Someone on Cranley's social media team just learned how to use Boomerang!

 

Freaking awkward.

Mayor’s office mistakenly declares “Tre Day” in honor of Cincinnati cop killer

 

Mayor John Cranley is apologizing to police leaders after his office mistakenly named a day for the man who killed Cincinnati police officer Sonny Kim.

 

A staffer on Thursday approved a proclamation declaring June 1 as “Tre Day”  in honor of Trepierre Hummons. [...]

 

Hummons killed a veteran Cincinnati Police Officer Sonny Kim on June 19, 2015.

Mayor’s office mistakenly declares “Tre Day” in honor of Cincinnati cop killer

 

Mayor John Cranley is apologizing to police leaders after his office mistakenly named a day for the man who killed Cincinnati police officer Sonny Kim.

 

A staffer on Thursday approved a proclamation declaring June 1 as “Tre Day”  in honor of Trepierre Hummons. [...]

 

Hummons killed a veteran Cincinnati Police Officer Sonny Kim on June 19, 2015.

 

If Cranley's  opponents are less than scrupulous and want to win at all costs, they can now destroy his career with "TreDay" commercials, Willie Horton style. 

Cranley, Simpson trade barbs after mayor announces water plants will become solar powered

 

Mayor John Cranley and Councilwoman Yvette Simpson criticized each other’s record on environmental issues after the mayor announced that Greater Cincinnati WaterWorks will be powered by solar panels within five years.

 

Details on his plan are expected to come later this summer, but Cranley said the decision eventually will allow the city to forgo $7 million it spends on electricity from Duke Energy, which comes from greenhouse gas-emitting, coal-fired power plants.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/06/30/cranley-simpson-trade-barbs-after-mayor-announces.html

Cranley campaign gets new manager, ramps up staff for November

 

Mayor John Cranley has switched campaign managers in his bid to get re-elected in November while ramping up his efforts to make one-on-one contact with voters.

 

The mayor’s new campaign manager, Chandra Yungbluth, has extensive field organizing experience. The Cranley campaign's lack of a ground game to accompany its extensive television advertising is one perceived reason the mayor came in second in the May primary behind Councilwoman Yvette Simpson.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/07/07/cranley-campaign-gets-new-manager-ramps-up-staff.html

Cranley to Simpson: 'Let's have an honest debate'

 

"Ms. Simpson’s approach to politics is cynical and better suited for Washington than Cincinnati."  :roll:

^So says the veteran of two unsuccessful congressional races. 

OMG, project much Cranley?

Cranley blasts council members as Children’s Hospital expansion vote delayed again

 

Mayor John Cranley lambasted Cincinnati City Council members Wednesday after three members did not show up for a vote on a major expansion of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Avondale, but one hit back, saying the mayor impugned their motives without evidence.

 

Council members Yvette Simpson, Wendell Young and Charlie Winburn were absent for the vote on Wednesday. Simpson has been dealing with a family emergency, Young’s office told council in an email that he is out of town, and Winburn said he had a scheduled doctor’s appointment.

 

Winburn wasn't having Cranley's BS:

 

“The mayor is so unkind, and, if I remember, he’s the guy who wanted to be a priest,” Winburn added, referring to Cranley’s degree from Harvard Divinity School. “He’s so insensitive to people’s personal lives. It belittles the office of the mayor. It’s questioning people’s motives, and he doesn’t want people to question his motives. I’m sorry that he wants to be mayor so bad that he’s willing to hurt three of his innocent colleagues.”

 

Winburn offered to show Cranley his medical records if the mayor agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement.

 

“I’ll pray for him,” Winburn said. “He must be having a bad day. I’ll still love John Cranley at the end of the day.”

 

It should also be noted that Council Candidate Seth Maney blasted the absent council members as well.

Courier, Chamber sponsoring mayoral debate

 

The Business Courier and the Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber of Commerce are sponsoring a debate between the two mayoral candidates – Mayor John Cranley and Councilwoman Yvette Simpson – on Sept. 12.

 

The debate will be held 11:30 a.m. at the Anderson Pavilion, 8 E. Mehring Way. It will focus on issues important to area businesses.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/08/21/courier-chamber-sponsoring-mayoral-debate.html

Cranley, Simpson spar over Children's Hospital in first mayoral debate

 

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley and Councilwoman Yvette Simpson, the two contenders for the 2017 mayor's race, met for their first debate on Tuesday, one dominated by one topic.

