Mayor Fights To Save Local Hospital

[Mark Kindt]

In recent news:

The mayor of Massillon (OH) fights to save its hospital from closure.

http://www.cantonrep.com/news/20180108/ ... r-affinity

You be the judge.

[Stan Austin]

Sounds like that mayor is forgoing an upscale pet food store

[Mark Kindt]

Sounds like that mayor is in touch with the vital interests of the citizens that she represents.

[Brian Essi]

In recent news:

The mayor of Massillon (OH) fights to save its hospital from closure.

http://www.cantonrep.com/news/20180108/ ... r-affinity

You be the judge.

From the article: "Additional time to transport patients by ambulance to medical centers in Canton or other communities can be the difference between life or death, she said."

IN STARK CONTRAST:

On September 20, 2016 in front of firetrucks and standing shoulder to shoulder with Fire Chief Scott Gilman, Lyin' Mike Summers said:

1. “When Life is on the Line, Let’s Make Sure We Know the Truth.”
2. “We did lose a Valuable Service [Lakewood Hospital] that served this community for 100 years.”
3. “They (SLH) believe that the community is better served by a local inpatient care. I don’t dispute that.”

So there you have it from Summers’ own lips—there is no dispute that what SLH is working for would better serve the community.

Lives are on the line and a hospital would better serve our community and save lives. Summers said it.

Chief Gilman said “….It takes longer to get to the hospital…” now that the hospital is closed.

So why did Summers hold his press conference when there is no dispute that lives are at stake?

Summers said: “I am deeply disturbed by the allegations and untruths spread by people in our community who are politically motivated and who trying to scare others by attacking our emergency service system here in Lakewood.” But Summers failed to be specific about any alleged “untruths” and the “people” allegedly spreading them. That’s because nobody is “attacking our emergency service system in Lakewood.” As shown above, it can’t be SLH, because Summers admits that SLH proposes something that “Better serves our Community” and “Saves Lives.”

So Summers held a press conference to set up a lie (a straw man) that he could knock down.

So it is Summers spreading a politically motivated lie trying to scare people when “Life is on the Line.”

How sad.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... ne#p170765

[Bridget Conant]

Summers said: “I am deeply disturbed by the allegations and untruths spread by people in our community who are politically motivated and who trying to scare others

He’s talking about himself!

Look at the pit bull controversy - he’s spreading lies and untruths to scare people about a dog.

[cmager]

Summers said: “I am deeply disturbed by the allegations and untruths spread by people in our community who are politically motivated and who trying to scare others

He’s talking about himself! Look at the pit bull controversy - he’s spreading lies and untruths to scare people about a dog.

Summers is Trump. Projecting his own actions onto others.

[Mark Kindt]

The United States of America is not a business.

The City of Lakewood is not a business.

Government is not about maximizing profit.

Business leaders who enter government service often arrive there with the wrong mix of skills and the wrong set of metrics and the wrong attitudes.

Witness our local hospital debacle.

Metro opens two new suburban hospitals; our mayor neglects that opportunity; mayor of Massillon fights to save their hospital.

Something is really wrong with Lakewood and that something wrong begins at city hall.

[james fitzgibbons]

Mark, many of us are completely disgusted what our Public Officials in Lakewood have done. I know 10 year old children that have more common sense than some of our elected officials.

I hope something can be done to turn this alleged crime around.

[Brian Essi]

Imagine that--- Rally in Massillon to Save a Hospital?

I guess Summers and Lyin' O'Leary would say there are a bunch of "tin foil hats" acting "political" in Massillon.

Hmmm

https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/local/n ... -massillon

[cameron karslake]

If only...

...in Lakewood.


Here in Lakewood...

...they fight to kill a hospital.


Incredible...!

[Mark Kindt]

If only...

...in Lakewood.


Here in Lakewood...

...they fight to kill a hospital.


Incredible...!

And, they succeeded. We are soon coming up on the second anniversary (Feb 6th) of the closing.

Adding insult to injury, the city administration plans to give the former hospital site away (for $0.00 or $1.00) to a development team led by a former member of the LHA board of trustees.

Somehow the LHA board of trustees executes a plan to liquidate the hospital and then the real estate moves for nothing to a former LHA board of trustees member and his business partners.

Fishy? You bet!

Not to mention that between $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 in site preparation has also been promised by the city administration to these folks.

Lakewood voters must continue the march for municipal reform.

[cameron karslake]

It seems that, when SLH held rallies and chanted "fulfill the lease!", they were talking to CCF.

Little did they know that LHA was the one determined to break the lease, giving CCF a free pass out of their lease AND out of town with the hospital's belongings.

[Stan Austin]

Mark Kindt has presented a good summary of the current predicament and perverse view of private enterprise and market economics demonstrated by this administration.
Why on earth would any public subsidy be needed for redevelopment of the Lakewood Hospital site be needed?
To offer a comparison look at the Target/Giant project on W.117. There, the developer-sensing a profit- lined up tenants, outlined the land required, identified the property owners, and with private financing offered them a fair value to sell and assembled the plot.
If Lakewood is so economically attractive why the need for ANY public subsidy?

[Mark Kindt]

Somewhere in the media, the mayor or his development director made a statement to the effect that the selected developer for the former hospital site had sought less public support than the other developers who had submitted proposals.

If that is truly the case, then it seems clear that a mixed-use redevelopment of the former hospital site has no independent economic viability and, therefore, should be scraped.

The selected developer is in line for a taxpayer subsidy that I estimate ranges from a low of $12,000,000 to a high of $30,000,000.

This is on a redevelopment project with an estimated $90,000,000 cost.

The taxpayer subsidy has two components:

1. Real estate worth between $5,000,000 and $20,000,000 goes to the selected developer on a nominal basis (free or $1.00); and,

2. The City provides between $7,000,000 and $10,000,000 in site preparation value to the selected developer.

We do not yet know if there are other benefits to be awarded on the redevelopment project, such as tax abatement, tax deferrals, public financing assistance or loan guarantees.

[Mark Kindt]

In the post above, I described the range of the direct taxpayer subsidies to the selected developer for the redevelopment of the former hospital site as ranging between $12M to $30M.

The selected developer is also benefiting from indirect taxpayer subsidies related to the way in which the city administration choose to "free" the former hospital site for redevelopment.

1. The publicly-owned former hospital site was contractually "tainted" with covenants that prevented any future use for it at its best intended purpose, that is, as a hospital or clinical facility;

2. The city administration abandoned a continuing annual stream of valuable employee income tax revenues from the estimated 1,662 hospital employees; and,

3. The city administration abandoned a continuing annual stream of lease income from the operation of the hospital.