Mr. Kelley, have you ever asked yourself why "fifty precent of Loudoun residents leave the county to go [elsewhere]" for healthcare? Could it be we need another hospital? Could it be people want a choice in healthcare? Could it be Inova is lacking in service delivery capabilities?
.
Additionally, Mr. Kelley, since you think HCA is in it only for profit, can you please tell us how much money Inova Loudoun made last year? The amount will astound most that are listening to this debate. Regardless, the percentage HCA will pay in taxes will be 100% more than what Inova is currently paying.
.
By the way, your threats to the County, potential patients, the Board of Supervisors and Loudoun taxpayers are extremely tacky. They make Inova sound like a pouting, spoiled brat.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm really tired of Inova sticking their nose in this matter.

Posted by mazman128 (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm really tired of Inova sticking their nose in this matter.

Posted by mazman128 (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 6:14 p.m.
.
Me, too. I would recommend boycotting Loudoun Hospital, but wait, I already do that... And, yes, it's b/c Loudoun Hospital is inadequate. We've been to Georgetown, Reston and UVA Hospitals in the past 6 months. It's unfortunate we have to leave the county for decent healthcare. Maybe if we had some competition...

Posted by qazwsxedcrfv (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please give me a break you will get many of the same specialist whether you are going to INOVA or HCA they use many of the same doctors. So lets stop the crap of trashing these hospitals.

You all have been hammering all this nonsense for years. I still believe we need a hospital further south so many more that are not close to hospital care can have it. What sense is there to build a hospital that is going to cannibalize the other and use many of the same doctors. As we say in Texas you argument does not hunt. :-)

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, thank you for sharing an opinion .

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Kelly, how much of INOVA's $181 MIL do you think BRMC is going to suck up?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And they call me and Sally the Bobbsey Twins...

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hospital war continues. Gotta love it.

Posted by louiebird (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And the hospital wars will continue, because it is about THE MONEY and health care is secondary to both hospitals. This is a huge population with phenomenal health insurance, one of the best areas in the country, there is hardly any poor people in Loudoun to take care of, so of course hospitals want to be here, because they will get paid what they want so this competition thing is meaningless. Loudoun is AS GOOD AS IT GETS FOR A HOSPITAl. Insurance is what these hospital wars are about not better health care as they want us to believe.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fortune Ranks HCA as #4 Most Admired in Healthcare
Did you know that Fortune Magazine ranked HCA as the #4 most admired organization in healthcare facilities?

BRMC Gives $50,000 for Nursing Education
HCA Virginia and Broadlands Regional Medical Center presented Shenandoah University's Nursing Division a gift of $50,000 on April 1, bring the HCA's total giving to the university to more than $350,000. In addition to the purchase of clinical tools, HCA's support has provided the funds for scholarships and the hiring of a full-time coordinator for the Northern Virginia nursing program, enabling that campus to significantly increase the number of nursing graduates.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loudoun is not AS GOOD AS IT GETS for a hospital. Ten years ago my OB said she did not deliver at Loudoun since they "just were not ready yet". OK, so ten years is a long time ago for this area. Well, just TWO WEEKS ago I was told by my father's neurosurgeon that he could not operate at Loudoun and we would have to take him to Reston or Fair Oaks instead. Although he can operate at Loudoun, the operating rooms are not equipped for this particular type of surgery. According to the Doc, this all has to do with politics and the state hospital regulatory agency. How the hell many people have to live in Loudoun before our hospital can be equivalent to any we are being sent to in Fairfax County?

Posted by romito (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First Shevco (Cliff Keirce who is president of the Broadlands HOA and a member Of our BOS Steven Millers team) you have been obsessed and almost like a unpaid employee of HCA and you never say one thing good about INOVA. Also romito you misunderstood what I said . LOUDOUN COUNTY's residents are as good as it gets for medical insurance since most work for the government or government contractors. Loudoun county does not represent the average worker in the United States Loudoun residents are wealthier because most live off the tax dollar paid by income taxes from the US population to the government workers and contractors. SO because of this residents of Loudoun and northern virginia in general have the best health insurance provided to them at tax payers expense in the country.
That is why hospitals want to be right here in the so called ground zero (Ashburn?) of people that have the best health insurance in the country. SO it is about that insurance money that HCA wants and further what says you are getting any better facilities then INOVA. This is a compromised hospital that should be built on land that can let this hospital grow as it should unless they are just fooling the public to get the initial approval then go after all they left out. hmmmmmm

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, the inanity of your comments continue to be exhausting.
.
First if you think there aren't a lot of Loudouners that are in need, and that are without health insurance you need to get out more. To argue that hospitals are coming here because the population has the best health insurance in the country is pure poppycock. If you really believe hospitals are making expansion decisions based on health insurance purity, put some hard facts on the table. Without any substance to the comment, it comes off as an artificial sentiment of a hermitic.
.
Second, good insurance only reflects good pricing if there is competition. I am sure you are not aware, but insurance companies negotiate prices that are charged for medical care. Insurance companies and hospitals negotiate for regional pricing. That means in Loudoun insurance companies only negotiate with Inova. I am going to guess you've not studied economics, suffice to say that is a bad thing. Without regional competition insurance companies have free reign and no interest in throttling our health care costs. Inova certainly isn't going to challenge the insurance companies for a better deal, they have the market locked up. Competition is more than just a wish for different or additional services, it's about pricing. Prices for the customers. Today hospital fees are overwhelmingly dictated by insurance companies and their negotiations with Inova.
.
Third, believe it or not, you and Cliff are simpatico. You both speak what's on your minds, and derive no monetary gain from those thoughts. If anything Cliff speaks with more authority, due to his sustained, and proactive involvement in the community. I am not sure you have the same advantage.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, Lee I apologize I got a little carried away in my previous comments. I apologize for the references to you, but do stand by the context of my statements.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's get back to facts, that should draw Barbara back to the blog. Via google I just came across an unbelieve source for true third party financial and service numbers associated with area hospitals
.
Stated earlier I asked Mr. Kelley how much profit Loudoun Inova made last year. This being the amount of cash that Loudoun Inova didn't pay any taxes on. I have found the number and it is astounding. Total revenue gain and profit for 2006 was $21,212,454.00. Twenty One million dollars!
.
Even more revealing, and from the same source:
.
Inova ranks in the highest quadrant for total financial margins and bed occupancies.
.
Adding insult, Inova ranks in the lowest quadrant for community support, that being charity, medicaid participation, etc.
.
So, Mr. Kelley sits atop an extremely profitable financial machine, and ranks at the bottom for giving back to the community. I think he needs to meet "Mr. Competition".
.
Source: http://www.vhi.org/hosp_acute.asp
.
There is a ton more info on this site, feel free to make your own observations and post away.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just curious if people further out west in Loudoun go to Jefferson hospital in WV or Winchester medical.