 

The debate, sponsored by the Business Courier and the Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber of Commerce, is the first of about a dozen debates. The focus was Cincinnati's business community, but Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center was the third figure on stage.

 

In an Aug. 7 Cincinnati City Council Neighborhoods Committee meeting, Simpson and Councilman Wendell Young advanced an amendment asking Children's to contribute 5 percent of the project's cost – about $14 million – for housing development and neighborhood improvement in Avondale. Children's had already committed about $11 million for that purpose.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/09/12/cranley-simpson-spar-over-childrens-hospital-in.html

Did anyone attend or watch the debate?  I've heard from a single source that Simpson did okay, but that she turned away from the mic too often while talking, thus what she said was frequently inaudible.  Plus, she kept looking at her notes.  On the other hand Cranley was forceful and well-spoken.

 

 

Expect Cincinnati mayoral candidates to pounce on weaknesses

 

If it wasn’t already clear, the initial debates between incumbent John Cranley and Councilwoman Yvette Simpson crystalized the messages the two Democrats are going to try to drive home to voters as their race enters its final seven weeks.

 

In Tuesday’s Business Courier/Cincinnati USA Chamber debate, the key moment came when the candidates were given the chance to question each other. Their questions pointed to what this race is about: Not huge differences on major city issues (although there certainly are some), but temperament, personalities and how they lead.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/09/15/commentary-expect-cincinnati-mayoral-candidates-to.html

Cranley, Simpson tout housing, Metro plans in latest mayoral debate

 

Mayor John Cranley said Friday he plans to unveil a plan to increase affordable housing in Cincinnati soon, while Councilwoman Yvette Simpson touted her own proposal that was made during this past spring’s City Council budget debate.

 

Cranley and Simpson debated for the second time in four days, discussing human services issues before the Human Services Chamber of Commerce of Hamilton County at the Cincinnati/Hamilton County Community Action Agency in Bond Hill.

 

Cranley’s plan apparently involves expanding VTICA, the program that is helping fund the Cincinnati Bell Connector streetcar’s operations. VTICA stands for voluntary tax incentive contribution agreements, which the city strikes with developers.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/09/15/cranley-simpson-tout-housing-metro-plans-in-latest.html

Candidates debate who would better preserve Cincinnati’s historic buildings

 

 

Councilwoman Yvette Simpson tried to put Mayor John Cranley on defense Tuesday when it comes to his administration’s historic preservation record, accusing the mayor of focusing on saving the city’s grand old buildings only when his friends are involved.

 

Cranley’s administration also came under fire for appointments to the Historic Conservation Board, which vets projects in historic districts.

 

Cranley defended his record, noting the widespread usage of historic tax credits by developers to save buildings and create jobs in downtown and Over-the-Rhine. While the credits are awarded by the state and federal governments, city support via local landmark designation or other means can be key to getting them, he added. In a questionnaire, Cranley also noted that he wrote the legislation that created tax-increment financing districts in downtown and Over-the-Rhine, which had provided key aid in preserving buildings in both.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/09/20/candidates-debate-who-would-better-preserve.html

Cranley's record on historic preservation is pretty clear.

 

When his friend wants to preserve an historic building, Cranley is pro-preservation. While I support the King Records project, it's suspicious that Cranley is such a strong supporter of that project, even trying to fund it using money from the parks levy.

 

But when his neighbor wanted to demolish the historic building that he owns downtown, Cranley suddenly took a laissez-faire "let the market decide" which buildings are worth preserving attitude.

 

Cranley trying to take credit for the revitalization of OTR based on the fact that he supported TIF districts and "helped" get state historic preservation dollars? Now that's rich.

With Yvette I will feel comfortable with our future in terms of preservation and transportation. With Cranley I get scared. I literally get anxiety that more historic attributes of our city will be foolishly allowed to disappear rather than turned to affordable housing, and we will never even hear the light of day about a street car extension to Up-Town. I honestly pray with all my might that Yvette wins this election. Our city is becoming something now, but under her leadership we can truly capitalize on our success.

I listened to Cunningham at lunch today for the first time in months.  The vintage Mallory-era smear machine is back in full effect.  Cranley gets a free pass -- he can do no wrong.  But Simpson is "Nancy Pelosi". 

