???  I was just saying how disgusting FCE/the PD have been regarding the CC/MM and that if anyone wants to pack up and leave town because they don't get their way, ADIEU!

 

Sorry for the confusion.

:?  I was just saying how disgusting FCE/the PD have been regarding the CC/MM and that if anyone wants to pack up and leave town because they don't get their way, ADIEU!

 

Sorry for the confusion.

In the future be clear!  :whip:  :whip:  :whip:

 

You got everyones dander up!  LOL

CAN WE REPEAT THIS IS THE PLAIN DEALER?

Submitted by Roldo on March 20, 2009 - 3:19pm.

 

Someone alerted me to a WCPN show yesterday where Chris Evans of the Plain Dealer described County Commissioner Tim Hagan as aptly as anyone could.

 

Evans, an op/ed columnist and member of the PD editorial board, described Hagan’s role in the Medical Mart/Convention Center as a “pimp leading the dance.”

 

Wow! “Sound of Ideas” host Dan Moulthrop didn’t pursue what seemed to me to be the most provocative utterance I’ve ever heard on the 9 a.m. radio show. (Moulthrop also cut off a caller who was very critical of the PD’s coverage of the convention center coverage.)

 

Evans also described Chicago’s MMPI’s presentation to City Council as a “dog and pony show,” which it was. MMPI (Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc. is the chosen developer of the sweetheart deal.)

Evans showed complete disdain for the way the County Commissioners (Hagan and Jimmy Dimora acting with Peter Lawson Jones off “performing”) decide the Med Mart site. He derided the Commissioners for their two press conferences held in a matter of hours. By the second the entire deal had changed. The Mall site suddenly got endorsed.

“What happened in the last three hours?” Evans asked, commenting on the time between meetings by Hagan and Dimora. He also noted that the Commissioners were “spoon” feeding information rather than providing public information to the public. In other words, Hagan was keeping details of this dirty deal private.

Why isn’t this the subject of some brutally frank editorials?

 

Why isn’t Evans writing this stuff on the editorial page of the PD?

 

Why isn’t the truth being told about this mess of a deal that could have deadly impact an already degraded local economy?

 

Evans, a very good reporter who did much of his work with the PD Sunday Magazine, owes us as much frank discussion of this issue in the PD’s editorial pages as he did on the radio.

There’s an old ditty that goes as I remember it, “Why must truth be smiled upon as if it were not so.”

 

Why should lies be hidden by those who are supposed to inform us?http://realneo.us/content/can-we-repeat-plain-dealer

 

 

I think everyone is aware of Roldo's views on the MM/Convention Center. This is VERY interesting in regards to the PeeDee's overall coverage of the project. Could this be one of the reasons for the PeeDee's bias coverage?? This guy clearly has a opinion.

I don't disagree with any of it.  It would have been nice to have taken bids, but this was MMPI's idea in the first place, wasn't it?  I thought they came to us with it.  I don't remember.  I have no problem with the deal as presented.  It's all been handled very clownishly on our end, and I'd like to know more about how that worked.

I don't get ths article, or why you like it.  It sounds like that loudmouth troll "nothing in Cleveland is worth a crap" Roldo is saying that the PD is trying to PUSH the mall site or just the CC/MM in general.

I disagree.

I posted for gen discussion/ info. The interesting part is the language used by the editor. It is not surprising that MMPI and the County are not more forthcoming with information given the editors attitude.

 

It is not what I like but I believe it might have some relevance to the issue of the PeeDee's coverage. I could even be so bold as to suggest that the PeeDee is "pimping" for FCE/GCP, but such utterances are beneath the level of discourse on this forum.  ;) 

 

Originally proposed by head of Cleve. Clinic Dr. Toby Codsgrove (sp)?

Has anyone been inside Tower City lately? They have posters everywhere listing why the convention center should go there. It says $100 million reasons why the convention center should be built at TC then it lists several of the things that they have had the PD print. It is pretty pathetic.

^ ohh cool. i bet the renderings of a redeveloped scranton peninsula are awesome...'cause that's what it's gonna take for anyone to even pay attention to those. ha.

 

 

^ ohh cool. i bet the renderings of a redeveloped scranton peninsula are awesome...'cause that's what it's gonna take for anyone to even pay attention to those. ha.

 

 

 

LMAO!!!  agreed!

