Hospital Sale - Measure A

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

The Urgent Care is proving itself very useful. My friend Ronnie passed out. She tried to get into her MD but no luck. She went to the Urgent Care at the hospital and received some of the best medical care she has had she says.

A few more days of rain and we would have all been trapped in West County. The Urgent Care could easily been turned into a 24 hour facility in an emergency. Extreme weather could very well be in our future and we may need to make it on our own here in West County for days or a week at a time.

Much better to use the hospital as a medical facility than turn it into condos or apartments.

[farmerdan]

Mike,

The Urgent Care stayed open until 2:00Am during the flood.
Not sure how many people used it but it was there...

Dan

[Shepherd]

It is my opinion that if we vote yes, as I did, on Prop. A we will be saving lives, perhaps even yours or those of beloved ones. Balancing the life-saving qualities of this hospital with the minimal amount of taxes will help improve the health of many and literally save lives. When I drive by the parking lot, it is already often close to being full, so people are using the Sebastopol Specialty Hospital. This new operation is also serving as a school with the many excellent, free presentations on health related issues, given mainly by M.D's.

[Barry]

Having the hospital be an (enhanced) urgent care center is clearly the right answer.

However, what does that mean for how to vote on Measure A??

I'd love to hear from Jim Horn or others about why they think we should disapprove of this proposed arrangement and what would happen if it is disapproved.

[Rustie]

Thanks Barry for putting that question out there. I too would love to hear from Jim, I think some clarity would be very valuable. As I read what folks are saying on various discussion sites I get the impression that many believe the hospital is a facility available to the general public. My understanding is that it is not – it is an acute care facility. Only the portion of the hospital that was the ER is now the Urgent Care Center. The labs, x-ray & imaging services are still at the hospital and available as needed to folks coming in to the Urgent Care Center or via doctors' order requests. Who owns that equipment? Who owns and operates that business entity? I don't know but I would like to.

The Urgent Care Center is owned and operated by AAMG. That would or should mean that AAMG is leasing that portion of the property from the District. But I don't know, is that true? What is the arrangement regarding that situation?

Sonoma Specialty Hospital is managed by AAMG but they do not own the business. I'm guessing they are still operating on the 10 year $100,000/mo agreement that was made with the District to transition the hospital to a long-term acute care facility and manage it. If that's correct does that necessarily mean that if they can't buy it from us they will walk on the 10 year management agreement? Part of that agreement is that we have 5 years at 5% interest to reimburse AAMG for their investment. Some portion of the $100,000/mo is advance payment on some of those costs. I think it would be beneficial to know what portion of that $100,000/mo is capital investment vs management fees?

In early September 2018 the shingle went up changing the name as well as the function from SWMC to Sonoma Specialty Hospital. Unlike the Urgent Care Center AAMG does not own the Acute Care portion of the hospital, they are merely managing it. At least this is my understanding. However, Sonoma Specialty Hospital is an LLC that was filed with the state of CA in early August of 2018. The member/manager is Gurpreet Singh, the doctor that owns AAMG. So who actually owns the acute care business that is being operated in our hospital? And why incorporate if you're not planning on sticking around?

Dr Singh has made a business of buying small rural failing hospitals on the cheap and turning them into profitable specialty facilities. Each time he appears to file a new limited liability corporation with the state. Don't know if these are single member LLC's or if each time he is in partnership with some of the facilities' original owners, doctors, investors, etc. That might be a worthwhile question to get some answers to.

As I see it there are three different business operating out of the old hospital facility: Outpatient Services, an Urgent Care Center and a Long-Term Acute Care Facility. Currently the entire hospital property is owned by the district. So what are the current arrangements with each of these business entities? Why are so many assuming that if the sale is not approved we will lose it all? Is the sale of the hospital property an issue that can be readdressed at a later date with either a different or similar negotiation?

I think, as apparently Barry does, that we might want to ask at least a few more questions.

Having the hospital be an (enhanced) urgent care center is clearly the right answer.

However, what does that mean for how to vote on Measure A??

I'd love to hear from Jim Horn or others about why they think we should disapprove of this proposed arrangement and what would happen if it is disapproved.

