The Observation Deck

I took a quick break while in a meeting today, after looking out the window and seeing the Hospital Garage come down.







.

And there it is, your October surprise.
Break sh*t, and maybe they won't vote.

Government corruption, alleged money laundering, alleged kick backs, alleged misuse of HUD funds and CDBG funds, alleged theft of resident's homes, and theft of the hospital. Yet, these people just push ahead using OUR tax dollars to tear down the parking garage and south medical building for their friends at the Cleveland Clinic. Before the election? Really?

A media, minus the Observer, that are puppets for these alleged crooks.

Time is running out. Everyone get out the word about what our alleged corrupt Mayor and Council are doing to our city and how they are using OUR TAX DOLLARS to do it!

This type of corrupt behavior must stop!

Help to stop the corruption at City Hall, VOTE AGAINST ISSUE 64. This will be your only chance to stop the laundry service that has been set up at City Hall.

If this is the surprise, standards have slipped. Save Lakewood Hospital has long predicted this, and briefed media contacts about it a week and a half ago.

It feels a bit late if this is an attempt to gull anyone. The segment on Channel 5 yesterday was the opposite of a "done deal" message; "missed it by that much," perhaps. Or not, as early voting is well into its second week.

Who knows. It is, after all, awkward from a messaging perspective if anyone is intended to assume that the hospital complex is going to follow soon… since the FHC doesn't exist yet, and telling people that they have somewhere to go 24/7 without interruption is a big part of the For 64 campaign.

Thank You Cleveland Clinic and “CCHS Indemnity Co. Ltd.” (Cayman Islands Insurance Company).

If Issue 64 is defeated, you both may owe us a brand new parking lot.

http://www.info-clipper.com/en/company/ ... amie0.html

Ah--- another pic of the war in Mosul----woops, have I got the wrong place?

I like how every press release starts with or includes...
"As part of the Master Agreement, unanimously approved last year by Lakewood City Council,..."

Load that messaging with wording like Master Agreement, unanimously approved, etc.
#FauxGravitas

http://www.onelakewood.com/demolition-b ... it-avenue/

As a longtime resident, I have been concerned that so many council votes are "unanimous." From that I recall, there were very few unanimous votes in the past. You'd always have 1 or 2 members that just couldn't or wouldn't join the majority.

In my mind, that's a good thing. It means the members didn't vote in lockstep - they actually thought about stuff and voted their conscience, or what their constituents wanted.

The recent spate of unanimous votes implies a groupthink mentality - go along, get along. I think the PTB really wanted a unanimous vote on the hospital deal so they could point to it and use it as a trophy - oh look, they ALL voted for it! As if that made the decision more legitimate.

I mean, why DID David Anderson need to be persuaded to vote for the ordinance? What difference did it really make? It would have passed without his yes vote.

Bridget Conant wrote:As a longtime resident, I have been concerned that so many council votes are "unanimous." From that I recall, there were very few unanimous votes in the past. You'd always have 1 or 2 members that just couldn't or wouldn't join the majority.

In my mind, that's a good thing. It means the members didn't vote in lockstep - they actually thought about stuff and voted their conscience, or what their constituents wanted.

The recent spate of unanimous votes implies a groupthink mentality - go along, get along. I think the PTB really wanted a unanimous vote on the hospital deal so they could point to it and use it as a trophy - oh look, they ALL voted for it! As if that made the decision more legitimate.

I mean, why DID David Anderson need to be persuaded to vote for the ordinance? What difference did it really make? It would have passed without his yes vote.

It IS "Group Think" at City Hall and in Mr. Anderson's case, there may have been some coercion. The day they announced the signing of the Master Agreement at the Council meeting, I wish I had taken a picture of David Anderson's face and figure. He looked like he was about to cry..Really! He looked like someone who knew it wasn't right! I just kept looking at his face and demeanor wondering WHY he signed the Master Agreement when he obviously knew better and felt it was not the right thing to do.

