Delgaudio's vote is not so much of a surprise - he is always against everything, despite the lack of expenditure, value to the community, etc.

Kurtz, however, has become more of an enigma. Not really sure what her values are, or what she supports. Perhaps she has joined Delgaudio in simply being negative at every opportunity.

Buckley and Waters are simply typical of conservatives that have lost their way and are more interested in supporting their cronies at their previous employers, etc. There was a lot of high hope that Waters would serve well when first elected, but hope in her is fading. She is simply personifying anger, just as McCain did in his losing effort at being elected.

I'd suspect this will play out in the courts or with Federal intervention. Assigning monopoly status to Inova is outside the scope of the Loudoun BOS authority.

Posted by pptcmember (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When the BOS voted to allow Hobie Mitchell to build 500 apartments and townhomes near Lansdowne Town Center, the residents of Lansdowneen all made the same arguments AGAINST it - the land was not zoned residential, the people who purchased in Lansdowne checked the maps and saw that it was designated office, Seldens Landing and Stone Bridge were already full, etc etc. That did not stop the Baord from rezoning the land to approve Mr. Mitchell's project. Personally, I would have liked to see some some competition (and TAX REVENUE) from HCA. Contrary to the arguments from Broadlands, a hospital is not a bad neighbor. A hospital that pays taxes is an even better neighbor.

Posted by rjburnsva (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is a sad day, indeed. I no longer believe Loudoun County is capable of meaningful change -- to turn away an opportunity of this magnitude defies reason. So, to all the supervisors who voted against this hospital, I don't want to hear anything from you about job losses, tax deficits, lack of road improvements or inadequate health services. You have made your choices, and, unfortunately the rest of us must suffer for it. Thanks -- for nothing.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's a nice thought Supervisor Waters. But now Loudoun will be lucky if we see a another hospital in Loudoun County in the next 20 years!

Posted by gmab (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They would not pay taxes for 20 years. This county gives away more tax revenue then it brings in.

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote no for something that could create jobs, but yes for something that raises taxes.....what a joke this county is becoming. Of course there is one way to fix this, next time the people that voted no of the hospital come up for re-election, boot them out. Maybe then they will get the message.

Posted by rarcr (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pptc, that's the same post from the other thread; there will be no federal intervention. That was a last gasp threat, which, under questioning, appears to have been a suggestion from HCA attorneys to an individual Board member.

The proper way to have handled this, if they were hell-bent on that company in that precise spot, was to have taken Buckley's advice last year to allow the lawsuit to proceed to judgement, which would have provided clear direction to the Board.

Had HCA lost and they were still determined, then the Board could have initiated a Comp Plan Amendment to modify the Countywide Healthcare Plan, and reaccepted the application.

Will HCA go back to court?

That would be nice proof of wanting to take care of us all--ALL--in one spot and no other.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh hell no. There's NO way you just voted for the Redskins free meal gig. You want to close libraries and cut public services yet you GIVE money to a francise that had millions of dollars in it's coffers from avg $68 tickets????

Raising our visibilty?? Like the corporate execs arriving to DC to ask for a handout in corporate jets?

You just lost two votes in the next election, Eugene. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by mrspof (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why on earth should HCA spend one more nickel on trying to build this hospital, when it has done far, far more than the necessary due diligence to support its application? No, this is about politics, pure and simple, *not* what is most beneficial for Loudoun residents. It must be nice to feel so smug about one's own comfort to be able to deny our county's citizens of job opportunities and healthcare choices. The denial of this application by certain board members was based purely on self interest. This issue should have been left to be made by the people of the county, that is the *only way* it would have had an honest outcome. I love Loudoun County, but the politics here are embarrassing and shameful.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mrspof, the Redskins initiative is to be funded out of the transient occupancy tax, which MUST be spent on tourism-related ventures. It is a hotel tax levied on overnight guests of the county's hotels, motels, B&Bs.

yocomclan, there isn't a provision for putting the hospital location to referendum. It is a land use decision, and that's how it was decided.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 3, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see ... teachers' pay freeze, cutting library hours yet keeping full staff at the county building and giving $250K to Danny Snyder? Yup, makes sense to me. It has the old "okie doke" aroma to me.