[farmerdan]

Rustie,

I can answer some but not all of your questions:

Paragraph 1: The district owns all of the equipment and the operation at present with the possible exception of the operations of urgent care. While SWMC bought much of the equipment, the contract it had called for all equipment to be transferred to the district if SWMC quit managing for the district. AAMG is a contract manager for the district.

Paragraph 2: I am not aware of the arrangement between the district and the Urgent Care but think it is likely that the urgent care is operating as a separate entity since the district did not have a license to operate urgent care.

Paragraph 3: I am not clear on this. Someone from the district will need to answer.

Paragraph 4: Please understand that 'acute care' simply means 'hospital'. Both an LTAC (Long Term Acute Care) and any other hospital are licensed as 'acute care' facilities. AAMG's plan is to focus on LTAC, which requires additional certification and does not allow full emergency room services, but the license would continue to be 'actute care'. Acute care includes inpatient and outpatient services, surgery, etc.

AAMG is planning to stick around but the big issue is that millions of dollars are needed in building improvements. As a manager, AAMG does not have access to this capital, as an owner, they do. It is common to create separate LLCs to insulate the business from losses with other entities and visa versa.

Paragraph 5: Don't know Dr. Singh's other business relationships but one has to asume that he has capital partners for each of his projects since they take many millions of dollars to get off the ground.

Paragraph 6: There is only one hospital business, not two. As I said above, it is likely that the urgent care is a separate business since the district did not have a license to operate urgent care. (Dr. Singh had to obtain one. This is why there was a gap between closing the ER and opening urgent care.)

As I stated earlier, the issue with not making a sale at this time is that someone needs to come up with many millions of dollars to ugrade the building. The district can't do this and Singh can't as the manager but he can borrow the money if he owns the property and the business. There are many upgrades that have to be made now and cannot be put off. Also, the business will likely not be profitable for years, which means that the district has to take the risk for these losses unless the business is transferred to Singh.

Please be aware that a lease to Singh would also have to go to vote and would not necessarily provide the security a lender will want to provide capital to upgrade the facility.

For these reasons, we should expect that if we vote no, the hospital will be closed and sold for development because these upgrades cannot be made and the hospital will not be able to operate without them. I believe that this is exactly what Jim and his friends want since he is well aware of all of these issues and feels 'in his gut' that the district will get more money selling to investors than the appraisers do.

But let's hear from him.....

Dan

Thanks Barry for putting that question out there. I too would love to hear from Jim, I think some clarity would be very valuable. ...

[Rustie]

Thanks Dan for that info, much appreciated. A couple of salient points that you've shared. AAMG is planning to stick around. I would think so, they've been establishing their business at our hospital supposedly before any sale negotiations have been in place. That indicates to me that we can vote no to the sale and the entire facility will not necessarily shut down.

The problem, as you see it, is acquiring capital to make the necessary improvements. Supposedly the capital needed would only be available to AAMG by selling the property to them. If I've understood you correctly, it is your opinion that indirectly, the closure of the entire facility is inevitable if we don't vote to approve the sale. Yet it appears that six months ago, September 2018, when the facility officially became Sonoma Specialty Hospital, Dr Singh took ownership of all the business operations. Or is it that his corporation, SSH, owns only the Urgent Care Center and his other business AAMG is managing the rest of the facility for the District?

As we know, Dr Singh, the owner of AAMG is also the owner of Sonoma Specialty Hospital, which was formed early August. This means that two months before the board had an appraisal of the property, and seven months before an option to purchase was presented, Dr Singh moved forward with his new corporation. He opened and invested in his new business on the assumption that he would undoubtedly purchase the property. A purchase of property that, in your scenario, would be necessary for his business to be viable. A purchase that had not yet been negotiated, a property that had not yet been appraised and a sale that had not yet been presented as an idea to the voters let alone approved. I think Dr Singh is a smarter business man than that – this is not his first rodeo.