 

They used to put down Mallory like he was a little child.  When Cranley got in, you kept hearing the phrase "the adults are back at city hall".  They're doing the same with Simpson -- she's a small confused child supported by a bunch of people who want something for nothing.  Meanwhile, Cranley gives his wealthy donors multi-million parking garages for nothing. 

In WLW Land, real grownups manipulate and trick people -- whereas only little kids want to help others.

In WLW Land, real grownups manipulate and trick people -- whereas only little kids want to help others.

 

And nobody can figure out that Cunningham doesn't actually believe what he says.  He and his wife were BOTH labor attorneys back in the 70s.  He just does whatever pays.  He saw Jerry Springer make all that cash with his trash talk show so he started his own trash talk show. 

^Cunningham is more of a right leaning libertarian in real life. He tows the party line on his show but he has definitely evolved from his labor attorney days.

During tonight's televised debate on WKRC, the topic of the Impaction Ordinance came up again. It is shocking to me how few people today know about the ordinance that was passed in 2001 and pushed by John Cranley. Here's a short Enquirer article from 2001 about it, but here's the important excerpt:

 

The plan — emphasized in one of Mr. Cranley's campaign ads — would prohibit new low-income housing projects in the city's poorest neighborhoods while supporting them outside the city.

 

So while Cranley in 2017 is saying "we need more affordable housing in Over-the-Rhine" and attending the groundbreaking for new subsidized apartments, that's a complete 180 from the position he held as a council member. Back then, he was trying to prevent new affordable housing and social services from being added in OTR and wanted to distribute them throughout the city.

Hey look its the Cincinnati streetcar, er Yarra Tram made in Melbourne:

 

 

During tonight's televised debate on WKRC, the topic of the Impaction Ordinance came up again. It is shocking to me how few people today know about the ordinance that was passed in 2001 and pushed by John Cranley. Here's a short Enquirer article from 2001 about it, but here's the important excerpt:

 

The plan emphasized in one of Mr. Cranley's campaign ads would prohibit new low-income housing projects in the city's poorest neighborhoods while supporting them outside the city.

 

So while Cranley in 2017 is saying "we need more affordable housing in Over-the-Rhine" and attending the groundbreaking for new subsidized apartments, that's a complete 180 from the position he held as a council member. Back then, he was trying to prevent new affordable housing and social services from being added in OTR and wanted to distribute them throughout the city.

 

Now that is a bit disingenuous take on his record. In 2001 it was the right decision to move low income housing from OTR and distribute it throughout the city. You needed to remove the concentration of low income housing if you had any hope of gentrifying it. Now that OTR has what appears to have developed a critical mass, it is appropriate to bring low income options back to the neighborhood to help maintain its diversity. If Cranley did not push those actions in 2001, we may not have a viable neighborhood in OTR today.

I wonder if Cranley's fans on the West Side—many of whom hate the fact that much of the city's low income housing left OTR and moved to the West Side—realize that Cranley's impaction ordinance is what cause that to happen.

First televised mayoral debate a window into how Simpson, Cranley think

 

After nearly 13 months of campaigning, with one more to go, the race for Cincinnati mayor seems more and more like a World War I battle. Both sides are slogging in the trenches, deploying the same tactics over and over again with no clear winner in sight.

 

Viewers of Monday’s choppy mayoral debate (the first to be televised, on WKRC-TV), saw Mayor John Cranley hammer away at what he believes is Councilwoman Yvette Simpson’s Achilles heel: her stance on the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center expansion. Cranley brought the issue up at least three times, unprompted.

 

Simpson wanted the hospital to contribute at least $14 million to housing development and other neighborhood efforts in Avondale before approving a sale of city right-of-way, zoning changes and a revised plan for Children’s. Avondale Community Council leaders stridently opposed the project because it would demolish 16 existing homes and felt the design cut off the neighborhood from the institution.

 

“This is the defining issue of this race,” Cranley said. “Will we work with people who are great partners, one of the best hospitals in the world, to welcome new jobs into the city? Or will we try to pull the rug out from them at the last minute?”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/10/03/commentary-first-televised-mayoral-debate-a-window.html

I wonder if Cranley's fans on the West Sidemany of whom hate the fact that much of the city's low income housing left OTR and moved to the West Siderealize that Cranley's impaction ordinance is what cause that to happen.

 

You are correct, but in the long run, wasn't that the right decision for the city?

