Page 1 of 1

Pae and O'Leary Make Clear Arguments to Vote Against 64

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:58 pm
by Brian Essi
In her recent Op-Ed piece printed in the fake paper run by CCF (aka the PD), Jenn Pae wrote about 6 options she claims the city had last year:

"our elected officials had the following options;

1. Negotiate a better deal than originally proposed by CCF....

6...issue a request for proposal..."

Pae said that the city officials chose Option 1.

Sam O'Leary admitted in a Dem Club speech that the the deal originally propose by CCF (the LOI) sucked.

So here are City Hall's problems:

1. The deal that city hall negotiated was objectively $20M worse than the LOI.

2. The City failed to ever issue an RFP and never marketed the hospital or its assets.

City Hall is damned by their bogus process and the terrible result they got from the rigged process.

People should go to jail. They should not be rewarded.

Vote Against 64.

Re: Pae and O'Leary Make Clear Arguments to Vote Against 64

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:30 pm
by Lori Allen _
I am not a democrat, therefore, I am not a member of the Lakewood Democratic Club. Since Company member O'Leary can voice his opinions on the hospital deal, I believe it would be a good time for a member of the club to ask about what appears to be the possibly illicit or illegal activities surrounding the seizure and demolition of properties here in Lakewood. Could your house be next? Elderly, chronically ill, and minorities be on high alert. It appears that, more than likely, the hospital deal was also done by some sort of illicit or illegal means and maybe even involved some kind of money laundering.

I believe this will be the only time that Company man O'Leary will be speechless!

A NO VOTE gives Lakewood citizens the time to find out what REALLY went on with the hospital deal. I believe our Council and Mayor and Company need to start proving the apparent lies they are spewing! Time to put a dent in what seems to be a crusade by these people to destroy Lakewood in almost every aspect.

Re: Pae and O'Leary Make Clear Arguments to Vote Against 64

Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:31 pm
by Lori Allen _
Here is a reason to vote NO on ISSUE 64. It appears Summers and Company are allegedly stealing homes from residents, tearing them down and turning them into land banks or giving them to flipper friends. Does anyone know if Housing and Urban Development money is being used? If so, I believe this might be illegal.

We DO NOT have an "ER" as Mary Louise Madigan told us. We have an URGI - CARE that can't do much more than put you into another ambulance, wasting valuable time that could mean the difference between life and death, and carting people off to a REAL hospital.

Fairview Hospital cannot handle the increase in patient load and often the wait time is at least three hours, if not more. Also, you lay in a bed for hours waiting for a bed and most times you end up laying in a hallway! I bet CCF charges you the full room charge anyway. Two ambulance charges, one Urgi - Care charge and one emergency room charge. Those in the medical field know that once you get to a real hospital, the doctor must assess you again, another charge! Wow! It appears that CCF has hit a gold mine delivering less than adequate healthcare to we folk in Lakewood! I still believe that Summers, Council and the rest of the Company must have received one hell of a bonus for allowing such a great deal to go through for CCF, even if it appears the deal was done with no regard to the Federal Trade commission's Laws.

P.S. I believe that Mary Louise and Juris are still a very big part of this.