As it appears to me Dr Singh is either the manager of the hospital on behalf of the District or he is the owner/operator of the businesses housed in the district's facility. Be it manager for the district or new owner of the business, why have we not approved this before it happened? Is our approval not necessary for the transition that has taken place? Perhaps not if AAMG is the manager for the District, but then what are the terms of that agreement? Is this the $100,000/mo management contract that we've been talking about? If so, why have we changed the name to SSH? My understanding was that when Palm Drive became SWMC, a board decision that did not require voter approval, the District was not paying SWMC to manage the hospital. So if we are paying AAMG $100,000/mo to manage our facility why did we change the name to SSH, a separate and legal entity owned by the same person who owns AAMG?

And what about the Urgent Care Center which is a business entity owned by SSH, also managed by AAMG? If that portion of the facility is a privately owned business operating on District property did that arrangement also not need voter approval? Assuming it didn't, isn't some rental or lease agreement necessary? Or are we just letting Dr Singh run his business on our property rent free? And if there is a lease agreement for the Urgent Care Center what is it? The lease agreement pending our vote on Measure A covers the entire facility but that is not yet in place. Does this mean that since September the Urgent Care Center has been operating without any agreement? It would seem careless on the part of our District if they entered into a business arrangement like this without any legal documents.

On February 01, 2019 the lease agreement between Sonoma Specialty Hospital, LLC, (SSH) as the lessee and the Palm Drive Health Care District (PDHCD) as the lessor was drafted. Short version of the lease; in exchange for rent SSH will perform $275,000 each year in deferred maintenance. Among other items in the lease, SSH has the right to execute Leasehold Mortgages, which would provide a means of obtaining the needed capital for improvements. The lease agreement also includes the option to buy the property as per the terms we all now know.

Dr Singh incorporated in August. The transition to SSH took place in September. The lease with option to buy agreement was drafted in February. The vote to approve all of this is March 05. What am I missing? We seem to be voting retroactively on much that has already been done. Why has this been presented to us on such short notice? Dr Singh apparently had some idea of his intentions back in August when he incorporated Sonoma Specialty Hospital, LLC. Why are we expected to fall in line at the last minute to save the hospital or lose all? I suspect there's more to the story and more possibilities than we are being told.

Rustie,

I can answer some but not all of your questions:

Paragraph 1: ...

[farmerdan]

Rustie,

1. Just a few points: AAMG is currently managing the hospital for the district. They do not own the business, the equipment, the building, or the inventory. (Other than perhaps the urgent care.) I'm not sure what leads you to believe they took title to the business but that is not true.
2. There is an agreement to lease to AAMG in the future but this has to be approved by voters before it can come into effect. That is what the election is for. It is not legal for the district to lease or sell more than 50% of its assets without voter approval.
3. The district did not need voter approval to rent space for the urgent care as this represents less than 50% of the assets.
4. If there is a no vote, the district is still at risk for the operations (as required by law) until another vote could be approved and cannot by law lease the hospital to AAMG. The only other option is closing the hospital.
5. In the meantime, with no lease and no purchase, AAMG will not be able to raise capital to finance improvements, which will most likely mean the closure of the hospital in the near future. As I said before, this appears to be exactly what Jim Horn has wanted for a long time. I have not seen him refute this.
6. I have not seen any refutation of these basic facts anywhere.

Dan

Thanks Dan for that info, much appreciated. ...

[Shepherd]

In addition to the potential closing of the Sebastopol hospital, which will cause loss of life and other medical problems, the following article in today's NY Times documents how rural nursing homes are also closing. This means that some older folks will have to move away. Following is a link to that article and its first few paragraphs:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/u...s-closure.html

By Jack Healy, March 4, 2019

MOBRIDGE, S.D. — Harold Labrensz spent much of his 89-year life farming and ranching the rolling Dakota plains along the Missouri River. His family figured he would die there, too.

But late last year, the nursing home in Mobridge, S.D., that cared for Mr. Labrensz announced that it was shutting down after a rocky history of corporate buyouts, unpaid bills and financial ruin. It had become one of the many nursing homes across the country that have gone out of business in recent years as beds go empty, money troubles mount and more Americans seek to age in their own homes.