Posted by mazman128 (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More on Virginia Health Information. Mission statement from their website:
.
Virginia Health Information (VHI) began its efforts in 1993 with passage of the Patient Level Database System Act. VHI developed our first ANNUAL REPORT AND STRATEGIC PLAN in October 1996. Virginia Health Information is the organization recognized as the source for health data reporting in Virginia. VHI is a one-stop shop for information on:

*
Assisted Living Facilities
*
Continuing Care Retirement Communities
*
HMOs
*
Home Care Providers
*
Hospitals
*
Nursing Facilities
*
Physicians
*
And other providers
.

VHI works with private organizations and public bodies to use health data to meet the varied needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Whether it is private programs to recognize and reward hospitals improving patient safety or helping senior citizens find needed care, VHI is working with groups to cost-effectively use health data to improve care and save lives.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glen don't worry about it I am a tough personality and did not take your comments in a bad light. We actually agree way more then we disagree.

Let's look at this in a different way, what is HCA going to give us that INOVA already does not in the way of medical care?????????

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, let's get back to facts:

After Mr. York and the VLF slate's rhetoric on ethics and making deals for campaign contributors, is Mr. York going to recuse himself from voting on this land use application by a long-time contributor?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Checked out the link Glenn, very good one.

You left out that the charity cases, bad debt and taxes quartile (not community support) is a separate one from medicaid participation. Could Inova Loudoun be in a low quad there because it is tax exempt?

The medicaid numbers were comparable for Loudoun and Reston, which had quite a few low quads itself.

Also interesting to me was the listing for Reston of "proprietary" under "tax status".

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, your drum beat about York is a bore. You know as well as I do, there's no gas in that balloon. But keep trying, it's probably one of the few options for "attack politics" left on this issue. I prefer to try and make this about facts and data and not about politics. I'll keep tossing things your way, as you are an admirable foil on issues.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Proprietary means private. As you'll recall they pulled back their stock last year. They are privately held but still pay taxes, as if they were a public company. At least that's what I understand. Anyone care to confirm or clarify?

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way Barbara, your post at 10:37 is an opinion, not a fact. The majority of your inference is based on speculation, hence it is opinion. Now if you can directly tie a change in Mr. York's stance on the hospital to a campaign contribution I'd be interested, but as you know, Mr. York has been for BRMC since the inception of this grand idea. Cash contributions have not swayed his opinion or support. But as I said, keep trying, there really isn't anything else of political substance to attack.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee-
Why do you feel it is your duty to point out who I am and what I do?
If you are trying to give my comments more credibility, thank you.
If you somehow thinks it will censor me, then your obsession with this issue and me is a bit scary.
I'm sorry if I post FACTS that differ from your ignorant opinions.
Truth hurts, doesn't it.
Please give up your obsession with me...it doesn't do you any good.
I find it laughable that you drop my name to try and get people to come to your party. Pathetic.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff I just point this out because you are no different then INOVA people you constantly attack. You might as well work for HCA with your constant attacks on INOVA. I am not associated with either hospital. I just try to make this fair and balanced in this hospital debate. And your constant attacks on me and others that don't agree with you. OK Cliff post some facts and not attacks on how the quality of medical care will be better and different then what we already have at inova which has a helipad because they are not very close to homes suvh as this HCA hospital will be. What is really pathetic is your constant attack on INOVA and anyone that supports it to the point you want to bet huge sums of money. Cliff you need not flatter yourself as I have no obsession with you I just want to call out the fact you are extremely closely connected to HCA and you give us absolutely no facts as how HCA will give us different medical care then INOVA that is what this is really about medical care and the real need is further south not double care for the few we need care for the many first that don't have it.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, whoever you are, you are out of line. "Ignorant" opinion? that differs from yours? so it must be ignorant? "Obsession?" Caring about your community is not a bad thing and should not be trivialized or personalized like you have tried to do.
Words to characterize someone's concern, like "laughable" and "pathetic" only show your true colors, and they aren't pretty. If you are in a leadership position then your remarks are reprehensible. You need to count to ten before you post again. If you truly do have "facts" and not just personal attacks, then why don't you fairly argue your points?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"""""I find it laughable that you drop my name to try and get people to come to your party. Pathetic."""" Well Cliff one final thing about your quote, you said you would drop by the party if you did not have to work too late and if it was still going on. Believe me I don't have to use your name to get people to come to my parties we had well over a hundred people there including my buddies from as far back as first grade.
Cliff you are really stretching it into the twilight zone with comments like that.

But this is not the point. The point is about the hospital and the real truth about it. And NOT trashing either hospital or the people that support one or another. Did you not say when I ran into you at home DEpot that BRMC would most likely get approved and you went off on some rant against INOVA how they are playing some very nasty tricks against HCA. Personally if they built the hospital in the broadlands it could actually help my property value as I live just far enough from it. But that is not the point we need as much hospital care for the many before double care for the few. This county does not revolve around the boradlands it is a very large and diverse county that has needs all over and it is not centered in the Broadlands. There is life outside the broadlands. :-)

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can the puerile rants please stop! This isn't about individuals it's about increasing healthcare in Loudoun.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I’ve gotten a hold of Inova Loudoun’s U.S. Government Form 990, "Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax". As it states on the form, the document is open to public inspection. It’s 36 pages long and very detailed. I suggest anyone interested in the original copy contact Inova directly to obtain a copy for inspection. Here is their number 703-858-6000. Numerous insights exist in this document. Including a requirement for Inova to disclose their campaign strategy to keep HCA out of the market. I find it very revealing, note how many times references are made for paid employees, hired consultants and lawyers are used to influence public debate. Here is the excerpt verbatim from Form 990.
.
The following outlines and details the lobbying activities with response to these efforts.
.
Hospital staff and management, as well as volunteers and paid consultants, attended a number of public hearings and meetings regarding the Comprehensive Plan and the HCA zoning issue. Consultants were retained to assist and provide expertise and advice and to prepare studies and professional research, as well as impact studies. Lawyers were hired to provide research, memorandum of law, legal advice and assistance to address the legal issues related to the Comprehensive Plan process and to HCA’s zoning applications, as well as to assure that the efforts were carried out appropriately and that they complied with all applicable laws and regulations. Direct contact was made with public officials, their staff and the Board of Supervisors by volunteers, paid LHC staff and management, the LHC Board of Directors, consultants and lawyers who were retained by LHC. Advertisements were placed in the media and mailings were made to the public explaining the pros and cons of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and HCA rezoning requests; the public was asked to contact the Board of Supervisors and other public officials to state their views. LHC volunteers, paid staff, management , consultants and lawyers participated in rallies, speeches and lectures and provided public input through the public hearing and public process of the Loudoun County Planning and Zoning Department, the Planning Commission and various committees of the county government, drafted proposed legislation and prepared news releases and press conferences on important matters. LHC assisted residents who supported its position in this debate by providing professional guidance and expertise.
.
The activities identified above are protected by the attorney-client privilege to the extent they involve advice provided by lawyers. The disclosure of such information as required on this form is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, a waiver of the attorney-client privilege with respect thereto.
.
END OF EXCERPT
.
Anyone want to guess how much non-profit cash from Inova was paid for this effort?