Posted by mitlen (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, it is indeed a land use issue, and here's the thing -- this county needs a hospital -- it needs it more than it needs restaurants, gas stations, strip malls, etc. And now -- when are we going to get a hospital? I read that Inova said it's going to head over to Route 50 to get ready to build a hospital, but there are two serious problems. The first is that it is unlikely a COPN will be issued for Route 50 at this time. Second, Inova has been identified as being a monopoly, and therefore, it is unlikely to receive automatic approval to build a hospital in this vicinity. I, and many others, have resigned ourselvse to driving out of the county for the foreseeable future for healthcare needs. Meanwhile, things in Loudoun will remain exactly the same: SNAFU.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is what I don't understand. If a COPN was issued for Broadlands, why couldn't one by issued for the Rt 50 area? The distance from Rt 50 to Broadlands is equal to the distance from Broadlands to Rt 50.

Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momof2,

COPNs are not issued like using an ATM machine or a vending machine. It's a long drawn out process. The health commissioner determines if a site will support a hospital taking into account all public input and impact on neighbors, other hospitals and so on. The decsion is not made lightly.

INOVA lost all appeals at the state level including the State Supreme Court in trying to overturn the BRMC COPN.

So, INOVA's focus was on the local government officials to deny BRMC from happening.

The health commissioner will be very reluctant on issuing another COPN for Loudoun after the BoS voted this one down.

The commissioners office had already made a statement regarding a special exception for the BRMC COPN which was not favorable.

INOVA won't deliver a hospital on Rt. 50 because they were just denied in trying to buy Prince William Hospital by the FTC.

Therefore Loudoun citizens lose and INOVA wins.

Posted by cougars83 (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand that the TOT funds must be spent on tourism. The Board chose to spend it on a high profile, well funded NFL team owned by a rich guy. You should have banked it while looking for a better way to spend it on LOCAL businesses. They're hurting right now, you know?

Posted by mrspof (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momof2, any time BRMC extended their COPN, they could have moved it.

It is unheard of to get as many extensions as they did without even having their basic land use.

The info on the FTC is slightly different too: INOVA was blocked from merging with a competitor, to preserve competition in the area.

Neither the FTC nor the COPN process have ANY jurisdiction over local land use.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BM,
Eric Bodine from the commissioners office stated that a move to Rt 50 would not be a viable option. So, why would HCA make that move?
HCA got extentions because of the numberous lawsuits brought about by Inova.
FTC could make Inova divest of certain hospitals to preserve competion, that they do have jursdiction over. I think they allowed the merger with LH to happen, they never approved it.

Posted by cougars83 (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the insights cougars83 -- there is so much misunderstanding, and underhandedness in this whole situation, it is deeply discouraging.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For additional insight on the COPN process please see HSNNV's response to Erik Bodin posted at http://www.broadlandshoa.org/hoaforum/sh... and the "Background" page on www.Rt50HospitalNow.org.

A move to Rt 50 is a viable option for HCA, if not on the land they own on Rt. 50, then on the appropriately zoned land that Inova owns on Rt. 50 (Inova agreed to sell that land to HCA should BRMC be denied....see http://middleburgeccentric.com/scripts/N... and http://www.loudountimes.com/news/2008/se...). The ball is in HCA's court at this point.
Lisa Freeman

Posted by freeman (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freeman,

Nice spin. HSANV is not a governing body that decides COPNs. The HSANVs rebuttle to Erik Bodin's letter does not carry any weight. In fact, most of their recommendations in recent years have been ignored by the commissioner's office. They also tried to sue the commissioner for the COPN granted to HCA. That suit was kicked out. Inova does not decide COPNs nor can Mr. Kelly guarantee any COPN on Rt 50. I think HCA sided with Erik Bodin's letter since that office makes the decisions. Like I said, why would HCA take that risk?
HCA is not going to Rt. 50 as they have already stated. INOVA putting a hospital on Rt. 50 is not going to happen either. You can beg for it all you want, but it is not going to happen.

Posted by cougars83 (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's another issue to overcome for a hospital to go to Rt. 50. PW Hospital would fight any hospital that would consider Rt. 50. Also, even though ILH would not fight HCA if they decided to go to Rt. 50, that does not rule out Fair Oaks from entering the fight. This whole Rt. 50 deal is a distraction.

Posted by cougars83 (anonymous) on February 4, 2009 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cougar, HSANV is part of the COPN process.

Yes, their recommendations have been ignored.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the Governor appointing a former HCA employee. That last extension was granted before the process period was even complete.

HCA maintained that their failure to get their land use was "out of their hands". Because of their own lawsuits? That was their choice. They should have had their land use long ago to keep getting extension after extension.