^ ohh cool. i bet the renderings of a redeveloped scranton peninsula are awesome...'cause that's what it's gonna take for anyone to even pay attention to those. ha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will it be a nice huge black parking lot with nice bright yellow lines?

 

 

 

 

Well if FCE has posters all over Tower City promoting the TC site for the convention center the pro mall people don't have much to worry about because nobody will see them.  :-D

Tower City still has a lot to gain from the Covention Center at the Mall. (It's practically across the street for crying outloud.) Forest City should just chill out, and figure out ways to benefit from the fact development is happening downtown right outside of Tower City.

Tower City still has a lot to gain from the Covention Center at the Mall. (It's practically across the street for crying outloud.) Forest City should just chill out, and figure out ways to benefit from the fact development is happening downtown right outside of Tower City.

 

Amen!

 

Where the hell have you been?  :?

I can see now why FCE put these signs out when they did.  The film fest has created a noticeable uptick in TC foot traffic.  But the arguments they make on their signs range from debatable to debunked.  And why doesn't FCE find a way to capitalize on the fact that their facility IS connected via rail to the mall site?

Lawsuit threat ends secrecy over medical mart

Posted by Joe Guillen/Plain Dealer Reporter

March 25, 2009 04:00AM

 

Under threat of a lawsuit from The Plain Dealer, Cuyahoga County commissioners Tuesday promised not to approve a development agreement on the taxpayer-funded $425 million medical mart project until the public has at least a week to review the deal.

 

Deciding where to build a medical mart has been a process marked by secret documents and closed-door meetings. After The Plain Dealer threatened to sue, Cuyahoga County commissioners promised to turn over the agreement at least a week before they vote to give the public its first look at the pact...

 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/03/lawsuit_threat_ends_secrecy_ov.html

 

I can promise citizen generated a lawsuit if the FCE site is chosen. Goldberg is fronting for Egger, who's membership in GCP makes his motives more than suspect.

I'm happy that the PD is forcing the commissioners to put all this out in the open. It goes a long way to eliminating any sense of impropriety associated with 'secret' negotiations. That said, I'm saddened that they've positioned the issue in a way that implies that the commissioners have clearly done something wrong, or have negotiated in bad faith.

Hagan's arrogant tone isn't helping the matter - I'm not sure why he feels like everything he does is beyond reproach.

I'm happy that the PD is forcing the commissioners to put all this out in the open. It goes a long way to eliminating any sense of impropriety associated with 'secret' negotiations. That said, I'm saddened that they've positioned the issue in a way that implies that the commissioners have clearly done something wrong, or have negotiated in bad faith.

 

 

"Secret"  is much more inflammatory then confidential. That is why they prefer it.

I'm happy that the PD is forcing the commissioners to put all this out in the open. It goes a long way to eliminating any sense of impropriety associated with 'secret' negotiations. That said, I'm saddened that they've positioned the issue in a way that implies that the commissioners have clearly done something wrong, or have negotiated in bad faith.

 

 

"Secret"  is much more inflammatory then confidential. That is why they prefer it.

 

We agree again (this is becoming a trend).

 

I think that many things needed to take place behind closed doors so that details can be worked out and discussed without interference by those not in the know.

 

The word "secret" and the editorial slant the Plain Dealer uses only brings into question the leadership of the community.

Along with Charles Ratner, who with the Plain Dealer is a board member of the GCP?  Though we, as the public, deserve to know what the details of this project are since we are funding it, I believe that this could be just another ploy from Forest City.  This company has used the Plain Dealer as their puppet for this whole process.

I agree it's probably a ploy, but it could have been neutralized had they been more forthcoming up to this point.  Hagan's stated expectations are inappropriate.

well, based on the rest of the column, I am sure they picked out the juiciest quotes from Hagan.

Along with Charles Ratner, who with the Plain Dealer is a board member of the GCP? Though we, as the public, deserve to know what the details of this project are since we are funding it, I believe that this could be just another ploy from Forest City. This company has used the Plain Dealer as their puppet for this whole process.

 

TERRY EGGAR

It's too late in the day for any US politician to claim a right to secrecy, or to ask everyone to assume they're doing the right thing.  I can't think of any job that works like that.  Certainly not county commissioner.