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn I don't see how trashing INOVA is making any point of yours. If we need another hospital then it should stand on it's own merits. A new hospital should first give care to the many that are not close to hospital care. Most of the pro BRMC arguments seem to always digress to trashing INOVA and their employees.

Why don't you give us a detailed response why BRMC in it's own right is going to improve medical care without trashing inova. As I have told Erica who writes this column and asked me if I was getting paid or any kind of benefit from INOVA. My response is simple I really believe we need to spread the medical care around and build the next hospital in this county that can be the best it can without compromise. When I call out people like Cliff is because he has been in bed with HCA for many years yet he acts like he is independent when he is not. Then trashes INOVA at every chance he gets and calls out anybody associated with INOVA when he is doing the same thing with HCA. Becareful when you call the kettle black.

Like my response to Erica, I do not know anybody at either hospital and I do not get paid or any free services from any hospital, my opinions have always been about good neighbor developments period. A good neighbor development does the most good it can without hurting it's neighbors. This hospital war is about double hospital care for the few and no close hospital care for the many. I believe we need non compromised medical care for as many people as possible.

And one last time I have nothing to do with either hospital unlike Cliff who has been in bed with HCA for years and in his posts leaves that fact out yet trashes people that are in bed with INOVA. What's the difference????

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Did you not say when I ran into you at home DEpot that BRMC would most likely get approved and you went off on some rant against INOVA how they are playing some very nasty tricks against HCA."

Lee-
The above quote proves my point again about your obsession and making things up. I said nothing like this! YOU TOLD ME that you thought BRMC had the votes. I TOLD YOU that I wasn't so sure. I NEVER MENTIONED INOVA in our brief conversation. You are even more delusionary than I originally thought. It's too the point of being a bit scary.

I simply posted two press releases about what HCA has done, and you go off on some rant about me. Go review it. Once again, your obsession with me is getting a bit worrisome.

Yes, I am a supporter of BRMC!!! I have made no bones about that! Just a simple resident that supports additional health care for our county. I get paid as much from HCA as you get paid from Inova.

Mann12-
You and Lee are truly made for each other. I put as much value in your opinions as I put in Lee's.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 16, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Cliff,

There ya go again! You discredit yourself when you fail to debate fairly, with facts, and do the knee jerk attack thing.... take a deep breath, count to ten....

Claiming someone like Lee (who is obviously a nice guy, who is passionate in how much he cares) is "scary" to you makes me think of the expression... how does it go...
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much?" We all know Lee is anything but scary.

But on to the point. Some people are going to be seriously impacted by the location of the hospital, so why would you support forcing it on them? Why not support the Route 50 option, and stop this huge waste of time and argument? That is where it is planned, and that is where the hospital--a full service hospital with a helipad-- should go. You supporters are the ones trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and attacking everyone who says put it elsewhere--do the right thing, support the hospital where it is planned to go, and don't impose this huge impact on homes where people live, who just don't want it.

It boils down to either political pay back for a huge corporate supporter, or honest political support for all the individuals who may not contribute, may not be able to sway public opinion with glossy mailers, but who are truly "simple residents" who simply, vote? Who will this Board value more?

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff you know what you said about INOVA when I ran into you at home depot. Maybe I should keep a recorder on me so there will be no question about what is said. And you are anything but a simple resident. Further the only obsession you keep bringing up about me is in your mind. And when you and others trash a very good hospital you should be called out on it. I have no connection to either hospital but you have a big connection to HCA. And Cliff stop playing the victim card every time you hear something you don't like or agree with. There is no obsession with you I am just going to call it the way I see it. You had no problem when I talked about our previous supervisor Mr Snow and supported Miller one hundred percent and now all of a sudden you want to play or cry victim when you don't like what you hear. Give me a break!!!!!!!

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MANN12 thank you for your kind comments.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mann, there is no Route 50 option. The population densities don't support it. Both Inova and HCA have stated so.
.
This County will eventually need more than two hospitals. There are three major east west corridors in Loudoun. Rt 7, the Greenway, and Rt 50. Each should have a hospital on it. The Greenway is next based on need, and then as Rt 50 is built out then a third should be put there. (opinion)
.
It is a bunch of Inova fear mongering for them to continue to say BRMC is in the middle of a residential community.
.
On the west side of the BRMC site is Belmont Ridge Road, soon to be four lane divided (by the way it will be paid for with proffers by HCA); the north faces six lanes of divided Greenway; the east adjoins the School Admin building; and the south faces a tree buffer area, THEN four lanes of divided highway known as Broadlands Blvd. (fact)
.
The NIMBYs and Inova's paid consultants, employees and lawyers want you to think the site is in a residential area. Far from it.
.
Lee do you have any interest in debating the facts? I have placed several in this thread and you have not acknowledged any of them. I take your silence as acceptance.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, you are quite humorous with the new game of "facts" (select, discrete, single facts) after the years' worth of insinuation, exaggeration, cherry picking and outright lies you've engaged in.

Both hospital entities own property (raw land that will not have to retrofit a huge impact into an existing community, one of which has a grandfathered airstrip) on 50, and HCA could have requested a site change any of the multiple times they have renewed their COPN simply by checking a box.

Maybe could have had a second hospital open by now if they'd gone straight to land use instead of to court.

(And please don't switch argument to profit based on the single stat you quote about Ashburn emergency calls--they can't be completely altruistic and completely bottom-line at the same time in your new world of "fact" only).

Those road proffers are interesting: what are the commitments currently? I seem to recall that existing development (including Broadlands) is on the books for the Greenway down to Truro Parish.

The statment that HCA will be doing 659 from Broadlands Blvd to Briar Woods would seem to overlap with a Van Metre obligation between Broadlands Blvd and Truro. (not to mention the fact that going to Briar Woods doesn't do much for anyone south of Brambleton, but I digress).

If Van Metre isn't committed to the county for that segment via proffers, I guess HCA could enter into a private deal with VM to pick up that piece, but if it is proffered or contracted in some way, then I don't know how HCA can get credit for a duplicate proffer.