For Mr. Labrensz, though, the closure amounted to an eviction order from his hometown. His wife, Ramona, said she could not find any nursing home nearby to take him, and she could not help him if he took a fall at home. So one morning in late January, as a snowstorm whited out the prairie, Mr. Labrensz was loaded into the back of a small bus and sent off on a 220-mile road trip to a nursing home in North Dakota.

“He didn’t want to go,” said Mrs. Labrensz, 76, who made the trip with her husband. “When we stopped for gas, he said, ‘Turn this thing around.’ ”

More than 440 rural nursing homes have closed or merged over the last decade, according to the Cowles Research Group, which tracks long-term care, and each closure scattered patients like seeds in the wind. Instead of finding new care in their homes and communities, many end up at different nursing homes far from their families.....

(the article continues)

[farmerdan]

Shepherd,

Healthcare in the US is a slow rolling disaster.
The Canadians have it much better figured out.

Dan

[Rustie]

Hey Dan,

Thanks to continue the dialog on this issue. I don't believe I said nor did I intend to convey that title on any property had changed. Sorry for any misunderstanding. What I did say is that the name of the facility changed. My question is, did the ownership of the business change with the name change? I understand that AAMG is the contract operations manager, as apparently SWMC was when that name change took place. However the facility name change has been to a third entity, Sonoma Specialty Hospital. On the surface one might think that since AAMG and SSH are both owned by the same person, Dr Singh, it's all the same. Not really true. AAMG and SSH are two very separate legal entities each individually incorporated with the state of CA. This leads me to question who owns the business of the hospital? Which is not the same question as who owns the real property, equipment etc.

The unveiling of Sonoma Specialty Hospital seven months before there was any public discussion regarding the imminent lease/option deal, in my opinion, is suspect at best.

Thank you to explain that under the current management contract with AAMG the District is still at risk for all operations. Apparently this is not the same situation that was contracted with SWMC. Nonetheless, you suggest that it is the nature of the current contract with AAMG that renders the lease/option deal a necessity if we want to maintain any version of a hospital. If true it looks to me like our District backed us into a corner. They agreed to a management contract that was not sustainable. They understood that the terms of that contract included a future lease with option to buy. They knew a lease or sale would require voter approval. They approved and moved forward with the hospital's name change to that of the future potential buyer. And seven months later they present us with sketchy details and an urgency to vote yes on a deal that we have barely had time to digest. Why?

Some of your points 1 – 3 and part of 4 are important facts and not to be refuted. The remainder of your assertions; the only other option is to close the hospital, AAMG will not be able to raise the capital needed for improvements and Jim Horn has wanted the hospital closed for a long time, are all speculation. I see no facts presented that substantiate these claims. Why are you and others trying so hard to push us into a yes vote that you are willing to present speculative opinions as facts?

I'm not of the opinion that the deal is necessarily bad for us. Nor am I convinced of the premise that a no vote would result in the hospital being closed and the property being sold off to developers. Much of that discourse sounds like a lot of scare tactics to push us into a deal that we haven't been given adequate time to study. At this point my primary question is why.......?

As I pointed out in my previous post, this deal was eminent seven/eight months ago when Dr Singh incorporated his business, SSH, and hung his shingle on our hospital door. Why are we only now, under the threat of losing all, learning about the details of a business arrangement that requires our approval? Why has the District not been forthcoming with us since August, when this deal began to brew? Why do they continue to tell us that this will save our general hospital when in fact the OR is closed and there is no requirement in the lease/option deal to reopen it?

Rustie,...Dan

[farmerdan]

My question is, did the ownership of the business change with the name change? No, the district still owns the business.

The unveiling of Sonoma Specialty Hospital seven months before there was any public discussion regarding the imminent lease/option deal, in my opinion, is suspect at best.There have been many public meetings, not sure what you consider suspect.

Thank you to explain that under the current management contract with AAMG the District is still at risk for all operations. Apparently this is not the same situation that was contracted with SWMC. This is true, the district had to retake full control to be compliant with their bonds. At the time SWMC Inc. took over, this was not understood.

They approved and moved forward with the hospital's name change to that of the future potential buyer. And seven months later they present us with sketchy details and an urgency to vote yes on a deal that we have barely had time to digest. Why?
As stated above there have been lots of public meetings. The name change was necessary to differentiate the purpose of the hospital as a specialty hospital focused on LTAC.