FYI ... The Plain Dealer's Sunday editorial. Please note that while I am a Plain Dealer reporter, I do not write or determine the stance of editorials.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/pdopinion/2009/03/med_mart_site_is_fine_its_the.html

 

Med mart site is fine; it's the unseen that concerns

 

Posted by The editors March 22, 2009 05:00AM

 

 

It has been 3 1/2 years since Dr. Toby Cosgrove, CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, asked Christopher Kennedy, president of Chicago-based Merchandise Mart Properties Inc., to explore the feasibility of a medical products showcase in Cleveland.

 

Two years ago, almost to the day, Kennedy returned with his conclusions: A medical mart attached to a modern convention center could cement Cleveland's status as a health care hub, nurture the region's medical technology entrepreneurs and resuscitate the city's ailing hospitality industry by attracting trade shows and conferences. It could also be a moneymaker for MMPI, which operates product marts and runs trade shows throughout North America.

 

Thus began a long negotiation between MMPI and the Cuyahoga County commissioners. Along the way, the commissioners approved a sales tax hike to fund a project that, with interest, could cost $1 billion over 20 years. They negotiated a memorandum of understanding with MMPI that put the firm in charge of building, marketing and managing the complex...

I'm just disgusted.

"while I am a Plain Dealer reporter, I do not write or determine the stance of editorials."

 

If you are here to defend the POOR job of reporting this issue, do not bother. You either do not know the subject or are intentionally bias. You will find people on this site are far more knowledgeable on the subject than your average PeeDee readers. To defend the indefensible in foolhearty. The PeeDee's failure is in large part due to the ineptitude of management and a compliant staff. There is no job here.  Try FCE. 

 

In fairness I am as a big a critic of the PD as anyone... I have never had any issues whatsoever with HJG's work.  I think he does an admirable job, if we had more reporters that just "reported the news" like him, the town would be better off.

Thank you for providing that editorial.  Was that from last Sunday?

 

I really feel a hatchet job from the PD on the reputation and personal integrity of Chris Kennedy.  I honestly feel that some of the power that be at the PD / DCP would rather kill the MM to keep the CC at Tower City. 

I don't think the same from the rank and file.

 

 

 

Thanks for the support, McCleveland.

 

I am not trying to defend anything or anyone, GreenerPastures. I simply noticed that the editorial about the mall site and county negotiations had not been posted here yet. I thought it would add to the conversation.

 

I do not cover the medical mart/convention center on a regular basis -- only if it directly touches Cleveland City Hall in some regard. I enjoy this forum. But I am not looking for a job, not here, not at FCE, or anywhere else.

Thanks for the support, McCleveland.

 

I am not trying to defend anything or anyone, GreenerPastures. I simply noticed that the editorial about the mall site and county negotiations had not been posted here yet. I thought it would add to the conversation.

 

I do not cover the medical mart/convention center on a regular basis -- only if it directly touches Cleveland City Hall in some regard. I enjoy this forum. But I am not looking for a job, not here, not at FCE, or anywhere else.

 

Thank you for saying that.

 

However, I think (I try not to speak for others) that the general consensus here is that the Plain Dealer does not properly write or report things, but puts a negative spin on things or doesn't fully report just the facts.  Articles are constantly peppered with (personal) editorial comments. 

 

We're just tired of it.  It's not helping the city, county or region.

 

Now, back to the medical mart.

 

 

Well...back to the PD

 

On Cleveland.com that same lawsuit artice is back on top of the page under the headline "Where to build the Medical Mart"

 

Does the PD choose the headlines for cleveland.com?  If so, the Sunday editorial may have just been cover, they may still be pushing a move to TC.

It's not fair to hold a reporter responsible for their employer's politcal slant.  Hats off to McCleveland for having his back.  And I applaud the PD for threatening to file suit.  The editorial HJG posted merely asks the commissioners to stop breaking the law.  If anything, it should have been more forceful.

Speaking of secret meetings, I wonder if Susan Goldberg would be willing to disclose the contents of her almost certain numerous meetings with FCE? Oh yeah that's right those were held "behind closed doors"...

It's not fair to hold a reporter responsible for their employer's politcal slant. Hats off to McCleveland for having his back. And I applaud the PD for threatening to file suit. The editorial HJG posted merely asks the commissioners to stop breaking the law. If anything, it should have been more forceful.