It will be interesting to see what the proffers actually are; the application hasn't been accepted for review yet, because staff is still waiting on a traffic study from the applicant. I was told to check back in a couple weeks, so we'll see.

Glenn, glad to see you are hot about facts now. Does that mean you are ready to discuss why Scott York should recuse himself from any vote on this land use application for a long-time contributor?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course both HCA and Inova are looking forward to Rt. 50. Heavens knows neither want to go through the NIMBY stuff that BRMC is going through. (wishful thinking by the way, I am sure they'll still get it) I commend both organizations for learning from experience. In fact, I'd feel even better if a third healthcare provider entered this market. Regardless of your exaggerations one healthcare provider is not a good thing for anyone.
.
Your revelation that VM somehow has proffered Belmont Ridge road improvements to Briar Woods is a wonderment to me. I've never heard that one before. What is interesting is VM's delay in opening the connection to Belmont Ridge Road from Broadlands Blvd. Maybe that is what is confusing you.
.
For the record Barbara, I've referenced the sources for my facts. If you need more context go read them yourself. I know how you like to research things. So go for it.
.
I already told you what I think of your York conspiracy theory. Absolutely no reason for him to recuse himself from the vote, anymore than there was a reason for Snow or Tulloch to recuse themselves from the last vote.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn the only way you and Cliff can make your case is trashing INOVA and people that don't agree with you all. Make your case on the facts totally about why his hospital should be built for the many that will have double hospital care.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My goodness Glenn, that is a lot of opinion, and some rearranging of my questions.

I never opined that VM was going to take 659 down to Briar Woods--nice reframing. I said the current obligations include some by Broadlands, that go from the Greenway to Truro Parish.

If VM, as developer of Broadlands, is doing the portion adjoining their development, (which includes the stretch from Broadlands Blvd on the north to Truro Parish on the south), why would HCA be saying (or you, on behalf of HCA--is this a fact on your part, or an interpretation of something?) that they will proffer from Broadlands Blvd to Briar Woods?

That seems to be an overlap. As I said, when the application is accepted for review, we can start reading what's actually there.

As for the delay on Broadlands Blvd, that intersection will be a big part of this application. I don't think there's anything to be confused about yet, because there isn't a completed application yet.

Glenn, you are mighty funny switching course on the last Board's recusal rate. The Posse had much to say about NO votes being taken by people who had accepted contributions, and it was a huge part of the York/VLF campaign mantra, not to mention a centerpiece of their "ethics" grandstanding.

By his own campaign statements, those of his fellows (and fellow recipients of contributions, though not nearly so much or so long), and their own "ethics" he should recuse himself.

That's not a conspiracy theory, Glenn. The campaign literature is a matter of record, as is the "ethics" policy, and all discussion of same.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Some nonprofit hospitals seem to forget that their operations are subsidized with generous tax breaks. They allow their priorities to get out of whack," says Sen. Charles Grassley. The senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee threatened last year to introduce legislation forcing nonprofit hospitals to provide a minimum amount of charity care.
.
Very interesting quote. In fact, this Wall Street Journal article has a lot of interesting facts about how non-profit hospitals are taking advantage of their non-tax paying status. Another reason why more people than just Cliff and I are pressing to have our County to encourage competition for healthcare.
.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12072620...
.
Check out the executive compensation for non-profits noted in a chart within the article. I am still amazed at how much these executives get. The executive compensation for Inova Loudoun is listed within the 990 I referenced earlier.
.
Lee you should read some of these third part sources. I've provided several. You then can at least say you have an educated "opinion". By the way, good decisions come from educated comparisons. In this case, a comparison of HCA and Inova. You may call it trashing, I call it education.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Nonprofit hospitals, originally set up to serve the poor, have transformed themselves into profit machines. And as the money rolls in, the large tax breaks they enjoy are drawing fire. Riding gains from investment portfolios and enjoying the pricing power that came from a decade of mergers, the earnings at many nonprofit hospitals have soared in recent years."
.
Combined net-profit of the top 50 non-profit hospitals has rocketed. In 2001 this group made $544.7 million; just five years later, in 2006 they made $4.27 billion (with a B).
.
Source: American Hospital Directory, based on the hospitals' Medicare cost reports.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting set of posts Glenn; opinions on facts.

Which reminds me: does "proprietary" with regard to tax status mean, as you infer, that the company is privately held, or that the information about their tax status is proprietary? I.e., whatever tax arrangements HCA-Reston has with Fairfax County is proprietary information?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

re: proprietary?...I don't think so, if you review the website, I provided earlier, it is full of facts about all local hospitals, including HCA-Reston. It reveals a ton of info you may want to investigate about HCA-Reston as related to finances, community giving, services, etc. You should look at it and compare it to Inova Loudoun. The side by side comparison is illuminating. Make sure to check the ratios of giving to revenues. They parallel the Wall Street Journal article's observations. Hope you get a chance to read the article.
.
Of course, I have opinions. I am backing them up with supporting facts. By giving the source it also giving the referenced facts credibility and those who disagree a chance to make their own judgment calls. This isn't rocket science a bit of time on google does wonders.
.
Here's that website again for you to visit about HCA-Reston et al:
.
http://www.vhi.org/hosp_acute.asp

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara and Lee, here is another source for information about HCA.
.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/m...
.
This is a link to Fortune's 2008 Most Admired Companies. HCA is ranked number 4. If you follow the link above and click on HCA from within the list it will take you to additional information about the company.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 17, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Glenn.

I went ahead and requested the FOIA info, and am waiting to hear back from the clerk, which may be the only place I can get a copy, unless it was selectively submitted to individual officials. I was able to talk to one commissioner about the call stats and they never got them.

I gather until I go on that goose chase, no discussion about your single fact that compared call volume in Ashburn and South Riding.

Okay, if I understand the new subject correctly:
1. HCA GOOD company.

2. Already on record from you that Inova BAD company.

3. Ergo, facts prove the only other hospital in Loudoun should go as near as possible to the only existing one.

Makes as much sense as ever.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's another fact. Broadlands Region Medical Center just funded the Loudoun Youth Initiative bus.
.
http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/b...
.
Congratulations to LYI for taking advantage of the support BRMC is willing to offer.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara you asked for info regarding the ALS call volume. I barely have enough time to do my own research much less yours but I did get the following from the Maryland's Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems as to what constitutes an ALS call. I don't know why this makes a difference to you or why you would a break down, but here is the comments I received via email:
.
There is some variability between BLS and ALS and it ultimately is defined with billing (nationally). Basic Life Support includes basic skills such as splinting, immobilization, some medication administration (epi-pen, glucose, charcoal, albuterol inhaler-patient assisted and nitroglycerin, patient assisted), CPR/AED, extrication, and basic patient assessment. Advanced life support includes cardiac monitoring, defibrillation/cardioversion, IV/IO/IM/SC medication adminstration, IVs, intraosseous injections, capnography, RSI, advanced airway management (endotracheal and nasotracheal intubation), as well as other skills.
.
Source: (name redacted for privacy), MS, NREMT-P
Director, Office of Licensure and Certification
.
Please let me know which PC member didn't get the report, and I'll make sure the little birdie gets another copy over there.
.
How about that Wall Street Journal article, pretty revealing isn't it?

