The Observation Deck

Yesterday the 8th District Court of Appeals reaffirmed that it was unwilling to hear the case brought by 5 Lakewood residents against CCF in what was described as a breach of contract in maintaining and running a functional hospital in Lakewood according to their lease. This also removes the Temporary Restraining Order to maintain all assets in the lawsuit until the case is decided. This clears the way for the tearing down of Lakewood Hospital and the building of "One Lakewood Place" which in best case scenario will fall nearly $2 million a year short of the tax revenue Lakewood Hospital made when the Mayor decided to cut short the contract early. "One Lakewood Place" is rumored to be the home for a cafe, an ice cream store a dry cleaner, and "Three Arches Foundation.”

It could still go to the Ohio State Supreme Court, and those involved are looking at those options, but would not comment anymore than that.

.

Could any of the lawyers in the community explain this line from Section IX ("Conclusion")?

"a series of events culminating in the majority of the Defendants’ residents voting in favor of closing Lakewood Hospital."

In particular I'm puzzled by the phrase "a majority of the Defendants' residents."

If "Defendants" refers to "City of Lakewood," the most recent census estimate of Lakewood residents is 50,279. The last official census count, from 2010, was 52,131.

Even if we round down, I can't see any way to define "a majority of Lakewood residents" as fewer than 25,001.

I cannot identify anything close to 25,000 votes for… actually, anyone or anything whatsoever, in recent Lakewood election history. (The grand total of all ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election wasn't much more than 26,000.) Certainly none of the myriad measures which have been disingenuously claimed, after the fact, as "in favor of closing Lakewood Hospital" received 25,000 votes.

So, what's going on here? Is there some tortured interpretation of language or custom by which "a majority of the Defendants' residents" is actually a much smaller figure than it appears?

If so please share it! No better way to start the week than learning new things.

Matt-- even a simple house painter like me can see the error here. Someone was trying to say a majority of those who turned out to vote which came out "a majority of residents. Go back to Law School 101 judges. Stan Austin

mjkuhns wrote:Could any of the lawyers in the community explain this line from Section IX ("Conclusion")?

"a series of events culminating in the majority of the Defendants’ residents voting in favor of closing Lakewood Hospital."

In particular I'm puzzled by the phrase "a majority of the Defendants' residents."

If "Defendants" refers to "City of Lakewood," the most recent census estimate of Lakewood residents is 50,279. The last official census count, from 2010, was 52,131.

Even if we round down, I can't see any way to define "a majority of Lakewood residents" as fewer than 25,001.

I cannot identify anything close to 25,000 votes for… actually, anyone or anything whatsoever, in recent Lakewood election history. (The grand total of all ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election wasn't much more than 26,000.) Certainly none of the myriad measures which have been disingenuously claimed, after the fact, as "in favor of closing Lakewood Hospital" received 25,000 votes.

So, what's going on here? Is there some tortured interpretation of language or custom by which "a majority of the Defendants' residents" is actually a much smaller figure than it appears?

If so please share it! No better way to start the week than learning new things.

As I saw what I thought might be a family of refugees from Burma walking their children to school this morning, I wondered as to how many Lakewood residents are not eligible to vote due to age or lack of US citizenship. Even if every eligible Lakewood resident registered and voted, we would get to "a majority of Lakewood residents"? By using that language, the court actually pointed to the probability that those hurt most by that narrow vote, a refugee population that found Lakewood a desirable new home due to the ability to walk to grocery stores, schools, doctors, and a hospital, probably weren't able to participate in the election at all.

Kate McCarthy wrote:

mjkuhns wrote:Could any of the lawyers in the community explain this line from Section IX ("Conclusion")?

"a series of events culminating in the majority of the Defendants’ residents voting in favor of closing Lakewood Hospital."

In particular I'm puzzled by the phrase "a majority of the Defendants' residents."

If "Defendants" refers to "City of Lakewood," the most recent census estimate of Lakewood residents is 50,279. The last official census count, from 2010, was 52,131.

Even if we round down, I can't see any way to define "a majority of Lakewood residents" as fewer than 25,001.

I cannot identify anything close to 25,000 votes for… actually, anyone or anything whatsoever, in recent Lakewood election history. (The grand total of all ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election wasn't much more than 26,000.) Certainly none of the myriad measures which have been disingenuously claimed, after the fact, as "in favor of closing Lakewood Hospital" received 25,000 votes.

So, what's going on here? Is there some tortured interpretation of language or custom by which "a majority of the Defendants' residents" is actually a much smaller figure than it appears?

If so please share it! No better way to start the week than learning new things.

As I saw what I thought might be a family of refugees from Burma walking their children to school this morning, I wondered as to how many Lakewood residents are not eligible to vote due to age or lack of US citizenship. Even if every eligible Lakewood resident registered and voted, we would get to "a majority of Lakewood residents"? By using that language, the court actually pointed to the probability that those hurt most by that narrow vote, a refugee population that found Lakewood a desirable new home due to the ability to walk to grocery stores, schools, doctors, and a hospital, probably weren't able to participate in the election at all.

Kate

This case and your points are interesting, BUT...