 

Not sure what law was being broken.  Sure, the County "should" share this information with the public, but (and I may be wrong) I believe they were holding these meetings under valid exemptions to the Sunshine laws of this State.  If I am wrong, I would like to know specifics.... the PD keeps on vaguely referring to the Sunshine laws but does not cite any authority for its argument.

It's not fair to hold a reporter responsible for their employer's politcal slant.  Hats off to McCleveland for having his back.  And I applaud the PD for threatening to file suit.  The editorial HJG posted merely asks the commissioners to stop breaking the law.  If anything, it should have been more forceful.

 

Not sure what law was being broken.  Sure, the County "should" share this information with the public, but (and I may be wrong) I believe they were holding these meetings under valid exemptions to the Sunshine laws of this State.  If I am wrong, I would like to know specifics.... the PD keeps on vaguely referring to the Sunshine laws but does not cite any authority for its argument.

 

I thought I had posted some statutory cites or text many pages ago.  I'm well versed in this, for reasons I'd rather not explain.  In short, you can't make decisions at secret meetings and you can't refuse requests for paperwork.  There is an exception allowing a private "executive session" to be held regarding the purchase or sale of land.  The executive session must begin at a public meeting, which means this exception cannot be used to hold a separate secret meeting.  That's never OK. 

 

I would venture that this deal goes well beyond a simple land transaction, but only that narrow aspect could legally be discussed in executive session.  All other aspects of the deal, like subsidizing a business for 20 years, must be discussed in public.  Plus, this land-deal exception applies only to meetings and has zero bearing on a government agency's absolute duty to provide written records upon request.  Also, executive session is available only for discussion purposes... no official decision or vote can be made in executive session. 

What is the legal definition of subsidizing? Is this complicated by the fact that the land agreement and the business agreement are co-dependent?

While they argue to the Supreme Court, the deal will continue to be done and will have a proper public venting of issues in a timely manner. There are too many attorneys looking at procedure on both sides for the law not to be followed. Lawyers makes their money with this BS. One could easily argue either side till the cows come home or someone runs out of money. 

It's not fair to hold a reporter responsible for their employer's politcal slant. Hats off to McCleveland for having his back. And I applaud the PD for threatening to file suit. The editorial HJG posted merely asks the commissioners to stop breaking the law. If anything, it should have been more forceful.

 

Not sure what law was being broken. Sure, the County "should" share this information with the public, but (and I may be wrong) I believe they were holding these meetings under valid exemptions to the Sunshine laws of this State. If I am wrong, I would like to know specifics.... the PD keeps on vaguely referring to the Sunshine laws but does not cite any authority for its argument.

 

I thought I had posted some statutory cites or text many pages ago. I'm well versed in this, for reasons I'd rather not explain. In short, you can't make decisions at secret meetings and you can't refuse requests for paperwork. There is an exception allowing a private "executive session" to be held regarding the purchase or sale of land. The executive session must begin at a public meeting, which means this exception cannot be used to hold a separate secret meeting. That's never OK.

 

I would venture that this deal goes well beyond a simple land transaction, but only that narrow aspect could legally be discussed in executive session. All other aspects of the deal, like subsidizing a business for 20 years, must be discussed in public. Plus, this land-deal exception applies only to meetings and has zero bearing on a government agency's absolute duty to provide written records upon request. Also, executive session is available only for discussion purposes... no official decision or vote can be made in executive session.

 

What "official" decision has been made outside of a public meeting with regard to the CC/MM?  Don't confuse straw votes with officials votes - the PD may not like it, but straw votes are allowed and quite common.

 

Further, there are a multitude of exceptions to the public records law that allows a gov't entity to withhold documents.  So requests for paperwork certainly can be refused if there is a valid exemption applies to the paperwork sought.

 

All I am saying is that the PD is being vague and throwing around the Sunshine Laws as if there is no valid legal basis for the so-called secrecy.  I would need more specifics to form a solid opinion on who is right and who is wrong in this whole situation.

Details of the contract really need to be made public before it goes into effect.  That said I don't trust the PD in this.  Why did they go from cheerleader to watchdog the moment the Mall site was chosen?  I don't think they printed a single negative story when it looked like FCE was going to walk away with this plum, but since the Mall site was chosen, I don't think I've read a positive article from them. 