PWH is broke, that's why they SOUGHT the merger with Inova. Yes, the FTC allowed Inova and Loudoun Hospital to go forward--there is already competition in the Loudoun service area with HCA.

If anyone is spinning, it is you, and pretty aggressively. At least Lisa puts her name on her posts, and backs it up with links to published information and source documents.

I expect there will be lots of anonymous posts with talking points until the two week period is past, but the FTC isn't going to investigate or interfere with a local land use decision that has now been denied by two very different administrations, with different political majorities, for the very same reasons.

The longer it goes on, and the more money they throw at it, the less good it makes them look.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 5, 2009 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And what about Inova, spending unsightly amounts of money aimed specifically at blocking the competition? That behavior does not speak to an above board level ethics for the Inova organization. If anything, they have besmirched their own reputation. This issue should *never* have been politicized the way it has been -- no good can ever come from such practices when it comes to something the people sincerely need. I resent that we live in a county that prides itself on being "cutting edge" in technology, yet will not allow a hospital to be built in an area where the largest number of people would be served. There is another element at work here, and for the time being, I will refer to it as "factor x." That means the great unknown that defies reason except to the specific groups with distinctive agendas (not in my backyard, no competition wanted). It's a land use issue all right -- way to block the county from having the healthcare options it desperately needs, all in the name of "me, myself and I." Thanks for nothing guys.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 5, 2009 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Factor x is an interesting concept, yocomclan.

I've been wondering why so many people FOR BRMC, feverishly right now, are so adamant that Route 50 shouldn't have, and will never get a hospital.

The few people down here who stridently advocated AGAINST a hospital on 50 ("we" don't need one) are the same Imperial "We"s who also stridently advocate against schools, against roads, against retail, against everything.

It's starting to look pretty funny.

And not in a nice way.

Make HCA put their money where THEIR mouth is until their unbelieveably-extended COPN expires soon--take Inova's offer, call their "bluff", whatever, and check the box to move to 50 now that they've been denied for the same reasons by two different boards--instead of continuing to pour their money into political leverage and scare tactics.

If they don't, and try to go right over the county line for no other purpose than to use PWC to block rte 50, then that tells me pretty much everything I need to know.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 5, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Go back to the statistics and recheck -- the population density in the route 50 is not where HCA feels it should be for success -- and unlike Dulles Airport, which sat virutally unused for at least a decade when it was built (and referred to at that time as a "white elephant,") neither HCA nor Inova can afford to invest that much money in a hospital and then wait years for it to become profitable. People chastize HCA for being concerned about the finances, but then, isn't Inova exactly the same? The truth is, Inova was and is deeply concerned about competition for "market share" in this area. But it's greed, really, because there is plenty of need for services to go around. Further, how do people feel justified in *telling* a business where it should locate? If you knew the lion's share of consumers were located in a specific area, would you like a board to tell you, no, you may not locate your business there. I wouldn't, especially if I had spent large sums of money researching that question in order to choose an appropriate site. There is so much more to this issue than "just put it on route 50 because there's no hospital there." There just isn't the population in that locate yet to support such a huge capital investment.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 5, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yoco, someone spoke at public input that rte 50 would support a hospital now.

If a third hospital is ONLY needed in the overlapping service areas of two existing and competing hospitals already, why are the bed utilization rates not critical at either?

This isn't Target vs. Walmart (and for the "factor x" folks, there would be no "need" for EITHER of those "big box" "sprawl" retailers). It's specific location of healthcare facilities, which comes under the land use regulations of localities.

HCA has now been denied by two differing majorities for the same reasons.

It's time for them to come through on their stated desire to take care of the supposed 50%.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 5, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The number of Americans who applied for unemployment benefits for the first time jumped to a 26-year high. Continuing claims set new record high."

Subscribe to Economy
feed://rss.cnn.com/rss/money_news_economy.rss
By Catherine Clifford, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: February 5, 2009: 9:06 AM ET
----------
I'm sorry, but I think it was myopic, small minded, and exceedingly irresponsible of this board to turn down not only an opportunity for us to FINALLY have an alternative heatlh option in the county, but to also arrogantly thumb its nose to desperately needed job opportunities. Not all of us can afford to sit on a "dias" and play power games at the expense of other people. I think the behavior of the supervisors who voted against allowing HCA to build a hospital in Broadlands was short sighted, selfish, and detrimental to a great many people. At the end of the day, it was, is, and always will be about making self serving decisions for this bunch. I'm disgusted with them.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 5, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you offer a great product or service at fair prices you shouldn't be afraid of competition. So it kinda makes you wonder why INOVA is so afraid of the competition.