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, I'm not asking you to do my research, but I have been waiting for you to accuse me of it! You're the one who made such a big deal of the seven page spreadsheet and how you were going to study it and post your results.

Subject effectively changed, I guess.

Are Maryland's facts now pertinent, i.e. are some of the northern county residents going to Brunswick? And another hospital in the Ashburn suburban planning area will fix that?

I heard back from the clerk, and nothing has come through the pc account, which means any commissioners who got it got it individually, so I asked if I could have the report if it had been submitted on that basis. That should show who got it and who didn't.

Haven't tried the BoS yet, but that is the next stop if this proves to be a dead end.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the only reason anyone would go to Brunswick is to visit the train museum. The definition provided, for your benefit, happened to be the most complete that I have been able to find with an authority reference. Hence, I included the reference and the location.
.
Let me know what you find out from your exhaustive investigation within the clerks office of the PC. I am beginning to think this may be a conspiracy, as now pertinent documents are being suppressed within the PC. Could this be another chapter in the Munsey Chronicles?
.
If your search and investigation prove fruitless please let me know. I'll see if the little birdie can't resubmit, as I stated before. I'd be glad to do it myself but I didn't pay for the FOIA.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What would be the point of letting you know, Glenn? So you could say "conspiracy"?

When you brought it up (as a new source of data, to apparently change the subject of the FACT that any time HCA extended their COPN they could have requested a site change and maybe even had a second hospital open in the county by now) I thought it sounded like a worthy subject for discussion and said so.

You then said you'd go through it and post what you thought of it.

That apparently turned out to be that since Ashburn had more calls than South Riding, then Ashburn should get a second hospital.

The clerk was kind enough to return my call, and see if she could find whether any such thing had been submitted. IOW, a professional staffer responding courteously to a member of the public.

Glenn, no matter who paid for the FOIA, it is public information (as opposed to proprietary) or your birdy wouldn't have gotten it. You can certainly resubmit it yourself, by mailing it to loudounpc@loudoun.gov.

Now, be sure to say "conspiracy" at least twice!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad you again brought up the misconception that a simple request would allow a change to the COPN, effectively changing the approved Broadland's location.
.
In fact, Inova has been pushing this baloney for a huge reason, self interest. Reason being a location change request would open up the ENTIRE COPN for review, a review that would open the door for Inova to challenge and steal it away from HCA. Pretty cute idea. Disingenuous to claim it as some public interest move.
.
HCA had the foresight, business acumen, and resources to win a hard fought COPN, and to slough it off as something that can be changed easily and without risk is a ridiculous claim. I'll give credit where do and it is a clever, moxie, idea for Inova to paint this as HCA's problem when in fact it would be a huge benefit to Inova's continued quest to protect their monopoly.
.
You have been told a lie, if someone said all that had to do was to have a piece of paper signed. Heck, even if it was re-opened, to consider a Rt 50 location, Richmond may not agree with the location change.
.
This is a bogus claim that would only benefit Inova.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the report, I've completed my review of all 7 sheets and all pertinent data related to insight into healthcare emergency needs in the county. I have looked further into areas you've brought up and responded. I don't think the fire data is relevant, unless you want me to chase that wild goose.
.
I find it humorous you continue to attack the messenger, the source, the analysis, the availability, the supposed lack of analysis, etc, but you seem to have nothing to say about the revelations garnered from the facts.
.
How about the other numerous sources I've been referencing. You continue to pick on the only one I am unable to give to you. Go to the websites I referenced. Read the WSJ article, check out the other sources. I imagine you don't want to highlight the value of those sources, or their conclusions.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, you don't need to get hissy. I'm just trying to follow up on what YOU said. I'm sure I'll hear back from the clerk, and then I can read the whole spreadsheet myself.

Now, think back to where this all started, when this Board voted in between straw votes on the school budget to set aside their contributor's lawsuit: The state agency can and does regulate healthcare. It does NOT regulate local land use.

The same form that extends the COPN also has a box that says the applicant has achieved all zoning and land use.

BRMC never had that on the split-zoned parcels they accumulated in Broadlands, which are governed under two different Zoning Ordinances.

The fact that they've had multiple extensions and NEVER had their land use would seem to me to be a good reason to have requested a site change (simply another box on the form) if the motivation was to get a second hospital to all the people of Loudoun as quickly as possible.

Whoever told you it would invalidate the COPN is the one spinning tales friend.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As to the report, you have done breakout by BLS/ALS for the same two areas you solely referenced the first time.

Yes, you've responded, but it hasn't been with information relating to any of the questions I asked (which you initially referenced as good questions, before saying you'd review and respond): your "response" consisted mostly of saying "conspiracy!".

I do thank you for leaving that out of your last reply, though.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No conspiracy, simply abuse of power, manipulation of process, intimidation of county staff... and then the gall to claim the high ground, professing to be the ethical one...blah blah blah. Isn't it interesting how York's employer successfully replanned Key Note Employment to Residential? Isn't it interesting how his employer somehow installed uses that are CLEARLY special exception uses in the PD-IP zoning category at their center, Cameron Chase--without going through the special exception process, no public hearings? after a special exception application was submitted, public outcry occurred, then it was withdrawn, and the uses were just approved administratively through the site plan approval process? Yes, very interesting. Please Glenn, spare me your attempts to belittle. The truth will out one day, and it may just be this hospital that opens peoples eyes....

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 19, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, just got this week's L2day and Independent in the mail.

It seems the LYI bus was only funded in part by HCA. AOL (a major Youth Initiative participant and donor since its inception) and Loudoun Transit apparently were the other contributors.

I say, thanks to ALL of them.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 19, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BarbaraMunsey,
The LYI bus is owned and operated by Loudoun Transit. Money donated by BRMC went to decorating the bus. According to Carol Kost of LYI, AOL was an initial donor of LYI and was instrumental in getting the organization off the ground, so they felt it fitting to put AOL's logo on the bus as well.
~erica

Posted by EricaGarman (Erica Garman) on April 19, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will have more to say after I get this alligator out of the back seat of my suv. ;-)

Barbara do you know any thing about how it got in there????? ;-) Today is " Love the world Day""""

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 20, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Erica, thanks for the clarification. That the decoration was made possible by HCA was one fact in the original story you posted.