 

It's even more fishy to me because the last round of CC planning continued with all urgency up till the point when the Mall site was chosen over TC at which point the whole idea of building a CC was promptly canned.  This may sound a bit "conspiracy theory", even for my own tastes, but it seems like the whole idea behind the CC fiasco has been that FCE should get it, or nobody should.  At least in some of the most prominent players minds.  I'm frankly still amazed that the Commissioners have chosen the Mall site.

HJG- that was a fair editorial to what we have seen thus far.  When was this posted in the paper?

 

I also agree that we DESERVE to know the details of the deal in play.  I just have to wonder about the reasons behind the article, with the barrage of articles we've received from the PD obviously pushing for the Tower City site.

I don't know of any valid Sunshine exception in play here.  There is no provision made in the Open Meetings Act for straw votes.  There are a slew of exceptions to the Public Records Act, but most have to do with personal information.  I strongly doubt that "details of a billion dollar public project" is among those exceptions.  We'd all like to have some specifics before forming an opinion-- which is why these laws exist.  Anyone who doesn't think this is extremely serious should contact the City of Akron and ask what happened to them right after the new Sunshine Laws were passed.

 

Hypothetically, if the commissioners were to sit on Jimmy's porch and work on this project... it would be illegal.  Public business must be discussed in public, period.  I read a case last year where a rural school board got nailed for doing the porch thing. 

I strongly doubt that "details of a billion dollar public project" is among those exceptions. We'd all like to have some specifics before forming an opinion-- which is why these laws exist. Anyone who doesn't think this is extremely serious should contact the City of Akron and ask what happened to them right after the new Sunshine Laws were passed.

 

Hypothetically, if the commissioners were to sit on Jimmy's porch and work on this project... it would be illegal. Public business must be discussed in public, period. I read a case last year where a rural school board got nailed for doing the porch thing.

 

You are taking too much of a black and white position here.  Marc Dann would be proud for sure considering the policies he issued on public records. 

 

The Commissioners are allowed to sit in a private room and hear a presentation without violating the Open Meetings Act.  Information gathering and fact finding is not "discussion" or "deliberation" as those terms are contemplated by the Sunshine Laws.  Further, presentation to a public body by its legal counsel is not a "deliberation." 

 

So, the Commissioners can sit in a private room and hear a presentation from FCE and/or MMPI on the advantages of each site.  However, the "official" site selection must be voted on in a public meeting. 

 

They can also have private discussion with Nance on this issue outside of a public meeting. 

Some things have to be black and white, or else I'm not paying any more tickets ever again.  I refuse to be held to black and white standards if our leaders aren't.

 

Any information gathered by a government agency, subject to a few exceptions that don't seem to apply here, must be shared with any citizen upon request.  Period.  That is state law.  The results from any meeting, fact finding or otherwise, subject to a few exceptions that don't seem to apply here, must be shared with any citizen upon request.  Period.  That is state law. 

 

And attorney/client privilege isn't that black and white either.  Statutes need to be pretty close to black and white, or they don't work.  Ethical and professional conduct rules are not the same.  What aspect of any Sunshine Law could ever function, if all you have to do is have a lawyer present to negate it?

Oh for christ sakes....bring out the damn ax!

Oh for christ sakes....bring out the damn ax!

 

I wouldn't be offended, but the efficacy of the PD's threatened lawsuit seems relatively on point.

327, Says who? This project is being destroyed by fce and the peedee. Good job here's your pat on the back. 

Releasing public records destroys the project how? 

 

What I meant in the previous post is that Hts44121 and I were discussing whether the legal issue had any legs at all.  Given that the commissioners seem to have acknowledged that it did, there is some chance that it did.  That's my point. 

 

If the project ends up destroyed, which doesn't seem likely, those most at fault would be the commissioners, who aren't performing well in their roles as leaders.  FCE is acting childishly, but they're doing what a business generally should.  The commissioners should have shut them up long ago and been digging already.  The PD is late on the public records request, but at least in that regard they're doing what a newspaper should (have already done).  Yes, I agree that the PD is trying to tank the project. 

 

But requesting public records doesn't tank anything, unless those records are mad filthy.  If they are, we have problems that go well beyond any project, and we need to deal with them directly before we can expect to see any projects actually happen. 

Ok I agree with that, but why wasn't this done A LONG TIME AGO?  Why are they waiting until now when the decision has supposedly been made?