Gritman's expansion

["John Cronin" <jaycron@turbonet.com>]

My thanks to Evan Holmes and Dianne French for raising the issue of Gritman
Medical Center's request to vacate 8th Street between Washington and Main
Streets in this forum.

As a homeowner in the neighborhood east of the proposed expansion, I am
concerned about the impact the expansion will have on what is now a nice,
quiet residential neighborhood. With the opening of the South couplet ,
getting to my home from the West side of town is already difficult.
Vacating Eighth Street and changing Seventh and Lewis into into one-way
streets will further reduce east-west routes and will result in  having to
drive a maze to get to our homes.  The best interests of the community is
not served by isolating the people in this neighborhood from downtown. The
reality is that when the south couplet opened, the value of Eighth Street
to the community increased as a east-west route. It seems to me that
Gritman's did not fully consider the impact to its neighbors with this
plan. As I understand it, once Eighth Street is vacated, the community
would have no recourse if the current plan to allow bike and pediastrian
traffic on Eighth Street is set aside. Finally, I  question the wisdom of
having  helicopters landing and taking off  downtown. I assume that
patients are best served by this arrangement but are there safety and noise
concerns that should be considered? What is the anticipated frequency of
these flights? What is the risk to patients by using the current heli-pad
near Tidymans?

Barbara Richardson is amazed that a community which prides itself on fiscal
responsibility would ask that Gritman spend additional revenue to maintain
Eighth Street. I am equally amazed that the Moscow and Pullman communities
could not find a way to consolidate to meet the health care needs of  both
communities. On what basis do we allow ourselves to feel pride in our
fiscal responsibility when duplication of medical services is allowed at
the expense of our neighborhoods and communities?

