, it's very likely to hinder any conversation of other ideas to improve the city. When people believe that city authorities have acted in bad faith, those people will probably have low interest in calls to shift their energies to other topics on the premise that good-faith dialogue with those same authorities will result.

It may not absolutely have to be that way, and undoubtedly many people do not feel that there is any bad-faith issue at all. It's plain, however, that a lot of participants in this forum do feel that there is a bad-faith problem, and apparently do feel that conversation about future city policies which ignores that problem is just not realistic.

I'm not completely certain, and in any event I wish you luck with your attempts, as I wish success for Jim's attempts to bring in some non-regular voices to discuss various new issues. But I also think that so long as this is an open forum, comments like "yes that would be great, too bad you let Cleveland Clinic steal our hospital" are going to be around for a while. Helpful or not.

mjkuhns wrote:

bentleymike wrote:I would refer you to almost any Jim O'Bryan post on the issue.

Boys, you thinking about starting your own new hospital thread?

Just wondering?

Wait, never mind I forgot we might try that in global after the first of the year as a test.

Continue on, segues ar for amateurs.


.

I have wandered far out on a limb here, I know. No further in this thread; promise.