Glenn's reframing is his usual cherry picking:

"Here's another fact. Broadlands Region Medical Center just funded the Loudoun Youth Initiative bus.
Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 18, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)"

It implies that HCA bought a bus for the youth initiative. Which would be nice!

Are these like the advertising shells sold/allowed by an increasing number of transit cos? (Operative word being "advertising"?)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 20, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, if you're carpooling with gators I'm not sure I want to know.

This should do much to boost your standing with your former campaign friends in the posse!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 20, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What part of the bus did Inova donate?

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 20, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, is that the bar to be met in the land use deal now?

I don't know--maybe they contributed free flu shots or other care to the families (or kids themselves) who will benefit from the bus and the program.

That kids benefit from LYI is the issue with having a bus, decorated or not, right? And not another jump around the buglight to pretend HCA paid for it all by itself, which is a "fact" that proves...what, exactly, in relation to the land use?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 20, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, the article also references a total of $150,000 given to Loudoun Youth from HCA-BRMC. I see no reason for you to be-little their support.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, you may note that I said thanks to ALL the entities who contributed. I wouldn't call that belittling their support.

What I am doing is questioning your attempt to make it appear that they were the sole funders of the project, and asking if you think that contribution supercedes the other issues under discussion in relation to the land use application.

Reframe at will.

And I've no doubt you will!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee-
You like to constantly (and erroneously) point out the "trashing" of Inova. Let's take a factual look at who's doing the trashing:
FACT: Inova is now running their second full page ad in the local papers "trashing" HCA.

FACT: Mark Lowers, CEO Inova Loudoun Hospital "trashed" HCA in his Letter to the Editor in Ashburn Today.

FACT: Randy Kelly, who runs Inova Loudoun (I forget his title) continues to "trash" HCA with his comments, including in this thread article.

FACT: Donna Fortier, Community Relations Director Inova Loudoun Hospital "trashed" HCA in her Letter to the Editor in Ashburn Today.

Contrary to your continual, obsessive comments, I have not "trashed" Inova. In fact, in my recent Letter published in Ashburn Today I praised Inova. I admit I have "trashed" their continued efforts to keep additional health care out of Loudoun County.

Lee, please show me where HCA has "trashed" Inova, either in print or public comments by their officials. I anxiously await your response.

Barbara-
I think I can clear up some of the road proffer issues. Van Metre has a proffer for two lanes of Belmont Ridge from the Greenway to Truro Parish. The remaining two lanes were to be funded by the "RTE 659 Road Club." With the slow down in the housing market, these other two lanes may not have the money in the kitty to pay for it.

Right now, Van Metre plans to connect Broadlands Blvd to Belmont Ridge and 4-lane Belmont Ridge from Broadlands Blvd to the Greenway. This work is supposed to be done this year.

When BRMC was proposed, it was expected that the Road Club would have Belmont Ridge widened from the Greenway to Truro Parish. HCA's proffer was to widen it the rest of the way to Brambleton. There is NO money in county proffers for this. It is a HUGE off-site road improvement proffer.

So what did Inova offer up for road improvements with their Rte 50 project? My guess is the minimum necessary. They should have proffered up some money to complete Belmont Ridge relocated.

Also, no "retrofit" is needed for BRMC. It is a parcel of land in a land bay of Broadlands ZONED for millions of square feet of commercial property.

Sally-
The only obsession worse than Lee's is yours with Scott York and Cameron Chase.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, thanks for the proffer clarifications, but that still doesn't address the seeming overlap from Broadlands Blvd. to Truro.

Regardless of the slowdown, if the road club improvements are accepted proffers I don't think duplicate proffers are even a possible answer, let alone an easy "that's not a problem because..." dismissal.

Proffers are specific, and while some may think "when the market picks up we'll just use the road club money for something else" it isn't that simple.

It will also be interesting if any cavalier dismissal of the issue of specific contracted improvements are from the "all (other) developers are evil" choir, because we should be getting proffers from ALL developers, whether they are VM or HCA.

One doesn't cancel the other (unless of course it is expedient for posse political reasons).

And that is not directed at you, Cliff.

As to retrofit, the impact difference is substantial, and this Board will score another huge strike in the massive hypocrite column if it can turn down five cell tower applications on little more than visual impact, yet put as large and busy an enterprise as a supposedly regional hospital into an existing neighborhood.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK Cliff enough is enough!!!!! How many times have you showed up at my home unannounced over this last year?????? Once when you did not like what I said On the internet. I would say that is a obsession. And as far as HCA trashing INOVA they don't have to just go to your hospital thread on the broadlands web site their are plenty of people that do it for them.

We should be talking about medical care for many people and you keep harping about double medical care for the fewer. Cliff you just don't like being called out about your very serious connection to HCA and we are supposed to believe you are just an independent thinker. Perhaps you are still upset Miller did not appoint you planning commissioner. Cliff enough is enough and I will not have you trash my name... And I do come from a family of lawyers from my brother on so be careful when you say someone is obsessed when they are not. You are the one that has showed up at my house unannounced on several occasions.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee-
Yes, stick to the issues and the facts. I noticed in your post you did not address the specifics I mentioned. Who's trashing who?

And what is my "serious connection" to HCA? I don't know, so I'd LOVE to hear your theory. I'll get out the popcorn. And before you answer, I know lawyers, too.

Quit acting so juvenile with your "I know some things about you that I'm going to make public." It shows the demeanor of a child throwing a temper tantrum.

I'll make you a simple deal. Stop mentioning my name all the time and I won't mention yours.
Deal?

Barbara-
The money that was to help fund the widening of Belmont Ridge from the Greenway to Truro Parish was the property that Dale Myers sold. The current owner (I forget which builder) has put the plans on hold so the proffer does not kick in. That's why there's a shortage.

Any answer on what Inova's providing for road improvements with their Rte 50 proposal? I think you were still on the Planning Commission when it was approved so I thought you might know.

Regarding the tower denials, I hope one bad decision won't lead to another!

