The Observation Deck

Well I found out last night that the underground river problem has been fixed...

Lakewood style.

The workers have been warned if they talk to anyone about the project they will be fired.

Lakewood style, intimidation, cover ups, lying who cares, it's just residents we are lying too.

WORST Administration ever.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Well I found out last night that the underground river problem has been fixed...

Lakewood style.

The workers have been warned if they talk to anyone about the project they will be fired.

Lakewood style, intimidation, cover ups, lying who cares, it's just residents we are lying too.

WORST Administration ever.


.

Well, I suppose it could be that there is no problem. But why would the people on the job site report that there is a problem?

If there is a problem it would be important to keep it a secret until after the election. If there is a problem who pays to fix it?
It would be nice if members of Council would demand some details regarding the true cost of this project and the true extent of the subsidies.

Bill Call wrote:Well, I suppose it could be that there is no problem. But why would the people on the job site report that there is a problem?

If there is a problem it would be important to keep it a secret until after the election. If there is a problem who pays to fix it?
It would be nice if members of Council would demand some details regarding the true cost of this project and the true extent of the subsidies.

Bill

The river is about to become the smallest problem on the site.

Can you say E P A?

Wait till you hear the next chapter...

You will forget about the river, just like the city did in their report.

.

At a recent meeting, and I can't remember if it was planning or Architectural Review - the city planing director clearly stated that they knew about the underground creek and that it was not a concern and that it would have no bearing on the ongoing demolition and build.

Richard Cole wrote:At a recent meeting, and I can't remember if it was planning or Architectural Review - the city planing director clearly stated that they knew about the underground creek and that it was not a concern and that it would have no bearing on the ongoing demolition and build.

Yes while the city now claims to know of the river, it was never mentioned in the 400 page site study for the developers. And as it was never mentioned the severity of the problem was not mentioned either,

Nothing wrong here, Richard, this has been the party line since the lying started.

Original break ground date was April 1. Old building stripped and down December January, Demolition February, site preparation March. Break ground April 1.

Now you can believe the city that has lied about every aspect of this nightmare, or the people that broke the truth, and worked to uncover the facts.

More to the point, it really will not matter, the die is cast, but I predict nothing built for at least a year, probably two.

My sources do not lie.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Richard Cole wrote:At a recent meeting, and I can't remember if it was planning or Architectural Review - the city planing director clearly stated that they knew about the underground creek and that it was not a concern and that it would have no bearing on the ongoing demolition and build.

More to the point, it really will not matter, the die is cast, but I predict nothing built for at least a year, probably two.

My sources do not lie.

.

Personally, I do not see any anchor tenants signing a lease and Carnegie will walk away, they have nothing to lose.

Richard Cole wrote:
Personally, I do not see any anchor tenants signing a lease and Carnegie will walk away, they have nothing to lose.

Outside of Three Arches, I know of no tenants signed.

Actually doing nothing nets them $5 million. That is how bad this deal was.

.

Funny stuff, last night I got a call from someone working on the job.

Me, "Hello?"

Them, "Jim it's ______________ what do you mean they fixed the river? They have not fixed anything."

Me, "No that is referring to leaking when they told you not to talk with me or anyone."

Them, "Oh, yeah the river is still a nightmare."

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Richard Cole wrote:
Personally, I do not see any anchor tenants signing a lease and Carnegie will walk away, they have nothing to lose.

Outside of Three Arches, I know of no tenants signed.

Actually doing nothing nets them $5 million. That is how bad this deal was.

.

I was told that the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce is coming under pressure to sell their building and commit to moving into One Lakewood.

The Mayor and his pals were in such a hurry to close the Hospital and give away it's assets they never had time to consider what would come after.

Our next Mayor us going to inherit a real mess.

Bill Call wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Richard Cole wrote:
Personally, I do not see any anchor tenants signing a lease and Carnegie will walk away, they have nothing to lose.

Outside of Three Arches, I know of no tenants signed.

Actually doing nothing nets them $5 million. That is how bad this deal was.

.

I was told that the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce is coming under pressure to sell their building and commit to moving into One Lakewood.

The Mayor and his pals were in such a hurry to close the Hospital and give away it's assets they never had time to consider what would come after.

Our next Mayor us going to inherit a real mess.

Well they’ve got to make it look like they have tenants. So far, they’ve got 3 Arches and it looks to be about it. Force the Chamber there and they’re up to 2 whole tenants!

I’m still waiting for those “National companies” the mayor kept saying were interested in locating here.

Bridget Conant wrote:Well they’ve got to make it look like they have tenants. So far, they’ve got 3 Arches and it looks to be about it. Force the Chamber there and they’re up to 2 whole tenants!

I’m still waiting for those “National companies” the mayor kept saying were interested in locating here.

Well they could underwrite LakewoodAlive's offices.

That would give them 3.

ohhh and an ice cream place, dry cleaner, and coffee shop.

Lakewood's newest multi-use strip mall.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bridget Conant wrote:Well they’ve got to make it look like they have tenants. So far, they’ve got 3 Arches and it looks to be about it. Force the Chamber there and they’re up to 2 whole tenants!

I’m still waiting for those “National companies” the mayor kept saying were interested in locating here.

Well they could underwrite LakewoodAlive's offices. That would give them 3.
ohhh and an ice cream place, dry cleaner, and coffee shop. Lakewood's newest multi-use strip mall.

Three Arches can sit in a g-d double wide... on Berea Road.

I'm not sure what y'all are describing, an artesian well, a creek that been diverted into the storm system/outfall, a perched water table or an underground river that surfaces? All are natural and I do know that the EPA would be interested on what the developer is planing to do with a natural water source as well as the state's ODNR.

I knew a developer that tried to cap an artisan well and fill in the small pond but since it was established wetland he was not allowed to cap it and had to plan around it.

I suggest you contact both agencies and file a complaint and let them get involved. Not even the monarch of Lakewood and his council of serfs will have be able to influence their investigation and decision.

Richard Baker wrote:I suggest you contact both agencies and file a complaint and let them get involved. Not even the monarch of Lakewood and his council of serfs will have be able to influence their investigation and decision.

Not sure the other stuff applies.

The current talk is pylons. Of course this could cause issues downstream on Belle, Clarence, Lake, and Parkside, which is where the river flows.

.

Not sure the other stuff applies.

The current talk is pylons. Of course this could cause issues downstream on Belle, Clarence, Lake, and Parkside, which is where the river flows.

.[/quote]

I would imagine that the two agencies would know if the "river" falls into their jurisdiction since the developer is disturbing a natural aquifer/river. When the original site was developed, they didn't have these agencies. If you do nothing, then you don't have a complaint.