Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

Moderators: Jim DeVito, Dan Alaimo

Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Wed May 02, 2018 10:05 am

Reason No. 5. The proposed redevelopment project will not fully replace public revenues that were lost by the decision to close the hospital.

This can now be fully demonstrated with the City's own financial data:
Comparison of Actual and Projected Revenues at Hospital Site.jpg
Comparison of Actual and Projected Revenues at Hospital Site.jpg (130.31 KiB) Viewed 4234 times
Attachments
City Revenues from of the Hospital Transition as of April 16, 2018.pdf
(68.66 KiB) Downloaded 163 times


User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Thu May 03, 2018 11:17 am

Mark Kindt wrote:Reason No. 5. The proposed redevelopment project will not fully replace public revenues that were lost by the decision to close the hospital.

This can now be fully demonstrated with the City's own financial data:
Comparison of Actual and Projected Revenues at Hospital Site.jpg



Mark

Thanks for your tireless efforts to point out the error of their thoughts, and the lies they tell.

I remember sitting with you, and hospital professionals, and accountants looking at the deal on day one. You were is disbelief, but willing to give the benefit of the doubt until you heard more. We crunched the numbers and they never added up. We found out the $120 million was a lie to get votes, and close a hospital that was not closing until they started this debacle.

Way back then, we thought the city would be best served financially keeping the hospital open. But if it closed, it would be better to do nothing. That would have netted the City over $100 million. But the City pushed ahead and at every turn lost the City and the residents more money and more land. Even now, walking away would net us more in a simple bank account than doing this terrible deal with Carnegie.

A simple bank account nets us $450,000 a year in interest. AND we still have all of the property to sell or develop, or wait for a better deal. If we sell the land at current value, something the city has never gotten assessed. It would push the City way past $615,000 a year.

This is the worst thought out deal since their last nightmare bad deal the West End debacle.

Looking at it with professionals they cannot believe just how bad, and how "foolish" the deal makers are in this.

At every inch of the way, The Mayor, those that do benefit, and their sycophants scream. "We have to do this or the city loses out." At every step they have been proven wrong.

This is just one of many reasons why City Hall refuses to release ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS.

.


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Dan Alaimo
Posts: 2137
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:49 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Dan Alaimo » Wed May 09, 2018 4:49 am

I know there are a few of us here who know more than a bit about retail, and the idea of adding more of it to Lakewood makes no sense whatsoever. There is one type of store that would be attractive to a retailer in that space and welcomed by residents, and that is a modern supermarket. These days, they are trending smaller in size, are even on multiple levels with parking at the bottom, and cater to the needs of a working class neighborhood like Lakewood - prepared foods, meal kits, a sit down cafe, bicycle racks, etc. They are also used as a base to fulfill online orders whether by delivery or pickup at store. This location in the heart of a dense residential area makes all the sense in the world for that type of store. Both the Heinen's store in Rocky River and the Giant Eagle on Bunts are long past their prime and now need to compete with Amazon-owned Whole Foods. Or maybe a new player can be lured into the area - I can only dream about a Wegmans.

And to repeat a previous suggestion, we really need a significant sized employer at that location that is not just retail.


“Never let a good crisis go to waste." - Winston Churchill (Quote later appropriated by Rahm Emanuel)
Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Wed May 09, 2018 9:06 am

Dan Alaimo wrote:I know there are a few of us here who know more than a bit about retail, and the idea of adding more of it to Lakewood makes no sense whatsoever. There is one type of store that would be attractive to a retailer in that space and welcomed by residents, and that is a modern supermarket. These days, they are trending smaller in size, are even on multiple levels with parking at the bottom, and cater to the needs of a working class neighborhood like Lakewood - prepared foods, meal kits, a sit down cafe, bicycle racks, etc. They are also used as a base to fulfill online orders whether by delivery or pickup at store. This location in the heart of a dense residential area makes all the sense in the world for that type of store. Both the Heinen's store in Rocky River and the Giant Eagle on Bunts are long past their prime and now need to compete with Amazon-owned Whole Foods. Or maybe a new player can be lured into the area - I can only dream about a Wegmans.

And to repeat a previous suggestion, we really need a significant sized employer at that location that is not just retail.


As we look at the planning for One Lakewood Place, particularly the 4ward Planning market study, you will see that your intelligent and thoughtful ideas are outside the scope of the thought process at City Hall.