Some of your points 1 – 3 and part of 4 are important facts and not to be refuted. The remainder of your assertions; the only other option is to close the hospital, AAMG will not be able to raise the capital needed for improvements and Jim Horn has wanted the hospital closed for a long time, are all speculation. I see no facts presented that substantiate these claims. Why are you and others trying so hard to push us into a yes vote that you are willing to present speculative opinions as facts?
There is nothing speculative about the need for considerable captial ($29M) and AAMG has stated very clearly that they will not be able to continue operations without it. They have also made clear that they can't raise capital without a long term lease or ownership, both of which require voter approval.

While Jim Horn has not said in so many words that he wants to see the hospital closed, all of his actions indicate this and he has not stated that he wants to see it remain open (to my knowledge). If this is speculation, Jim can easily refute it. Please ask him to do so.

To your other statements, I can only add that there have been many public meetings that were reported on by the local press. There have also been town halls. Any belief that the hospital will continue without a sale is pure speculation that has no basis in fact.

Dan

[Barry]

Be sure to VOTE!!! Tuesday, March 5 is Election Day!

[Rustie]

Dan,

You seem to take issue with many of my comments. My reference to the lack of public discussion regarding the imminent sale as “suspect” seems to disturb you. You point to the many public meetings and question what I consider suspect. The many public meetings I am aware of began February 05, 2019. That was just one month before the vote deadline. What, when and where were the public meetings well in advance of this special election? The destination at which we have now arrived was known many months ago. Why was this issue not presented and brought to our attention for discussion back in August when the lease/sale option was on the table? In my opinion many public meetings one month before the election is to little to late, hence, suspect.

I appreciate the information that the hospital name change was necessary to differentiate the purpose as a specialty hospital, but changing the name is not what I take issue with. It's the choice of name. Why was the name of the potential new owner chosen? On the surface it would appear that the board was/is expecting the sale to be approved by us. This of course could explain, what I consider, the heavy handed push to vote yes. This is another reason why I personally view much of how this has gone down as suspect. Then again Dr Singh's corporate name might have been chosen because he intends to move forward and stay on board regardless of how the vote goes. This scenario would lend support to the suggestion that a no vote is not necessarily the end of the hospital. It's difficult to know, and that's part of the problem. I don't think it should be difficult to know, I think it should be crystal clear.

I don't understand the point of your comment “There is nothing speculative about the need for considerable capital....” I have never stated or alluded to the idea that your comments regarding the need for considerable capital were speculative. I listed the three points that I considered speculative, that was not one of them.

Additionally you assert that “AAMG has stated very clearly that they will not be able to continue operations without it”. Obviously I have no idea where or when AAMG has stated to you, or anyone else for that matter, that they will not be able to continue operations without the passage of Measure A. What I am aware of however, is AAMG's comment in the Sonoma County Gazette’s article of February 01, 2019 where they are on record for indicating that if the lease/sale is rejected they will continue to manage the facility as per the terms of the 10-year management agreement.

You also suggest that “they have also made clear that they can't raise capital without a long term lease or ownership, ...”. Again, I have no idea where or when AAMG made that clear to you or anyone else. I have no knowledge as to weather or not they are able to raise the capital. I know, per the same Gazette article cited above, that they have stated to the press that they will do the upgrades if the measure passes and there was no comment regarding their intentions if it doesn't pass. To conclude from this that they won't is speculative. That having been said, neither of these comments have anything to do with their ability to raise the capital. What's your source for that information?

I admit that I take issue with your comment “Any belief that the hospital will continue without a sale is pure speculation that has no basis in fact.” While there are many beliefs that are purely speculative with no basis in fact I feel confident that I have shared many facts in support of my speculative opinions. Forinstance the fact that AAMG is under a 10-year contract with the District to operate and manage the facility. The fact that AAMG is on record as having stated their intention is to fulfill their contract with the District if this sale negotiation is not approved. The fact that Dr Singh incorporated Sonoma Specialty Hospital in August. The fact that the hospital name has been changed to the name of Dr Singh's corporation. The fact that the 10-year management agreement includes language that requires the District and AAMG to develop a new lease/sale contract to be presented to the voters in November if it is not passed in this special election. In my opinion all of these facts suggest the possibly that there's more to the picture than is being shared with us. Certainly the management contract requiring a new lease/sale agreement to be voted on in November, should this one not pass, indicates that there is a contingency plan in place other than shutting it all down. This is just a small sampling of the facts that I have used to come to my conclusion that a no vote this time around is not necessarily the kiss of death, as you would have us believe.