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, I have a mantra, just like Lee. No selective enforcement of laws, fair administration of laws, no made up rules for some and no ignoring all the rules for others! Follow the rules. Put the hospital where it is planned in the Comprehensive Plan, or file a CPAM to change the plan...and let's have a public hearing and a public debate about changing the plan, and the reasons why that would make any sense.. especially so soon after it was just adopted with the hospital shown in the Route 50 corridor... HCA is a developer, just like any other, and should not be given any look the other way on the basic rules or on their project, just because they are "friendly" to "some." Ethics for One, Ethics for All, All for Ethics.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MANN, you need to read the CPAM. It doesn't say any of the things you just mentioned. It does not show a plan of where the next hospital will be. It does not show a hospital in the Route 50 corridor. This is the type of dis-information that Inova loves to feed on. The CPAM says nothing about a specific location.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn,

CPAM stands for Comprehensive Plan AMendment. It is something you apply for when you want to change the Comprehensive Plan to allow for a use you want to install that is currently not planned for your property. Like the CPAM that York got for his employer, Service Star, to change the use of their land from Keynote Employment to Residential...

There is no CPAM to read for HCA. They need to apply for one.

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Duh. I maintain my position, you need to check your opinion and amend it with facts. Here's some background for you to read. You'll note there is absolutely no reference to location, specially no reference to a Route 50 location, as you stated.
.
http://www.loudoun.gov/Default.aspx?tabi...

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn-
Here's the quote the Inova crowd hangs its hat on:
"The County recognizes that the residents of the Route 50 corridor do not have adequate access to emergency care or hospital related services. The Route 50 corridor should be given special consideration for the next full-service hospital and EMS ambulance receiving facility to be built in the County. "

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Paragraph 2 "Goals" of the adopted plan:

"development of a new hospital in the Dulles South area of the County..."

Paragraph 4... locate medical facilities "where needs are underserved.."

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is exactly why I provide a link to the information I am referencing. I stand corrected.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Additionally, MANN I apologize for my inference.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, Glenn good for you! I mean it.

This is the first time I've ever seen you admit to a mistake and apologize.

It almost cancels out the amazing "this is exactly why I provide a link...". Maybe you'll start reading them before you post them? That would be great.

Cliff, I hope you're not catching a flea from the posse boys with the Dale Myers reference. That property was sold by a set of heirs, only one of whom was Dale. The rezoning and attendant proffers have to do with the entity that bought it and applied for the land use approval.

If the current owner isn't breaking ground, they can surely sell and the proffer obligations go with it. It isn't as simple as another entity with another piece of property saying "we'll do it".

That would be another process for the Board to go through (like amending the Comp Plan), and as I said, we shouldn't be releasing rezonings from proffers. If HCA gets to build that piece of the road club, then when the economy dictates the formerly obligated property develop, do they come in scot free?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 21, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara-
Please dump lump me in with any group. I'm not part of it. I only used Dale's name because I knew that property was in her family and it gave a reference point as to location.
I don't know what happens to a proffer if the road is built with other funds. Depending how it was written, it could have been more general road improvement for Belmont Ridge as opposed to specifically mentioning that stretch. I don't know.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 22, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn,

If you agree that the Comprehensive Plan does not show a hospital on the Broadlands site, then do you agree a CPAM should be required, just like it was required of Greenvest, or all the other developers during the last Board? You may not have agreed with the political beliefs of the last board or how they applied the rules, but they did not (with the exception of York's developer employer for Cameron Chase --which was slipped by most of them, and they were not happy when they found out) skip any CPAM's or other public process and just allow a favored constituent or business to skip the process... at least the "Gang of Five" followed the rules..

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 22, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The CPAM does NOT show or dictate where hospitals will be located.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This CPAM is one of the reasons many of the proponents of it are no longer responsible for County decisions. There views and opinions lost the election. York's unwavering support for BRMC is one of the reasons he won.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My understanding is a CPAM is an application to change the plan. Currently there is no CPAM to look at regarding the hospital, because my understanding is HCA has decided to overlook this detail.

After the comprehensive plan is changed, it is called THE plan--it is no longer a CPAM. And to change THE plan, again, you need another CPAM, or you are getting special treatment, and avoiding the public process. If a special exception is granted which violates the plan, then that just sets up a lawsuit for arbitrary and capricious actions, since the "regular" procedure was simply "skipped" to favor a campaign/supporter/contributor/allies....looks bad, and has all the indicia of arbitrary and capricious to do such a thing... for sure the court will smell a rat.

HCA should apply for a CPAM if they want to sustain any court challenge... The Board should require a CPAM....to do it right. Of course, it will look a little fishy in any case, since there was public debate before, and a public decision before, based on the public good and welfare, and it will look a little arbitrary __pure politics-- to change the plan now, but that is the only way to do it right... in my opinion...

Posted by MANN12 (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MANN, I agree with shevco, the CPAM doesn't seem to dictate where hospitals will be located. It may suggest guidelines, but I don't see how it disqualifies the Broadland's site. Others will disagree, but I don't see it has being a major concern. Certainly Inova will try and make it an issue.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, no wish to lump you in with anybody, it just gave me a flinch because that IS a favorite ploy of the boys: everyone they disagree with is connected to one of the top boogey(wo)men.

As for proffers, the last BoS got pretty specific, perhaps due to the fact that when they took office there was about $140M in proffer money that was just sitting around getting smaller from poor triggering etc. Unless otherwise specified, proffers are to be used for what they were intended, in the area they were intended.

Some of the larger projects I saw did have options, i.e. leaving it to the county's discretion to use funds in more than one way, but rest assured each way was spelled out in great detail and became part of the legal document if approved.

Cliff and Glenn, Sally is right: if a proposed amendment or addition to the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, it is no longer a CPAM. It's just part of the plan.

Granted, the Plan is alternativley a Bible handed down from the hand of Gaia herself atop Catoctin Mountain (depending on whether a lobbyist agrees with something) or merely a guideline, a suggestion (depending on whether a lobbyist agrees with something).

Back to this Board and hypocrisy: another thing they campaigned on (partially with HCA money) besides not doing land use deals for campaign contributors, was "upholding the Comprehensive Plan" (see changeable Gaia theory), but of course, in this case, they COULD say it is only a guideline (see changeable Gaia theory).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

p.s. Cliff--although there is no map of locations (one was removed before adoption), there IS the language referencing Route 50. Salyy's right there too.
(remember the link Glenn posted to belittle her, without reading it himself?)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb-
Yes, I know the language....I pointed it out a few posts ago, not Sally.
Since there are no specific locations required, there is no need to change the Plan.
The whole CPAM implementation was laughable. As you know, Loudoun Hospital introduced it immediately after BRMC was defeated. The only reason the specific language of location was taken out was because it would have been TOO ridiculously obvious that the Board was simply doing their bidding.
You can attempt to argue against it, but you won't convince me it was any other way.

Posted by shevco (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliff, I know. You both pointed it out to the righteous link poster. You and Glenn are both treating it as a non issue, which is not necessarily the case.

I think it lands at the fundamental discussion on whether the plan is a Bible or a policy guideline.

