Page 1 of 1

Controversy over county and Cleveland's money for the Q

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 7:05 am
by mjkuhns
A brief update on the fight over whether or not Cuyahoga County (and Cleveland) government spend more money on Quicken Loans Arena…

When we left off, the Cleveland City Council had approved the plan. Since then, opponents including the Lakewood-based Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus collected more than 20,000 signatures on a petition to repeal the relevant ordinance.

After doing so, and taking the signatures to Cleveland City Hall yesterday morning, Cleveland government refused to receive them. In a bizarre move, Council President Kelley has so far refused to cite any details (on the grounds of attorney-client privilege), but claims that in general the city cannot imperil an already signed contract.

Some of this may sound familiar to Lakewood residents, although there are some interesting features particular to this new controversy. First, Cleveland is trying to thwart the process before it even begins, by rejecting the petitions. This may be overreach. I will leave the workings of Cleveland's charter, and a writ of mandamus, to our friends in the legal profession… but I can report that Cleveland attempted something like this in the past and it did not work.

I contacted our County Council member, Dale Miller, about the county's current policy of waiting until this question is resolved before issuing bonds. For his part, he said that the county should continue to wait—and added that Cleveland's rejection of the petitions could well be overturned.
If the City were forced to accept petitions they initially rejected, it wouldn't be the first time. In 1981, I and 3 other Council members circulated petitions to reduce the size of Council from 33 to 21. The Clerk rejected the petitions for flimsy reasons. We took it to court and won, and the voters approved the issue by a 2-1 margin.
So there's that.

Also, while I'm told that Cleveland's charter is long and complex, there's evidence that Cleveland's council president already said the charter offers no grounds for refusing a referendum on this issue. For what that's worth, if anything.

So, developments continue.

Meanwhile, I'll just add that this plan continues to look worse from the perspective of county residents, including us. Cuyahoga County hasn't even issued the arena bonds, and its bond rating just received a downgrade. Maybe I overestimate the importance of this, but it doesn't seem good. So I do appreciate that the county is, for the moment, exercising at least a little caution.

Re: Controversy over county and Cleveland's money for the Q

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 7:31 am
by Michael Deneen
Two years ago we learned that the Cleveland Clinic controls Lakewood.
Yesterday we learned that Dan Gilbert owns Cleveland. Not just the Cavs, but the whole damn government.

The parallels to the Lakewood Hospital heist are striking;
Backroom deals
"Emergency" legislation
Dubious claims of "attorney client" privilege.
Public money going to corporate hands

Key difference: Cleveland voters are VERY unlikely to approve the deal. Gilbert has a much stronger challenge than what Team Summers faced. Unliike Cleveland Clinic, which many people still think of as a charitable organization, the Cavaliers franchise is a textbook case of corporate excess. Even avid basketball fans like myself believe that the owners and players are all grossly overpaid.

Re: Controversy over county and Cleveland's money for the Q

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 8:24 am
by Bridget Conant
But, but, but.....
Deputy Council Clerk Allan Dreyer wrote that because the city already has entered into a contract on The Q deal with Cuyahoga County as a result of the ordinance that was targeted by the petitions, accepting them would "unconstitutionally impair an already executed and binding contract."
Sound familiar?

Politicians are so full of BS.

Re: Controversy over county and Cleveland's money for the Q

Posted: Tue May 23, 2017 9:01 am
by Michael Deneen
Another common element between the two situations: The Plain Dealer.

It is an unwavering cheerleader for the corporate elites in Cleveland.....especially the Cleveland Clinic and the sports teams.
The PD has refused to examine the financial details of either situation, leaving that job to the Observer, Scene, or Roldo Bartimole.
Their writers, especially Geiselman, are stenographers for public officials.

We all remember Brett Larkin's hit piece against the people of Lakewood.
There will be similar attacks against critics of the Q Deal....count on it.
And the PD is already an extension of the Jackson Mayoral campaign...the coverage of that race will be laughable.
And whoa boy, the Cavs will dominate the paper

Re: Controversy over county and Cleveland's money for the Q

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:38 pm
by mjkuhns
To bring this thread up to date…

The City of Cleveland sued itself in the Ohio Supreme Court, potentially creating a collusive lawsuit. But opponents of this deal requested the right to participate in the case, and it was granted. The Supreme Court ruled that Cleveland had to accept referendum petitions. The Board of Elections validated enough signatures, and the latest controversy was Cleveland leadership's choice to push the referendum out until a 2018 special election at substantial cost…

Then this afternoon the Cavaliers called it off. Taxpayers including us will not be billed for renovations to Quicken Loans Arena.

Not for now at least. The proponents of this deal have condemned this outcome, showing zero interest in the opinion of the people. So it's unlikely this will be the last such effort in Greater Cleveland. (Meanwhile we continue paying for maintenance on the very busy Q, so it's in no jeopardy.)

But this November many people who pushed for this deal will be on the ballot, as will a number who opposed it in one capacity or another. As I may have said before, I'm proud to be supporting one of them here in Lakewood. I am not aware that any Lakewood candidates have publicly supported this deal. But to my knowledge Tristan Rader is the only one who opposed it, in both statements and actions with CCPC and other coalition groups.

There are plenty of issues that hit closer to Lakewood, no question. But I do think taking a stand that "no, our public money should not go for cosmetic upgrades to a sports arena right now" is a good resume item, at the least.

Re: Controversy over county and Cleveland's money for the Q

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:40 pm
by Brian Essi
"I love dealing with politicians...they have no problem giving away money that does not belong to them." Donald Trump before he was a presidential candidate.

http://realestate.cleveland.com/realest ... meeti.html

The county, Lakewood, Cleveland, Cleveland School District, Lakewood School District.....

Not much difference.