However, I have heard on a rumored-basis that the Three Arches Foundation is (with the bitterest of ironies) planning to locate to new offices at One Lakewood Place.

So, how does that work?

Hospital foundation whose sole purpose is to support the hospital leads the effort to liquidate, close, and demolish said hospital and then moves into the redevelopment in the demolished hospital site (!)

This is one rumor that I hope is false.


pj bennett
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby pj bennett » Wed May 09, 2018 11:20 am

Dan Alaimo wrote:

I know there are a few of us here who know more than a bit about retail, and the idea of adding more of it to Lakewood makes no sense whatsoever. There is one type of store that would be attractive to a retailer in that space and welcomed by residents, and that is a modern supermarket. These days, they are trending smaller in size, are even on multiple levels with parking at the bottom, and cater to the needs of a working class neighborhood like Lakewood - prepared foods, meal kits, a sit down cafe, bicycle racks, etc. They are also used as a base to fulfill online orders whether by delivery or pickup at store. This location in the heart of a dense residential area makes all the sense in the world for that type of store. Both the Heinen's store in Rocky River and the Giant Eagle on Bunts are long past their prime and now need to compete with Amazon-owned Whole Foods. Or maybe a new player can be lured into the area - I can only dream about a Wegmans.

And to repeat a previous suggestion, we really need a significant sized employer at that location that is not just retail.


In response to Meghan George's question concerning the focus of Carnegie's development, George Papandreas replied, that office tenants are the focus. He said that retail will follow the needs of the office tenants.
That was his reply.
One short sentence.
(Seemed a bit vague to me.)


Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Thu May 10, 2018 11:34 am

Why We Need Municipal Reform In Lakewood

In a nutshell, the city council vote on May 7th exemplifies exactly why our city needs municipal reform:

The 5 members of city council that voted in favor of the ordinance (Anderson, Bullock, Litten, O'Leary, O'Malley) all voted despite the existence of a temporary restraining order ("TRO") from the appellate court protecting the status of the Lakewood Hospital building and site.

While the TRO did not prohibit them from voting, incredibly enough, not one of them had the sense to give deference to a court-order that directly protected the assets that they were voting upon.

The consequence of this lack of deference to this court order is to establish a set of facts that will support the continuance of the TRO and the issuance of a preliminary injunction by that court against the city.

Once again, we have council-members (Bullock, Litten) with obvious conflicts-of-interest; both were Lakewood Hospital Association trustees and the ordinance involves the continued implementation of the Master Agreement with the Lakewood Hospital Association.

Once again, we see lawyers for the city filing an affidavit with the appellate court that makes material financial misrepresentations about revenues.

There was an obvious goal to this illusory legislative "emergency" -- to rush the building to demolition to impede the meritorious case of the local taxpayers now on appeal.


Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Thu May 10, 2018 12:53 pm

Do Conflicts-of-Interest Related To Non-profits Matter?

Of course, they do.

You be the judge:

https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-he ... sdemeanors

Why would anyone take the risk Lakewood?
Last edited by Mark Kindt on Thu May 10, 2018 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Stan Austin
Contributor
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Stan Austin » Thu May 10, 2018 1:12 pm

Mr. Kindt--- While much of the focus has been on public officials potential legal jeopardy in these transactions, is there and equal risk that the private entities on the other side of these "deals" that they should be weighing?


Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Thu May 10, 2018 2:06 pm

I am limiting my discussion for the most part to where I have actually reviewed public documents or court documents that have a bearing on the performance of our local public officials.


Stan Austin
Contributor
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Stan Austin » Thu May 10, 2018 2:15 pm

So, -- the potential chumps are on their own. If I were a developer I'd want a legally responsible bargainer on the other side of the table.


Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Fri May 11, 2018 9:12 am

Mark Kindt wrote:Why We Need Municipal Reform In Lakewood

In a nutshell, the city council vote on May 7th exemplifies exactly why our city needs municipal reform:

The 5 members of city council that voted in favor of the ordinance (Anderson, Bullock, Litten, O'Leary, O'Malley) all voted despite the existence of a temporary restraining order ("TRO") from the appellate court protecting the status of the Lakewood Hospital building and site.

While the TRO did not prohibit them from voting, incredibly enough, not one of them had the sense to give deference to a court-order that directly protected the assets that they were voting upon.

The consequence of this lack of deference to this court order is to establish a set of facts that will support the continuance of the TRO and the issuance of a preliminary injunction by that court against the city.