A specific location map would lean more toward a literal Bible interpretation scenario, but, as the Purcellville high school issue shows, even an "H" on a policy map is open to some interpretation (hence the wisdom of both companies buying adjoining properties on 50).

The existing language is clearly policy, and specific in the locational preference for consideration.

I think, especially because of the campaign contributions and York's long-standing relationship, that if they want to do it right and leave no wiggle room, they should amend the policy document rather than simply disregard it. (and Mr. York should recuse)

As to the idea (and you are correct, we don't agree, but I thank you for discussing it civilly) that it was some Inova scheme to have a countywide healthcare plan (actually a good idea in developed counties!), Sally is right too: it went through the process, was discussed to death on both sides, underwent modification as a result of the process, and HCA could have checked the other box any time in the past four years and maybe been open by now.

Go back to the form I posted the link for on the other thread: explanation of 12-month progress includes having your land use! Not having made significant progress has to be out of your hands for endless extensions.

This would indicate to me that they were relying on court.

Of course, no longer an issue now that the VLF Board voted during a school budget session to make that go away.

So much for open process!

All the more reason to make this re-do as scrupulous as possible, which would include making plan language comply with what you intend to do (*particularly if you campaigned on the "Plan as Bible" method).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 24, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

VLF was bipartisan. That's when interest of both parties align to benefit the citizens.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, WHATEVER they choose to call themselves (and the name changes each election cycle although the faces and the bankbooks don't change much) they ALWAYS say they are bipartisan.

Scott York, all the Democrats EXCEPT Phyllis Randall, and Lori Waters as the obligatory token Republican.

Bipartisan my hind leg. It is the same old crowd with the same old message, and all that happened was the pendulum swung again.

I can see you feeling the need to keep up the pretense, but after you've been here a few years all it sounds like is one of the usual talking points.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Earth to Glenn, if you're out there:

Heard back from staff. After checking with the commissioners, it seems none of them received the EMS call data from your little birdie.

It would appear that:
a) you misunderstood the birdie.

b) you, with help from a bird, did a great job changing the subject away from the fact that a simple checkmark on a form filed several times in the past few years could have maybe had a second hospital open by now.

Since it is public info, Glenn, remember you can give it back to a different branch of the government it came from by sending that seven page spreadsheet to loudounpc@loudoun.gov.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 30, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, you must be a little light on coming up with the next chapter of the Munsey Chronicles? Any time you can't prove a negative you turn to attacking the messenger and imagining all kinds of incorrect scenarios, see a and b above. BTW, a new updated and more inclusive version of the report has just been provided by County officials. Astounding! Conclusions are the same. If you would like to split the cost of the FOIA let me know, and I'll see if the birdie is willing to share. It's all up to you.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 1, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, you'd be funnier if your spin games weren't deliberate.

Recap: You introduce subject of data spreadsheet, saying a little birdy had given you something they had FOIAed.

I ask some questions, which you say are good ones, and you'll get back with an anlysis after you had some time to do one.

A week later, you requote the same single stat and tell me to get the info from the Planning Commission if I want it so bad, because it was given to all of them.

PC staff says nothing came through account, you accuse me of saying it is a conspiracy (about seven times).

You say you will ask the bird to resubmit it if I tell which commissioners didn't receive it. I say you can send it to PC yourself, which you seem to think you can't do with public info (?) since you didn't pay for the copies.

I say I've heard from staff again that none of the commission received it at all, you go back to conspiracy mode, and offer to split cost of FOIA on a NEW report--no mention now of old one on which your story has flip-flopped four times.

Sorry if I conclude you are following your usual MO. Games played with filtered info, and change your story when it wears out.

Have a nice day.

(p.s.--did you follow the online discussion? Didn't seem to be working too well--appeared to provide pre-written answers to a VERY few questions submitted in advance. Oh well.)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are correct Barbara it was a very very lame discussion with HCA's Margaret Lewis.
Very few questions and non of the questions were hard driving. More like a love fest for HCA. And no names were used which I find suspect at the least. It should of been titled a commercial for HCA by Margaret Lewis for HCA.

She also avoided answering how the hospital will affect the adjoining and close neighbors properties. HCA should still set up a fund to compensate any property adversely affected.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb, I am not going to edit your ideas for your next chapter of the Munsey Chronicles. You go ahead and run with it.
.
No offer of cash for info? Oh well, I understand the updated report is going to be submitted to the PC shortly. You should try and get it again from them, I'll see if I can give you a heads up on timing. I didn't pay for the report so I do not feel it is my place to share it without permission.
.
So you now have created a NEW conspiracy. The online discussion was canned?!? Do tell more. How about addressing the facts related in the discussion? How about dealing with the realities of health care demand reflected in the dialog? All you have to say is "it didn't seem to work too well". Do you ever deal with anything other than spin?
.
BTW, read my previous comments refuting your continued conspiracy claim that it was only a one page, one box check effort to move the hospital from Broadlands to Rt. 50. You seem to have ignored reality and continue to cling to your errant version.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Glenn, I won't pay you to do what you say you will(then won't)! lol

I'm sure this new NEW report will be submitted even if the last one wasn't. lol again

No, no conspiracy. That is one of your dismissals, and if it makes you happy to play, be my guest.

My opinion is that the live-online didn't seem to be working too well technically--very slow to load and refresh, which may have been why so few questions were answered.

I have participated in online discussions on the Post site before, and kind of expected that the pre-submitted questions paired with prepared answers to those questions would be posted when the forum opened, and then live questions and discussions would ensue.

I'm sure more than eight questions were pre-submitted; I submitted three and none of them were answered, and I know I'm not the only person from down here who did send some in.

I wanted to know:

when can we expect a helipad to be added?

what is the status of the rte 50 application?

how will the proffered road improvements benefit those south and west of Brambleton?

As for your previous comments, the ones about the extension form don't refute anything Glenn. (and your other ones seem to change a lot) They put out a scare tactic soundbite that requesting a site change within the jurisdiction will VOID THE WHOLE COPN!!! AND THEY'LL HAVE TO START FROM SCRATCH!!! AND THEN WE'LL NEVER GET A HOSPITAL!!!

No. Twelve month checklist says you should have your land use, which they never have.

They probably could have had a second hospital open by now if they had chosen to.

Instead it was court, help fund a new board, and get a re-do.

With no helipad.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on May 2, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lee, since you are sooo hung up on setting up funds for "properties adversely affected" (BTW, has a fund been set up by the flex-space developers across the street from your house? ;) ), how about, for giggles sake, we say the property values go up for those homeowners immediately adjacent to the proposed hospital. In your world, should they have to pay the extra money they would make selling back to HCA?

Posted by t8erman (anonymous) on May 5, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)