Simpson's horrendous Children's Hospital Medical Center misstep will cost her dearly in the election. Just what was she hoping to gain, other than a few more black votes? 

...in a city that's 44.8% black.

Simpson's horrendous Children's Hospital Medical Center misstep will cost her dearly in the election. Just what was she hoping to gain, other than a few more black votes? 

 

As I mentioned previously, Cranley started a whisper campaign several years ago that asserted that Simpson intended to fill Avondale with all of her white buddies.  That's why she had to take a stand on this issue -- because rubber stamping this garish plan would affirm Cranley's rumor.  It was a trap.

 

Also, Cranley has made it a point to make Simpson's single status and lack of kids "strange and weird and scary".  Since she doesn't have kids, she won't care about yours.  Case in point, trying to SHUT DOWN Children's Hospital.  Simpson is going to use city funds to manufacture a giant envelope, drop the hospital in it, lick it, and send it to a non-existent address so it gets lost in the mail AND YOUR KIDS DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE. 

...in a city that's 44.8% black.

 

Also the vote that's split on Cranley is black, Simpson needs to gain a few.  White Urbanists already know who they are voting for as do white Hyde Park types.

^For us non-Cincinnatians trying to follow along, the white Hyde Park types are for Cranley? I'm assuming the urbanists are Simpson and also assuming white West Side is for Cranley.

I think Simpson stepped in it too much with the Children's hospital thing and will hurt her in the long run.

Shouldn't forget white west side.

 

Cranley's biggest support areas are white west side neighborhoods, and wealthier areas on the East Side.  Yvette's core area is urbanists in the center of the city.  The black vote is up for grabs, as Mallory won with both the Black vote and the urbanist vote and that's what Yvette needs to win too (though their are fewer white west siders in the city and more urbanists in the core these days than in 2006).

I think Simpson stepped in it too much with the Children's hospital thing and will hurt her in the long run.

 

Hurt her with establishment types like yourself who normally wouldn't have voted for her anyways ;).  As someone who formerly lived in Corryville and witnessed all the neighborhood destruction in the area, I was cheering her on.  I'm sure other people felt the same way, particularly those who LIVE in those parts of town.

I'll add myself to the list of people who previously supported her yet am going to have a real hard time doing so this November.

I'll add myself to the list of people who previously supported her yet am going to have a real hard time doing so this November.

 

And what did Cranley do that was actually worthwhile?

As someone who formerly lived in Corryville and witnessed all the neighborhood destruction in the area, I was cheering her on.  I'm sure other people felt the same way, particularly those who LIVE in those parts of town.

 

Agreed. I live in Uptown, and the damage done to the area by the hospitals is a problem. I saw Yvette as basically saying "No, you don't have carte blanche to wreck more houses and treat this area as a place to be driven through." It's possible for these institutions to expand and grow while also sustaining the neighborhoods they inhabit. I mean, look at what Christ did to Mt. Auburn. The whole area to the west of Sycamore/Auburn is gone. Step in the time machine: https://tinyurl.com/ydcvwh6w

^ At the end of the day, you have to break a few eggs for the betterment of all. What Yvette is essentially doing or saying is that if you are looking to invest money in the city, we have the right to extort significant capital from your deep pockets and give to the projects that we favor. Not only is that extortion, it is not a good way conduct business in general and you do not want to get a reputation as someone who operates like that because it will chase capital and investment away from the city to other neighborhoods or regions.

 

You don't pick a fight with a world class non-profit institution that provides health care to children, especially many of the poor who live in the area based solely on a desire to save a few old houses.  I am all for historical conservation but you have to be pragmatic and pick battles you can win and that are worthwhile. With the amount of money Children's generates for the city, you can save a heck of a lot more than the 15 houses they were going to tear down to build their expansion.

 

This is not just about making the wrong decision on Children's but it shows poor judgment on her part that she was so adamant and dug her heels in on what was going ot be a losing battle from the start.

^ At the end of the day, you have to break a few eggs for the betterment of all.

 

At least you're consistent.  That's your take on gun control too,

I tend to look at this as pluses and minuses.  There are a few big pluses than Cranley did but they don't outweigh the negatives IMO.  And can Yvette build off the positives he did do and turn around the negatives?