I've said this before and I will say it again. From my perspective, for what it's worth, which in the scheme of things is not much, you and many others have been pushing forward opinions as facts and I consider that disingenuous at best. Your comments about Jim Horn continue to reflect this. I understand that you believe that Jim wants the hospital to close for no reason other than he doesn't want a hospital. Your assertion that this is a fact because he doesn't step forward and refute your accusation is just as speculative as your primary accusation. Just because someone chooses not to refute accusations & assertions does not validate those accusations & assertions as facts. A small point you might want to consider. I have read on multiple occasions, from commentary expressed by Jim regarding the hospital in the SWMC days that his objections were based on his examination of the business plan. He looked at the numbers and thought it was not financially feasible. As it turned out he was correct. Now he simply states, once again from the numbers, that he doesn't think this is the best deal we can get. Why do you continue to disparage Jim with this idea that he just doesn't want a hospital?

By now I would hope that most everyone has voted. For clarity, I have not been lobbying for a no vote. If I've been lobbying for anything it's for an informed vote. One that comes from examining all of the facts, using our critical thinking skills, checking our fears at the door and being as clear as possible that the dice we roll are not loaded.

By tomorrow morning the votes will be in and I suspect the measure will pass. Good news, bad news, who's to say, only time will tell.

My question is, did the ownership of the business change with the name change? No, the district still owns the business....

[ChefJayTay]

Election Summary Report
Special Election
Palm Drive Health Care District
March 5, 2019

Precincts Reported: 40 of 40
Registered Voters: 24,746
Total Votes: 6,946

YES: 5,345 (76.51%)
NO: 1,641 (23.49%)

[Shepherd]

More about this is in today's Press Democrat. This is an overwhelming victory, which shows the wisdom of the majority of Sebastopudlians.

[M/M]

I just want to say a BIG 'thank you' to all who asked questions and all who responded... it helped
me get clearer about the very complex issues involved and what my vote would mean....

[1104GT]

I agree that a HUGE THANKS is owed to those who asked excellent questions and those who provided very detailed and helpful responses and research. This was a very confusing issue, so your inquiry and input was immensely valuable.

Ted

[Rustie]

Sorry to disillusion you Shepherd but this was not a Sebastopol only vote. Palm Drive Health District includes about 15 other towns in addition to Sebastopol.

The story these numbers tell me is that this special election had only a 28% voter turnout. The “overwhelming” victory was by less than one fourth of the District. That leaves me to wonder if the other 72% of registered voters in the district just didn't care or weren't well enough informed about the issue...

More about this is in today's Press Democrat. This is an overwhelming victory, which shows the wisdom of the majority of Sebastopudlians.

[farmerdan]

This was a complex issue and one that took extra effort to understand so it is no surprise that lots of people did not cast a ballot. This is typical of single item special elections. When presented with items I don't understand, I take a pass and let the people who have done the research decide as I suspect many did here

...The story these numbers tell me is that this special election had only a 28% voter turnout. The “overwhelming” victory was by less than one fourth of the District. That leaves me to wonder if the other 72% of registered voters in the district just didn't care or weren't well enough informed about the issue...

[RicoBoccia]

...no surprise that lots of people did not cast a ballot. This is typical of single item special elections. When presented with items I don't understand, I take a pass and let the people who have done the research decide as I suspect many did here

That's one way to look at it. Another way is how Rustie described it, as something that was clearly negotiated last summer, if not before, but many of us learned about it just a few weeks ago. (Btw, Rustie should get a plaque from the citizenry for all the detailed analysis & excellent questions & observations.)

