The Observation Deck

So the embattled Council President delivered a well rehearsed speech at the Dem Club last week about the "Process and Outcome" on the "non-hospital" deal and referendum. To this Observer, O'Leary's delivery was his best ever.

But the message was soundly defeated among members of his own club and party. Several votes went 39 to 21 or something against the message?

So the Democrats in attendance saw the truth through the spin (and outright lies):

That truth is that Summers and the city leaders are damned by the rigged process and crooked outcome.

The referendum is not really about a "hospital"--the Hospital is the "McGuffin"

A vote AGAINST the referendum is a vote to:

1. Stop the Lies.
2. Stop the Rigged Process.
3. Reverse the Crooked Outcome.

In other words a vote AGAINST is a vote for the truth.

An overwhelming majority of Democrats saw the truth last week.

How ironic...our Republican friend Brian Essi can see change happening within the Democratic Party, but O'Leary cannot.

O'Leary has been busy cutting back room deals with his Republican friends at Build Lakewood...he doesn't recognize that his fellow milennials are fed up with "business as usual".

he doesn't recognize that his fellow milennials are fed up with "business as usual".

They thought they could rely on the naïveté of the millennials to politics and the history of Lakewood, and further distance them from hospital supporters by repeatedly referring to SLH people as "old" and "stuck in the past," but they underestimated that age group. They aren't going to blindly follow Team Summers. They aren't as interested in "shopping" as they thought.

Let's see now--- where am I? Up, Down--- Old, Young, Left, Right?

All I know is that you youngsters ain't doin' a good job at spin.

Get your f****** facts right or I'm gonna come and take your car when it's dark.

Stan Austin wrote:Let's see now--- where am I? Up, Down--- Old, Young, Left, Right?

All I know is that you youngsters ain't doin' a good job at spin.

Get your f****** facts right or I'm gonna come and take your car when it's dark.

Given Mr. O'Leary's conduct you're more likely to be taking away his tricycle.
Mr. O'Leary, the tortured Mr. Anderson and Ms. Marx sold Lakewood out.They went along to get along.
Under the pretext of executive session they huddled month after month in a broom closet at city hall. Brokering deals in contempt of transparency, brokering deals in contempt for the rest of us. Worse, they enabled Mr. Summers in his willingness to divide Lakewood and stoke hatred among us.
Nice job Mr. O'Leary.

It appears that since O'leary has been named Council President, he has become just like Lord Lakewood, a legend in his own mind! I still believe that council and Lord received something in exchange for this lousy and seemingly illegal deal. Maybe soon we will find out what they got!

...where there is smoke, there is fire... the ordinance that closed the hospital has special interest written all over it...

More to come, stay tuned!

Kevin D Young wrote:...where there is smoke, there is fire... the ordinance that closed the hospital has special interest written all over it...

Our young elected officials O'Leary and Bullock both need those special interests to advance their ambitious political careers.

It seems clear they have sold us out and are parroting the lies of the special interests, their lawyers and spin doctors.

It is sad to see young people corrupted by power and their thirst for it.

Bullock is middle aged. Just sayin.

Yes, if you had seen and heard O'Leary's 6 minute speech at the Dem Club mtg last Thursday, you would definitely get that "legend in his own mind" thing. You would also would have heard the condescending tone of his. He was totally talking down to the majority of the people there.

To me, it shows they are shaking in their boots. The last thing they want is to have to deal with this issue again.

I say, let's make them earn their salaries for once.

O'Leary denies this account on Facebook...see screenshot.

He blocked a comment I made about how progressive values such as caring for the poor, the elderly, and fighting redlining.

I would love to debate Mr. O'Leary on the issues, including but not limited to the untruthful points in his speech.

For example, Mr. O'Leary said in his speech:

1. Oleary: "We also secured $18 million from the Cleveland Clinic direct to the city to cover just the transition costs."

Facts: The Clinic did not and will not pay that amount to the city. So far the city has received $1.6M for the sale of the FHC site, but LHA will pay $3.6M to demo that site and give the Clinic $2.5M. So the City and LHA spent a net of $4.5M and the Clinic got a 1.8 acres. The city receives no other money directly from the Clinic. Rather, it will receive far less than $18 from LHA for what the city owned that was valued at more than $120M. i.e. it received only 15% of what it owned--and not from the Clinic.


2. O'Leary claimed that the Master Agreement was "tangibly better for Lakewood in every measurable way" than the LOI.

Fact: The LOI required a $12.4M payment to the new foundation upon signing and $12.2M when the FHC opened. The Master Agreement provide only $200K paid 90 days after signing and staged payments (without interest) beginning when the FHC opens and ending in 2026. So the Net Present Value of these payments would be around $16.5M as opposed 24.4M.

So on the foundation alone, the Master Agreement is $7.9M tangibly worse than the LOI.

I could go on in greater detail about how much worse the Master Agreement was thane the LOI, but I have to go to teacher's night at my daughters school.

Brian Essi wrote:I would love to debate Mr. O'Leary on the issues, including but not limited to the untruthful points in his speech.

For example, Mr. O'Leary said in his speech:

1. Oleary: "We also secured $18 million from the Cleveland Clinic direct to the city to cover just the transition costs."

Facts: The Clinic did not and will not pay that amount to the city. So far the city has received $1.6M for the sale of the FHC site, but LHA will pay $3.6M to demo that site and give the Clinic $2.5M. So the City and LHA spent a net of $4.5M and the Clinic got a 1.8 acres. The city receives no other money directly from the Clinic. Rather, it will receive far less than $18 from LHA for what the city owned that was valued at more than $120M. i.e. it received only 15% of what it owned--and not from the Clinic.


2. O'Leary claimed that the Master Agreement was "tangibly better for Lakewood in every measurable way" than the LOI.

Fact: The LOI required a $12.4M payment to the new foundation upon signing and $12.2M when the FHC opened. The Master Agreement provide only $200K paid 90 days after signing and staged payments (without interest) beginning when the FHC opens and ending in 2026. So the Net Present Value of these payments would be around $16.5M as opposed 24.4M.

So on the foundation alone, the Master Agreement is $7.9M tangibly worse than the LOI.

I could go on in greater detail about how much worse the Master Agreement was thane the LOI, but I have to go to teacher's night at my daughters school.

O'Leary continues to misrepresent the facts:

He delayed charity care for Lakewood's underserved by delaying the foundation task force appointments while he promoted accelerated termination of charitable services at the former hospital--all for his political purposes.

Here is evidence of more untruths O'Leary has publicly uttered.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2017/0 ... -political

Brian,

Meanwhile, the national Democratic Party is in the midst of a prolonged fight to defend the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid. These have always been pillars of the Democratic Party. Why not Lakewood?

In due time, if they want to remain relevant, the Lakewood Democratic club will soon join the chorus of the national party led by Senator Sanders and the DNC to defend the repeal of these important healthcare safety nets. 200-300k people will descend upon the nations capital to fight for healthcare and other priorities in the next week. Not in Lakewood. Sadly, the leadership on city council failed to defend the vulnerable population of residents that rely on Medicare and Medicaid. It's time for new leadership on Lakewood city council.

I'll reemphasize for democracy's sake: in a healthy democracy the council vote would have been 4-3 (51-48) or 5-2.

In closing, Lakewood's version of NAFTA was brought forth by the same Democratic insiders that brought you one of the most flawed Democratic gubernatorial candidates in over 75 years.

Lakewood deserves better.

Nadhal