 

So many times I thought, wow that's good, now all he has to do is change his opinion on this and that and this and that.  So much of it too is that it seems he just doesn't "get it" on certain things that to me are so elementary.  Maybe he does get it, but is swayed by money, etc.

 

Some of the positives for Cranley:

 

Retirement / Pension Settlement

CAPS Program (re-paving at accelerated rate)

MLK Project

***Continued resurgence of downtown and OTR though many say there are rumors of him turning around development for his buddies so this is probably mostly an inheritance***

Increased fire and police numbers

 

Negatives:

 

Applying for TIGER Grants and other things that just don't make sense and will never get

Streetcar - Not fixing the fixables to make it most effective

Delayed and cancelled on street bike lanes including Central Parkway and the East Side Trail, and not implementing city bicycle plan

Rumor of pushing away out of town developers

Run around council and management on raises for police and fire (they did deserve the raise, but not as how it was done)

 

If he were to turn around the negatives into positives then I would vote for Cranley.

 

As I see it, Yvette can hopefully keep the positives and working on those while turning around the negatives and IMO will do a much better job looking for funding that we can win and use in a positive way.

^ At the end of the day, you have to break a few eggs for the betterment of all.

 

At least you're consistent.  That's your take on gun control too,

 

Yes, it is called pragmatism. It is a good quality to have

^ At the end of the day, you have to break a few eggs for the betterment of all. What Yvette is essentially doing or saying is that if you are looking to invest money in the city, we have the right to extort significant capital from your deep pockets and give to the projects that we favor. Not only is that extortion, it is not a good way conduct business in general and you do not want to get a reputation as someone who operates like that because it will chase capital and investment away from the city to other neighborhoods or regions.

 

You don't pick a fight with a world class non-profit institution that provides health care to children, especially many of the poor who live in the area based solely on a desire to save a few old houses.  I am all for historical conservation but you have to be pragmatic and pick battles you can win and that are worthwhile. With the amount of money Children's generates for the city, you can save a heck of a lot more than the 15 houses they were going to tear down to build their expansion.

 

This is not just about making the wrong decision on Children's but it shows poor judgment on her part that she was so adamant and dug her heels in on what was going ot be a losing battle from the start.

 

If you think it was about historic preservation, you don't have any idea what this issue was about.

 

Children's shows little respect to Avondale. Just like the Zoo. Christ Hospital is the same way with Mt. Auburn. They create plans, go through a BS public input session where they update lighting or landscaping, and then come to the city and say "see, we got neighborhood input".

 

Children's wasn't going to leave Avondale, or Cincinnati. They weren't going to abandon an expansion 4+ years in the making because the first public vote failed to provide the necessary count. Everyone is acting like this put the entire thing in jeopardy. It didn't. They would get their way eventually, but maybe they would have to be a little more responsive to the neighborhood's needs, and not treat the area as their suburban complex.

The idea that Simpson was "shaking down" Children's is just ridiculous. I am shocked that so many people on this forum are buying into the Enquirer narrative of these events.

 

Recently another perspective of these events has been making the rounds on Facebook, as told by former state rep. Christie Kuhns. Basically, as she tells it, Children's originally met with Avondale community leaders to discuss ways that Children's could better integrate their expansion into the community. Together they traveled to nearby hospitals including Columbus Children's and Good Sam in Dayton. In those two cases, the hospitals invested between $50M and $100M in the surrounding neighborhoods. Cincinnati Children's then asked the Avondale community to put together their "sky is the limit wish list" of what they wanted, and Avondale asked for $100M worth of investment based on what they saw in those other cities, but in the end, Children's agreed to a much smaller amount. Somehow this is being spun as "the community shaking down Children's" when, according to Kuhns' account, Children's themselves had asked the community to put together that wish list.

^ At the end of the day, you have to break a few eggs for the betterment of all. What Yvette is essentially doing or saying is that if you are looking to invest money in the city, we have the right to extort significant capital from your deep pockets and give to the projects that we favor. Not only is that extortion, it is not a good way conduct business in general and you do not want to get a reputation as someone who operates like that because it will chase capital and investment away from the city to other neighborhoods or regions.

 

You don't pick a fight with a world class non-profit institution that provides health care to children, especially many of the poor who live in the area based solely on a desire to save a few old houses.  I am all for historical conservation but you have to be pragmatic and pick battles you can win and that are worthwhile. With the amount of money Children's generates for the city, you can save a heck of a lot more than the 15 houses they were going to tear down to build their expansion.

