The Observation Deck

It is reported today in other media that the City reached a settlement with its previously selected developer in an amount of $255,000.

Is that “nominal?”

I have tried my best to follow this. But I am at a loss. $250,000. To whom? Us in Lakewood? What about the estimated $50 million dollar loss in physical assets? Much less the economic generation of those assets? Hey-- I had a heart incident 15 years ago. Easy Peasy ride down to the Hospital to take care of it. Lets get that capability back.

Stan Austin wrote:I have tried my best to follow this. But I am at a loss. $250,000. To whom? Us in Lakewood? What about the estimated $50 million dollar loss in physical assets? Much less the economic generation of those assets? Hey-- I had a heart incident 15 years ago. Easy Peasy ride down to the Hospital to take care of it. Lets get that capability back.

Same questions.
Plus one to Stan, although I don't want a specific answer.
I'm just laughing at your phrasing.
An "easy-peasy' heart incident? Ha.
Good point, though. That's the reason for a community hospital.

I feared that the City would be mulcted for a sum considerably in excess of that settlement amount considering the sums already lost across the entire multi-year, multi-deal epic debacle.

Obviously, it is not a "nominal" sum, but it is a bare fraction of the public assets demolished, the public funds that were liquidated, or the other public benefits dissipated or lost.

This would be a sad chapter in the history of any city and it vividly illustrates why the City of Lakewood should focus on enacting serious "ethics-in-government" reform.

Mark Kindt wrote:I feared that the City would be mulcted for a sum considerably in excess of that settlement amount considering the sums already lost across the entire multi-year, multi-deal epic debacle.

Obviously, it is not a "nominal" sum, but it is a bare fraction of the public assets demolished, the public funds that were liquidated, or the other public benefits dissipated or lost.

This would be a sad chapter in the history of any city and it vividly illustrates why the City of Lakewood should focus on enacting serious "ethics-in-government" reform.

Mark

A couple things, like most things reported by the group that announced this, it is not correct. There is no signed deal, just this deal that has been floated and agreed to in principle. As a lawyer, you realize what that means. At best a deal, at worst another drawn out fight over this.

Let's cross our fingers and hope it is returned signed.

.

Mr. O'Bryan's note much appreciated.

Awaiting developments...

Jim is correct, the agreement remains tentative, however City Council did approve it on our end this past Monday.

It may seem antithetical to our instincts when we agree to pay money to another party when we contend we held up our end of the initial agreement completely. But as the mayor correctly stated in the Cleveland.com article yesterday, we don't want to have the site encumbered for years to come with litigation - the cost of which would dwarf the settlement amount we've agreed to, even if we "win." We want to move forward with the development of this site immediately so we can build something the people of Lakewood can be proud of and that will generate tax revenue.

Mark Kindt wrote:I feared that the City would be mulcted for a sum considerably in excess of that settlement amount considering the sums already lost across the entire multi-year, multi-deal epic debacle.

Obviously, it is not a "nominal" sum, but it is a bare fraction of the public assets demolished, the public funds that were liquidated, or the other public benefits dissipated or lost.

This would be a sad chapter in the history of any city and it vividly illustrates why the City of Lakewood should focus on enacting serious "ethics-in-government" reform.

"mulcted" <<< great word.

What is the Expiry Date of the Master Agreement?
(For how long, are those terms in effect?)

Between what parties is this agreement?