Of course, I could not get inside his head but I am telling you, the man was a mess. You didn't have to be a psychologist to see the turmoil within. I liked David Anderson but have found it difficult to appreciate him as he did not have the strength to dissent. As you say Bridget, it still would have passed. They did not need his vote.

Pam Wetula wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:As a longtime resident, I have been concerned that so many council votes are "unanimous." From that I recall, there were very few unanimous votes in the past. You'd always have 1 or 2 members that just couldn't or wouldn't join the majority.

In my mind, that's a good thing. It means the members didn't vote in lockstep - they actually thought about stuff and voted their conscience, or what their constituents wanted.

The recent spate of unanimous votes implies a groupthink mentality - go along, get along. I think the PTB really wanted a unanimous vote on the hospital deal so they could point to it and use it as a trophy - oh look, they ALL voted for it! As if that made the decision more legitimate.

I mean, why DID David Anderson need to be persuaded to vote for the ordinance? What difference did it really make? It would have passed without his yes vote.

It IS "Group Think" at City Hall and in Mr. Anderson's case, there may have been some coercion. The day they announced the signing of the Master Agreement at the Council meeting, I wish I had taken a picture of David Anderson's face and figure. He looked like he was about to cry..Really! He looked like someone who knew it wasn't right! I just kept looking at his face and demeanor wondering WHY he signed the Master Agreement when he obviously knew better and felt it was not the right thing to do.

Of course, I could not get inside his head but I am telling you, the man was a mess. You didn't have to be a psychologist to see the turmoil within. I liked David Anderson but have found it difficult to appreciate him as he did not have the strength to dissent. As you say Bridget, it still would have passed. They did not need his vote.

Before the vote I encouraged him to stand up and vote his conscience, he would feel better about himself.

It is really sad, how these few city officials sold us down the river. How could they possibly think it was a good deal to give away our biggest asset and deprive the people of Lakewood from good healthcare. We need justice for all the people.
It is Sick that everyone of the councilman got on the Bandwagon what a bunch of followers not leaders. I used to trust my councilman Anderson but not now.

Take our city back from this handful of misguided people that were supposed to be working for the people that elected them!

Are we a healthier city and more financially stable? NO!

VOTE AGAINST ISSUE 64

james fitzgibbons wrote:

Pam Wetula wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:As a longtime resident, I have been concerned that so many council votes are "unanimous." From that I recall, there were very few unanimous votes in the past. You'd always have 1 or 2 members that just couldn't or wouldn't join the majority.

In my mind, that's a good thing. It means the members didn't vote in lockstep - they actually thought about stuff and voted their conscience, or what their constituents wanted.

The recent spate of unanimous votes implies a groupthink mentality - go along, get along. I think the PTB really wanted a unanimous vote on the hospital deal so they could point to it and use it as a trophy - oh look, they ALL voted for it! As if that made the decision more legitimate.

I mean, why DID David Anderson need to be persuaded to vote for the ordinance? What difference did it really make? It would have passed without his yes vote.

It IS "Group Think" at City Hall and in Mr. Anderson's case, there may have been some coercion. The day they announced the signing of the Master Agreement at the Council meeting, I wish I had taken a picture of David Anderson's face and figure. He looked like he was about to cry..Really! He looked like someone who knew it wasn't right! I just kept looking at his face and demeanor wondering WHY he signed the Master Agreement when he obviously knew better and felt it was not the right thing to do.

Of course, I could not get inside his head but I am telling you, the man was a mess. You didn't have to be a psychologist to see the turmoil within. I liked David Anderson but have found it difficult to appreciate him as he did not have the strength to dissent. As you say Bridget, it still would have passed. They did not need his vote.

Before the vote I encouraged him to stand up and vote his conscience, he would feel better about himself.

"Mr. Anderson" went into a backroom month after month after month to ensure that a deal would be finalized with The Clinic and only with The Clinic.
He and his colleagues made a mockery out of the principle of open, transparent government.
If afterwards he posed as " the melancholy Lakewoodite", conflicted by his choices and uneasy with the results. Then that was theater.
His actions are what matter.