John Cronin 

> From: Evan & Nancy Holmes <ncmholmes@moscow.com>
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: more city business
> Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:16 PM
> 
> Dear fellow visionaries;
> 
> I have been so pleased to see the recent dialogue about the fire station
> and the school bond that I thought you might want to consider another
> matter of city business.
> 
> Linda Pall's most recent communique about the city didn't mention that
the
> November 5th City Council meeting was one of the longest in recent
history,
> ending at about 11:30 P.M., even though discussion of one agenda item was
> tabled, remaining agenda items were dropped  and an executive session was
> postponed. The main cause of this was a public hearing about Gritman's
> request that the city vacate one block of  8th street to facilitate
> southward expansion of the hospital.
> 
> This hearing began with Randy Fife, city attorney, reminding the council
> that they would be acting in a legislative capacity for this decision
> (rather than quasi-judicial) and thus would not be strictly limited to
> considering only that information/evidence presented at the hearing.
> Furthermore, the decision to grant a vacation of right-of-way must
include
> a statement of  facts/findings that clearly demonstrate such an action is
> in the public interest.
> 
> Gritman's CEO Jeff Martin,  various members of Gritman's staff or
providers
> of adjunct services, and Roz Estime, a professional medical planner from
> Portland argued convincingly that the decision would benefit Gritman in
> many different ways.  Barbara Richardson, director of the Latah Economic
> Development Council spoke in favor of the vacation because of the
economic
> activity generated within the community by Gritman. Written or spoken
> testimony in favor was given by Paul Kimmel (although I don't remember if
> he was speaking for the Chamber of Commerce, the Latah County Board of
> Commissioners or as a private individual), U of I President Bob Hoover
and
> Crites-Moscow. In short, positive testimony was submitted by the usual
> suspects and satisfactorily demonstrated  that the vacation was in the
best
> interest of Gritman.
> 
> Testimony against was presented by a number of people for a variety of
> reasons. Most of this was rebutted in a thorough point-by-point manner by
> Jeff Martin or Roz Estime.  Information from a traffic study performed at
> Gritman's expense was also used in the presentation and rebuttal.
> 
> I emerged from all of this feeling certain that the vacation of  8th
Street
> would be in the best interest of Gritman and would probably do no harm to
> the public interest. But demonstrating that something does not jeopardize
> the public interest is not the same as proving it to be "in the public
> interest".
> 
> Gritman has already spent a quarter of a million dollars in this planning
> process. It is distressing to me that more effort (a publicity campaign?)
> wasn't made to enlist general public support for the proposal before it
> reached the formal public hearing plateau. I don't believe that anyone
can
> speak for the general public interest better than the general public.
> Often in local governance throughout our esteemed democracy one only
needs
> to persuade a handful of voters in order to sway policy, elicit funds or
> enact legislation. In this case three votes are required and Gritman
seemed
> to be focused on the five members of our community that can grant those
> three votes.
> 
> I think the burden is upon the applicant to bring appropriate evidence to
> the decision making body. In this case that would include testimony by
> those without conflicted interests that live in the area.  Apparently the
> only effort of this sort was made by (I think)  Diane French who went
> door-to-door in the residential area east of the hospital and brought
> petitions to the hearing that suggested that the public was ignorant
about
> or opposed to the application.
> 
> Personally, I commend Jeff Martin and Gritman's Board of Directors
> (including JoAnn Mack of city council) for their efforts during the past
> year to gather public input during this design and planning process.
> Simultaneously, I chide them for not bringing as evidence to the public
> hearing specific information about 1) the number and frequency of public
> meetings they've sponsored,  2) the attendance at those meetings, and 3)
> other attempts at outreach and the responses to those attempts.
> 
> I would like to see some postings on V2020 to find out what you think of
> this application to vacate a block of  8th Street.  Before doing so keep
in
> mind a few additional points:
> 
> Gritman employs more people than any other private enterprise in Moscow.
> (Although if you consider the Palouse Empire Mall to be one entity, there
> are more employees there. However, the total wages paid at Gritman may
> exceed those paid to mall employees. Anybody know if this is true?).
> Without doubt, a lot (majority?) of the Gritman jobs pay better than the
> local average.
> 
> Gritman does not pay property taxes. The expansion of Gritman's medical
> operations onto adjoining property essentially removes that property from
> the tax rolls.
> 
> The disruption of traffic flow across Washington on 8th Street may be a
> good thing. Without a traffic bypass around Moscow it will become
> increasingly competitive and dangerous to drive, walk or bicycle across
> Washington Street.
> 
> There are aesthetic issues to consider. Large multi-block buildings in
> downtown areas contribute to an "urban" ambience which some people find
to
> be unappealing. (I brought this up at the hearing but the point was
quickly
> dismissed during rebuttal with a little head shaking, under-the-breath
> laughter and "better get with it" commentary).  Also, a critical element
of
> the hospital expansion is the addition of a helipad on the roof.
Helicopter
> noise may be an aesthetic factor worth considering.
> 
> Other options for Gritman expansion that don't require closing 8th Street
> would cost significantly more. But I don't know how much more in relation
> to their total annual gross dollar intake.
> 
> Once the property is given to Gritman there is no control over what they
do
> with it.
> 
> Although they operate as a not-for-profit tax-exempt entity Gritman
> continues to amass equity, including real estate. The corporation, though
> not making a profit does gain assets. I don't know what happens to the
> assets if the corporation is dissolved. It seems likely that somebody
would
> benefit.
> 
> Gritman has been part of Moscow for over a century. A significant portion
> (25% or more) of the dollar value of economic activity that occurs in the
> downtown region can be attributed to Gritman. It is hard to imagine an
> economically viable downtown that does not include Gritman.
> 
> When Gritman expanded eight years ago they said the next big thrust would
> be to renovate or replace the older parts of the hospital on the same
> block.
> 
> The proposed expansion would, among other things,  increase hospital bed
> capacity by 25%, from 40 to 50 beds.
> 
> The health care industry does not generally follow the same growth and
> recession curves as the economy in general and is certainly more stable
> that most other private industries.
> 
> At the hearing the hospital's representatives and Barbara Richardson told
> us that our population was aging, suggesting a need for expansion of
health
> care activities. At last night's downtown revitalization meeting the
> consultants told us that our population was young (median age of 24).
> 
> 
> That's enough. Any questions?  Just for once, you pretend to be a member
of
> city council. Are you in favor of the proposal to vacate 8th Street or
are
> you against it? Thank you for your time and attention.
> 								- Evan Holmes
>