Now that the deed is done, one assumes the PDHCD directors have two remaining jobs: Acting as landlords & managing the huge debt that has been run up in the last 19 years. If farmerdan is right, that first duty will go away before too long and we'll be down to a debt management problem. One wonders if paying off the debt will addressed with all the expertise & foresight that was brought to management of the district in the past.

[cw707]

Some Forestville folks didn't even know there was an election happening, and those who did thought only Sebastopol got to vote. Those I've spoken to never received advanced mail-in ballots, myself included. A friend in Sebastopol said she only got her mail-in ballot the week before the election. I only learned of the issue from the discussions on Wacco. I don't use that hospital, and felt that those who do should actually vote on what to do with it, so I didn't vote. Also, I didn't vote because I was unclear which would be better, even after all the informative discussions on Wacco.

...The story these numbers tell me is that this special election had only a 28% voter turnout. The “overwhelming” victory was by less than one fourth of the District. That leaves me to wonder if the other 72% of registered voters in the district just didn't care or weren't well enough informed about the issue...

[doghairnancy]

I hope the true believers and optimists about small government decision making are right. My bet is on the 'smart' money taking over the no-longer-a-hospital to wring out what they can at the lowest cost to them and leave us brilliant Sebastopudlians wondering what happened.

[farmerdan]

I don't know any 'true believers and optimists' involved in this situation, just people trying to find the best path from the hand they have been dealt by the failing healthcare system in the US.

I hope the true believers and optimists about small government decision making are right. My bet is on the 'smart' money taking over the no-longer-a-hospital to wring out what they can at the lowest cost to them and leave us brilliant Sebastopudlians wondering what happened.

[Rustie]

Thank you Dan, you've just made my case. It was a complex issue. Why did the board wait seven months to share the information with the public? Perhaps because they had already decided for us...

When you keep the majority in the dark you get governance by the minority. Sounds like you're OK with that.....

This was a complex issue and one that took extra effort to understand so it is no surprise that lots of people did not cast a ballot. This is typical of single item special elections. When presented with items I don't understand, I take a pass and let the people who have done the research decide as I suspect many did here

[Dorothy Friberg]

Another 'me too' issue. I didn't get a ballot and I don't want to pay another dollar of my taxes for any of it.

Some Forestville folks didn't even know there was an election happening, and those who did thought only Sebastopol got to vote. Those I've spoken to never received advanced mail-in ballots, myself included. A friend in Sebastopol said she only got her mail-in ballot the week before the election. I only learned of the issue from the discussions on Wacco. I don't use that hospital, and felt that those who do should actually vote on what to do with it, so I didn't vote. Also, I didn't vote because I was unclear which would be better, even after all the informative discussions on Wacco.

[jomo]

I think its pretty clear that people in West County who are in the health care district and can vote want a health care option in Sebastopol. They voted for a District Board majority who share that commitment and just voted overwhelmingly to support the Board in selling the hospital.

Yes the health care system is riddled with problems, but we rely on it and it makes sense to do the best we can to have local options available when we and our neighbors need medical care.

I for one have never seen a special election issue with more information about a Measure (community meetings, press articles, and an election pamphlet that went to all eligible voters. In terms of who got ballots, they were sent out from the Sonoma County Election office. Its important to understand that not everyone in West County is part of the Health Care District and eligible to vote.

I don't know any 'true believers and optimists' involved in this situation, just people trying to find the best path from the hand they have been dealt by the failing healthcare system in the US.

[ChefJayTay]

How much $ did this county just waste determining the fate of a maybe 5 million dollar property? THIS is why democratic socialism sucks. No one even cared to show up for the vote.

[farmerdan]

We should prefer fascist capitalism?

How much $ did this county just waste determining the fate of a maybe 5 million dollar property? THIS is why democratic socialism sucks. No one even cared to show up for the vote.

[ChefJayTay]

We should prefer fascist capitalism?

Did I say that? No. Disagreeing with one thing doesn't make one an advocate for the exact extreme opposite.
Though capitalism wouldn't have required the county pay for several hundred people to hold a vote on it. They even paid to fly out technicians from LA. Such a waste of money.

That hospital never should have been public money in the first place.