The Observation Deck

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... 7-2-3.html

At Monday night's council meeting, several supporters of the Lakewood Hospital Closure spoke out and read a letter to council. At the bottom of the letter were about 108 names of those that are in support of the closure. I was not surprised to see that it appears that most (but not all) of the names are part of the "clique". However, I was surprised to read that this list includes, but is not limited to three of our school board members. I believe two of these three are running for re-election for Lakewood Board of Education.

I feel that everyone has a right to their own opinions. However, I was stunned to read that none of these three were in support of keeping the hospital. I am just wondering why.

At least one of the "signers" of that letter, has stated vigorously that he and his wife refused to sign the letter when it was presented to them.

But his name is on that letter.

SO - that letter does NOT represent signatures, only names.

Any others on that list, who did not sign?

And as for their assertion that our taxpayers lawsuit does not really represent all (52,000) residents of Lakewood - well, OK, maybe we only represent 51,900.

That's still 519:1.

In reviewing the letter presented to council, allegedly signed on behalf of supporters of the Lakewood Hospital closure, I was shocked to see the name of my father, David Slife.

My shock is not because of his particular position on this issue, rather, because my father has a staunch position as a businessman to not personally involve himself in divisive local political issues.

I immediately called him to clarify that he had indeed willingly and in full knowledge signed on to the above cited letter. He did not. He is disappointed in this mistake, which has already resulted in calls from customers upset by this false appearance of his support.

I hope that whomever is responsible for putting this letter together will please step forward and explain this discrepancy.

It is curious that we have not heard from ANY of those 108 folks exactly what any one them would propose or plan to do with the "exciting po$$ibilitie$ for the redevelopment of the $ignificant parcel of land" BEFORE they sign on to tear down the hospital??

What kind of landlord would pay its own money to tear down their building to sell its rich tenant 1/4 of the cleared land at a discount?

What kind of a landowner would tear down their building without a plan for the majority of the land?

Are any of the 108 folks connected with the real estate developers visiting Planning Director Dru Siley's office at City Hall?

Are any of the 108 associated with non-profit or other entities that might apply for grants against the new foundation?

In all of the public forums held so far, why has Mayor Summers not held a forum where he is asking for input on what to do with the "residual" land? He now has 108 friends and/or supporters urging his to do so.

Will any answers come from his friend who heads the Active Living/Recreation Task Force that has "never ever" discussed a recreation center "anywhere" in Lakewood?

What this letter might ultimately prove is Lakewood has (1) no shortage of fools who buy in to false narratives, (2) no shortage folks who have not thought too deeply about how they want to spend other folks' money and (3) no shortage of folks lining up for pieces of the "residual" hospital land and money.

I "triple dare" any of those 108 to come on the Deck and set forth the details of a viable plan for the land.

Brian Essi wrote:I "triple dare" any of those 108 to come on the Deck and set forth the details of a viable plan for the land.

Brian

Do you believe any would discuss this in an open forum with real names? Small groups,
spiral dynamics, control, control, control, control.

I think we are down to 105 on the list if I read Dan, and Margarette, as they know at least
three that appeared on the list, that preferred no to be on ANY list.


.

I have hope that one or two of them will finish their granola and step up to their keyboards. But I'm an optimist.

For the record, there are 110 names on the letter. One of them is listed twice. I would further reduce the number by any LHA or LHF board member, as I consider it to be a redundant expression of support.

Dan Slife wrote:In reviewing the letter presented to council, allegedly signed on behalf of supporters of the Lakewood Hospital closure, I was shocked to see the name of my father, David Slife.

My shock is not because of his particular position on this issue, rather, because my father has a staunch position as a business man to not personally involve himself in divisive local political issues.

Dan, I was surprised to see your father on the list too, along with other Lakewood business owners. Some of them told the SAVE LAKEWOOD HOSPITAL group that they were not comfortable displaying their sign because it could interfere with business.

There are many on this list that I recognize. A few I consider friends. I asked one of them the other day what they had heard about future plans for the site that sold them on the proposal outlined in the Letter of Intent. (I genuinely want to understand what likely scenario is better for Lakewood than a well run hospital.) Unfortunately, there was a moment of awkwardness. They had nothing to share. I suspect some signed on because they respected and trusted the person asking.

I know of at least one person listed on the letter who was at the Save Lakewood Hospital rally in front on city hall. He was carrying a Save Lakewood Hospital sign.

Did he change his mind? Was his name used without his permission? Does he have any legal action?

You know, speaking of businesses, the fact that Lakewood is poised to lose it's LARGEST EMPLOYER and people are actually speaking out in FAVOR of this is incredible. They obviously have their own hidden agendas.

How many years will it take for Lakewood to recover the jobs from a massive hit like this?

Years and year, if ever.

Brian Essi wrote:What this letter might ultimately prove is Lakewood has (1) no shortage of fools who buy in to false narratives, (2) no shortage folks who have not thought too deeply about how they want to spend other folks' money and (3) no shortage of folks lining up for pieces of the "residual" hospital land and money.

I "triple dare" any of those 108 to come on the Deck and set forth the details of a viable plan for the land.

I hate to disagree but there does seem to be a shortage of fools.

The Mayor, the Foundation, the developers and their supporters can't come up with more than 110 signatures?

The submittal of those names to Council sets stage for the Mayoral election.

On one side those who support Lakewood Hospital.

On the other side those who support its destruction and replacement with a small building that will offer treatment for sore throats and sprained ankles and.... cooking classes.

There are more than 5 acres of land available for development near Rockport and more at the Madison triangle. The fight to buy that land would make more sense than a fight to destroy Lakewood Hospital for...

For what exactly? If the Mayor has such grand plans why won't he share them?

I'll make it a "Triple Dog Dare"