Once again, we have council-members (Bullock, Litten) with obvious conflicts-of-interest; both were Lakewood Hospital Association trustees and the ordinance involves the continued implementation of the Master Agreement with the Lakewood Hospital Association.

Once again, we see lawyers for the city filing an affidavit with the appellate court that makes material financial misrepresentations about revenues.

There was an obvious goal to this illusory legislative "emergency" -- to rush the building to demolition to impede the meritorious case of the local taxpayers now on appeal.


In light of the ruling yesterday by the Ohio Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, it is now clear that these council-members could have given deference to that Court's temporary restraining order by postponing the vote on their "emergency" ordinance to the next council meeting or a future date.

Clearly, that ruling also recognized that there was merit in the taxpayers' case.

However, in determining the issue of "mootness", the Court did not address conflict-of-interest issues that were present during the December 2015 vote and the vote this week. Nor did the Court explore the issue of the Lakewood Hospital Association (who had sitting trustees on city council) expending tens of thousands of dollars to achieve its own liquidation and closure during the Issue 64 campaign.

I will have more comments later.


Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:01 am

Distinguished Lakewood Resident and Former President of City Council Edward Graham Speaks Wisdom and Truth:

Graham Forum Article Observer_Vol_14_Issue_13.jpg
Graham Forum Article Observer_Vol_14_Issue_13.jpg (577.6 KiB) Viewed 3528 times


Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:33 pm

To reach the $5,000,000 value discussed in the Forum article above, we should also remember that the city administration treated the hospital building at a $0 value. Only the lot was appraised, not the building.

So the actual value of the "give-away" of these public assets is probably even larger than what Mr. Graham describes.

Additionally, in May, the majority of city council voted in favor of negotiating a term-sheet with the developer that reserved the city's right to provide additional incentives for the project.

How much more do the citizens of Lakewood have to pump into the black hole that used to be an invaluable and profitable community hospital?

There is not one suburban community in Northeast Ohio that is following the example of our misguided city administration.

Each of the following cities are welcoming new hospitals, not demolishing them: Avon, Beachwood, Cleveland Heights, Parma.

Other Ohio cities have been fighting to save their local hospitals.

It is inconceivable to me that our city council (particularly the 2015/2016 council) could rubber-stamp this and then function as "cheerleaders" for it, when they had the opportunity and the duty to investigate on their own why the Metro Health System proposal to re-position and to operate Lakewood Hospital was quietly strangled in its cradle. Remember this was a proposed investment of $100,000,000 over 10 years by Metro to operate Lakewood Hospital as a going-concern, not decant and demolish it like the Clinic's plan.

To date, to my knowledge, not one elected local municipal official has had either the moral fortitude or courage of conviction to seek an outside investigation of a city government process that appears to be riddled with conflicts-of-interests, involved the misuse of City-owned computers, and the intentional harassment of citizens (as documented by its own internal records).

In fact, some of the public documents evidencing these points are posted here on The Observation Deck.


Mark Kindt
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:06 am

Re: Questioning The Redevelopment of the Former Hospital Site

Postby Mark Kindt » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:40 am

Mark Kindt wrote:
How much more do the citizens of Lakewood have to pump into the black hole that used to be an invaluable and profitable community hospital?



The simple answer is a lot:

1. The value of one empty hospital building shortly to be demolished ($10,000,000 to $20,000,000);

2. The estimated $7,000,000 value of building demolition, site remediation, and site preparation to benefit the selected developer;

3. The estimated $5,200,000 value of the former hospital real estate being donated to the selected developer;

4. The estimated $1,518,281 in annual net lost revenue (see chart at top of page) (difference between hospital revenues to the city and development-related revenues to the city);

5. The unknown estimated value of future incentives provided by the City of Lakewood to occupants of One Lakewood Place;

6. The unknown estimated value of increased public safety costs associated with changes to the City's emergency preparedness infrastructure;

Future tax revenues from One Lakewood Place can never compensate the City of Lakewood for this scale of public subsidization.

There is no investment here. It is a dead loss under any scenario. Only with the most delusional kinds of "creative" accounting can you achieve a net positive revenue position for the City.

In fact, it seems highly likely that the only way that the City of Lakewood will be able to sustain this public subsidization will be though an increase in taxation.

I am happy to look at other numbers, but they must be grounded in actual public documents, not hyperbole.



Return to “Lakewood General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 25 guests