The Observation Deck

Council members did not mention the closure of Lakewood Hospital in their recent articles in the Lakewood Observer.

Are they not proud of their actions?

Shrewd PR--hehe---by the way--- is there any evidence of them campaigning?

Didn't they just bring an amazing 21st Century model of healthcare to Lakewood? Aren't they all visionaries?

No, they just participated in the liquidation of a historic civic and community asset and all of the city revenue that came with it.

"Smooth move, Ex-Lax"

Didn't they just bring an amazing 21st Century model of healthcare to Lakewood? Aren't they all visionaries?

This question would be well worth asking at the Lakewood Democratic Club's Candidate Forum on Sept 28 at 7pm.

Wouldn't any candidate for office be happy to talk about their "achievements" and how they were part of such accomplishments?

The first step to meaningful municipal reform is to elect all the challengers to the incumbents this electoral season. Then the same plan in the next election cycle. We need a set of elected officials that have a true commitment to honesty, openness, transparency and accountability.

Citizens need to keep insisting that the council adopt meaningful ethics-in-government legislation.

As I have said before, our local standards for government ethics are anomalous and behind-the-times.

This is a low threshold of reform.

If we can't establish these minimums, then we're going to continue to function in a city where low-level crony corruption will flourish.

Mark Kindt wrote:Didn't they just bring an amazing 21st Century model of healthcare to Lakewood? Aren't they all visionaries?

No, they just participated in the liquidation of a historic civic and community asset and all of the city revenue that came with it.

"Smooth move, Ex-Lax"

One member of Council described the deal as bringing more healthcare choices to Lakewood.

Imagine the Mayor of Avon announcing that he has asked the Clinic to close its hospital and its health center because doing so would increase healthcare choices.

Thanks to Brain Essi we had an opportunity to read some of the discussions between the key players. I admit I haven't read all of the documents but in the ones I did read I NEVER saw any discussion explaining why closing the Hospital was a good idea. It was all about how to frame the discussion.

The sad fact is they never had a coherent plan for the future of the Hospital site or discussions about the health care needs of the people Lakewood. It's almost as if health care in Lakewood was not an issue. If I was a skeptic I would say it was really all about converting the Hospitals assets into a private slush fund. The loss of the Lakewood Hospital Foundation alone is crime. I questioned one of the Mayors supporters about the loss of the Lakewood Hospital Foundation and his response was, "It's gone. Get over it".

I think most members of Council realize the City got a bad deal. A couple might even realize that it is a corrupt, dirty deal. That's why they are silent. There is nothing to be proud of in this deal and they know it.

Will they pay a price?

Mark Kindt wrote: As I have said before, our local standards for government ethics are anomalous and behind-the-times.

This is a low threshold of reform.

If we can't establish these minimums, then we're going to continue to function in a city where low-level crony corruption will flourish.

Mark,
You have probably addressed this, but how does the revised charter we'll be voting on in November address this?
http://www.onelakewood.com/wp-content/u ... r-2017.pdf

Perhaps all current serving council-at-large persons feel there is no need to campaign and talk with the citizens.

More than likely, it is because they are afraid to be asked questions about the questionable scams they appear to have involved themselves in, like stealing the hospital.

Could it be that they already know that the election will be rigged in their favor?

Mr. Alaimo: Enacting the Third Amended Charter will be an obvious improvement.

I have discussed many issues related to this new Charter in my Deck series "Civic Accountability -- Honesty in Local Government II".

This is a step in the right direction.

I believe that it could serve as a basis for an even broader set of standards. Once enacted, I would recommend that the City review its other written ethics policies and make sure that it adopts a modern set of written ethical policies consistent with the new Charter and broadly consistent with common written ethical standards used by other governmental agencies.

I'm sure that this charter was written by a committee of hand picked friends by Summers and Council.

That just about says it all.

This third amended charter was completed in AUGUST 2014 - and IT DOESN'T HAVE A HOSPITAL IN IT.

The entire hospital section was already removed from it.

What did the charter commission know - in August 2014??

And how did they know it?

Ms. Harkness,

Excellent observation.

I stated above that this Charter Review Commission appears to be nothing more than a dog & pony show. This commission is made up of friends hand-picked by the mayor and Council.

Speaking of friends, one of the mayor's alleged friends that was on this 2014 committee has sold his house and apparently left town. He also resided in the mayor's neighborhood. Obviously, he knew that there was no longer going to be a hospital. Maybe he knew more than that, which could explain the house sale.

Speaking of folks leaving town, a prominent local business owner and BL supporter put their house up for sale today.

This makes about 20 BL people that have left town in the past year. Any ideas why?

Here's a simple metric---what was the value of City assets in 2015? What is the value of City assets today?

Stan Austin wrote:Here's a simple metric---what was the value of City assets in 2015? What is the value of City assets today?

Isolated to hospital related assets

January 1, 2015---$150 million

Today--far less than $20 million--this number assumes that the city will net $6 million from the sale of land that is under the hospital after demolition costs and WITHOUT giving away tax breaks to Fitz as the developer--if they give away our future tax revenue---then we must heavily discount the $20 million to a negative amount.

If I have time this week, I will post records in Subsidium's own hand to Summers et al in late 2014 (three years ago this week) that show that the CCF offer ultimately documented in the January, 2015 Letter of Intent "did not support a finding of material advantage to the community." I also have a record is Summers' own hand from June, 2015 where he essentially wrote Nowlin and Madigan (shortly after they failed to deliver Council approval of the before it expired) that Toby Cosgrove would make the deal worse for Lakewood due to Summers', Madigan's and Nowlin's failures.

So, since it has been proved that the LOI was better than the Master Agreement, we can conclude than there was NO "material advantage to the community" for closing the hospital 11 years early, getting nothing for it and giving CCF everything including an anti-competitive monopoly in Lakewood.

Shrewd money management there-- sounds like the old adage-- how do you become a millionaire? Start out with $10 million then buy a boat! (hit the rim shot)