1) Under appeal a case cannot insert new information. Such as the hundreds of pages from the Essi Lawsuit, that is still going on as City Hall fights to release the documents, with one reason being it would hurt their case against the residents.

2) Had residents been told the truth, or more to the point did not have the machine of misinformation being generated at nearly every level by City Hall, and Ed FitzGerlad's one off propaganda news paper that was nearly all BS. What alone the fact that Ed FitzGerald is benefiting from the sale, and vacating property.

3) Had some of the residents taken the time to read any of the documents, Brian Essi was able to get out of City Hall after years of trying. As Mark Kindt goes through the documents he is finding irregularity, after irregularity, lie after lie, cover up after cover up. Had they looked at just one document they could have seen that the truth never had a chance.

4) That the very basic simple lies told by City Hall from Day One, "The hospital is not closing." "That there will be $120 million in development," and "Lakewood Hospital was losing money." Were outright lies. One of the biggest lies still out there, "The Clinic pulled out and screwed us." The fact is that Mayor Summers after years of weakening the agreement with CCF had ask the Clinic to leave Lakewood Hospital in an RFP. These facts alone are still being repeated
underlining just how effective the Mayor's misinformation campaign was.

5) Those fighting to save Lakewood largest assets and largest employer were painted as crazy nut jobs, instead of the good residents they were. That theose merely asking legitimate questions were painted as mean spirited and angry, when all they were doing is asking simple question that City Hall dare not answer or they would be found out to be liars, and scoundrels.

6) That ignorant sycophants that all had something to gain were helping to spread lies and misinformation because of personal gains when it was over. Some so small it blows my mind how little people will sell out for.

As much as more voters, just a hundred or so could have helped. So could have the truth being more widely spread.

.

Anyone asserting that Lakewood's dissolution of the city hospital has truly been approved by voters, should show us the candidates who have campaigned on their support for said dissolution.

Because this is a very simple test to pass. If "decision xyz" has really been tested before actual voters, in real world conditions, and voters expressed genuine support for xyz even one time, that would make it as close to a sure thing as exists in politics. If that's the case, people seeking support from voters would have every reason to tell voters about their own support for xyz.

So let's see examples from a campaign for office. A postcard. An ad. A web site.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the most useful approach to evaluating claims about voter mandates. They certainly can be evaluated in much greater complexity, but why not answer the simplest question first.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:"The Clinic pulled out and screwed us." The fact is that Mayor Summers after years of weakening the agreement with CCF had ask the Clinic to leave Lakewood Hospital in an RFP. These facts alone are still being repeated
underlining just how effective the Mayor's misinformation campaign was.

When I applied for a position on the Lakewood Hospital Board I told the interview committee that I thought the Cleveland Clinic intended to starve Lakewood Hospital, take the Hospitals business and assets and leave behind an empty and bankrupt institution. I said my goal as a Board member would be to stop it from happening. At the time someone mentioned that the Mayor thought my analysis was correct.

As I recall there was some mention of keeping the business of the Board confidential. I think I said something along the lines that NOTHING the Lakewood Hospital Board did should be kept from the people of Lakewood.

The Mayor could have choses to make the Clinic live up to its obligations under lease. If the Clinic refused to honor the lease the Mayor had could have initiated a lawsuit to protect the Hospital and its assets. The Mayor could also have sought other partners and used the assets of the Hospital and the LHF to create a modern facility offering a full range of services. He could have protected 1,500 jobs, protected a community asset, preserved quality health care in Lakewood, preserved a $2 million income stream and more.

Instead, Mayor Summers chose transfer the Hospital's assets to the Cleveland Clinic and 2 private foundations in exchange for a small medical office building and a small condominium project.

The most serious crime committed by the Mayor and his pals was lack of imagination.

Imagine:

A new 125 room bed tower and a real family health center and a real emergency room

Imagine:

If the City bought the bankrupts Lakewood Center building and replaced it with a college campus dedicated training health care professionals

with room for apartments or condos and more.

Instead:

The Mayors pals and the Cleveland Clinic use Foundation dollars as their very own slush fund, the City loses millions in assets and revenue and more.

Bill Call wrote:The Mayor could have chosen to make the Clinic live up to its obligations under lease. If the Clinic refused to honor the lease the Mayor had could have initiated a lawsuit to protect the Hospital and its assets. The Mayor could also have sought other partners and used the assets of the Hospital and the LHF to create a modern facility offering a full range of services. He could have protected 1,500 jobs, protected a community asset, preserved quality health care in Lakewood, preserved a $2 million income stream and more. Instead, Mayor Summers chose transfer the Hospital's assets to the Cleveland Clinic and 2 private foundations in exchange for a small medical office building and a small condominium project.

After the deal was done, didn't Summers approach Avon about sharing the tax revenue - and get laughed out of the room?

Bill Call wrote:The most serious crime committed by the Mayor and his pals was lack of imagination.

You sure about that?

cmager wrote:

Bill Call wrote:The most serious crime committed by the Mayor and his pals was lack of imagination.

You sure about that?

No.

I think it was Mark Kindt who wrote that the Ohio Attorney General just isn't interested in investigating the deal. Without an honest investigation we will never know the truth. Members of Council could ask the Attorney General for a review of the deal but no one on Council wants to rock the boat.