 

This is not just about making the wrong decision on Children's but it shows poor judgment on her part that she was so adamant and dug her heels in on what was going ot be a losing battle from the start.

 

If you think it was about historic preservation, you don't have any idea what this issue was about.

 

Children's shows little respect to Avondale. Just like the Zoo. Christ Hospital is the same way with Mt. Auburn. They create plans, go through a BS public input session where they update lighting or landscaping, and then come to the city and say "see, we got neighborhood input".

 

Children's wasn't going to leave Avondale, or Cincinnati. They weren't going to abandon an expansion 4+ years in the making because the first public vote failed to provide the necessary count. Everyone is acting like this put the entire thing in jeopardy. It didn't. They would get their way eventually, but maybe they would have to be a little more responsive to the neighborhood's needs, and not treat the area as their suburban complex.

 

Would Children's have completely left Avondale, of course not, but they could have started moving essential research jobs out of the core into West Chester or developing other areas of town.

 

However the bigger issue is not whether Children's would leave, but what this signifies to other companies either in town looking at expansion or looking to come to town. Does the mayor and administration want to be conducive to helping them bring hundreds of jobs to the city or do they want to throw up obstacles. Simpson has shown that by trying to take on a pediatric non-profit research center, she would be someone who throws up obstacles and makes it difficult to do business. 

 

The thing is, her supporters can spin it however they want, but this is the narrative that has been created because of her vote, and it was a very stupid move on her end.  Even if she were 100% right on the issue, she was going to lose and it was a battle that did not need to be fought at this time, at least by her.  She showed a complete lack of judgment here and that gives people pause for concern.

This is the narrative that has been created by the Enquirer and the Chamber of Commerce who want John "Build or Demolish Whatever You Want!" Cranley to be re-elected.

Not buying into the Enquirer narrative, buying into the many people who have been working on this project for many years narrative.

^ It does not matter who created the narrative, that is the narrative that is sticking. 

 

I am not arguing that Simpson has no point and may not be right on the issue, however, she choose to pick a fight on something she had no chance of winning and because of this, she allows this narrative to be created. She may have had morality and right on her side, but she walked into a battle with horses trying to take on an armored tank division. It makes you question her judgment and wisdom at the minimum.

You don't pick a fight with a world class non-profit institution that provides health care to children, especially many of the poor who live in the area based solely on a desire to save a few old houses.  I am all for historical conservation but you have to be pragmatic and pick battles you can win and that are worthwhile. With the amount of money Children's generates for the city, you can save a heck of a lot more than the 15 houses they were going to tear down to build their expansion.

 

Sometimes such orgs need pushback.  One of Cincinnati's biggest problems is complacency in not pushing back at those kinds of organizations.  Anyone can act like garbage, doesn't matter what their mission is.  Respecting authority because authority is kind of dumb.

 

How many lower income African Americans in Avondale would care about Childrens International Reputation anyhow?  I mean not many of them would even have the insurance to be able to send their kids there other than maybe an emergency room visit or some kind of "charitable outreach" they do now and then.  IMO they'd probably be more interested in keeping their neighborhood safe and intact.

^ It does not matter who created the narrative, that is the narrative that is sticking. 

 

I am not arguing that Simpson has no point and may not be right on the issue, however, she choose to pick a fight on something she had no chance of winning and because of this, she allows this narrative to be created. She may have had morality and right on her side, but she walked into a battle with horses trying to take on an armored tank division. It makes you question her judgment and wisdom at the minimum.

 

From what I am putting together from the post on FB, and what was reported on in the media is that there was an effort at some point. The community responded to that effort and did what they were asked. Expectations, however realistic, were created and then somehow ignored. At some point, these voices found a friendly ear with Yvette and she voted against it as a protest to stand with the neighborhood. She even said at the debate that she wanted to prevent what happened with Cleveland Clinic.

 

At the time of the vote, I thought it was hugely foolish because all I had was what the BizCourier and the Enquirer printed, or the outrage and reaction. I was startled to hear about a list of demands without Children's having a seat at the table. Now it is public that Children's asked the neighborhood to create this list and then chose to ignore most of it.

 

Could there be something both sides are not disclosing? Probably. But the more I learn about what went on with this the more I get the perception it was Children's trying to figure out how to get around the community rather than Yvette extorting the institution.