Posted by gmab (anonymous) on February 5, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gmab, there is already competition in Loudoun healthcare.

BRMC would have placed a third hospital in the overlapping service areas of two existing hospitals, one Inova and one HCA.

If HCA has now been turned down by two different boards, two different majorities, for the same reasons, on their desire to saturate one area and one only, I'd like to know if predatory competition is really their model?

These not-new beds would be moved from two hospitals they bought in Arlington--perhaps telling residents there how much they wanted to come and take care of THEM--which they promptly closed and asked to move to an area with a very high per capita median income.

They heavily advertised here (before they went so aggressively negative and political) how they wanted to take care of the 50% of us that have to "leave the county" for healthcare--yet will only put a hospital in an already competitively-served area, and saturate it while the rest of the county continues to either leave the county, or make a long and inconvenient drive to the saturation zone.

They can compete just fine from rte 50.

They can pay taxes from rte 50.

And they can capture more of the 50% than they will by building a third hospital in the same place the "50%" are not currently using.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HCA Reston and Inova Fair Oaks coexist just fine. And if I had the time, I would dig out the data on numerous hospitals across the country in towns and counties in many states that co-exist and do very well. This is about blocking competition, the FTC is examining it, complaints have been filed (again) against Inova and its unethical business practices including their efforts to interfere with any competitor that comes their way. Shame on this board for caring more about their personal career interests rather than the best interests of this community. It is really discouraging to see such a blatant lack of leadership in the county.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From the Loudoun Easterner, February 5, 2009; article by Martin Casey, Louduon Easterer Editor: "Soon after that vote, it became known in the chamber that the Federal Trade Commission might become inerested in the issue. The FTC normally fights restraint of trade and enforces consumer protection laws." As I mentioned earlier, the FTC is examining Inova's monopoly in the state of Virginia, and anyone who is so inclined can research this information for themselves to verify. It's always good to check and verify the facts, especially when it comes to an apparently emotionally volatile subject such as putting a new hospital in the county...God forbid.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The determination was made by HCA's business department that, based on population statistics for Loudoun County, the highest concentration of people is, and will be, in Ashburn. Therefore, the most prudent and sound business decision was to locate a hospital there. Unfortunately for Inova, this would have created competition, something Inova doesn't want, period. And as evidenced by its recent behavior with regard to Broadlands Regional Medical Center, it's easy to see why they have caught the attention of the FTC again. Thank God someone is looking out for the best interests of the people -- because it's certainly not certain members of this board of supervisors.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yoco, I see the county line is and isn't important at the same time.

The service areas I'm talking about transcend county line, and they are HCA Reston and Inova Lansdowne.

Draw the county line, and Loudoun is "underserved". In the same place.

Who did the press release to the Easterner?

Again, how much money will be thrown at this?

"Caught the attention" of the FTC? Which individual Board member called them?

It makes sense to sic the FTC on this Board, since the FBI is still chasing the last one.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Which board member called them? You mean, how many citizens have contacted the FTC to register their concerns with regard to Inova's unethical behavior during this process? It's something to ponder. You know, I think HCA Reston would have lost more business to the new hospital than Inova -- because that's where a lot of people who prefer not to go to Inova Loudoun wind up going. I don't know whether the FBI is still investigating, and what the nature of that situation was -- allegedly something about backdoor financial politics affecting certain supervisor's votes -- but -- I'm not privvy to that information so I can only guess.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have resigned myself to driving my family into Fairfax County for healthcare services. But at least I've learned not to count on this board to lead. My expectations of them to make sound business decisions is about zero -- and I'm not speaking about the entire board, just those who threw away a chance for people to have some decent job prospects and the ability to get seen in a reasonable amount of time when they go to the ER. It's sad. When I think about the lengths HCA went to in order to address each concern put forth by the supervisors, only to have certain supervisors totally ignore that, I think HCA may have a case for damages. Talk about a lack of good faith -- I have never seen a group of "leaders" demonstrate such arrogance in addition to poor judgement as I have seen on this BOS. They should have just told HCA they were not going to change their position no matter how much sense their application made, nor how beneficial the hospital would be for the community. I think the supervisors who opposed the hospital should be required to come up with some great business alternatives to help the unemployed of our county get jobs. That way they might start to get a clue about the reality of our economy.

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think HCA may have a case for damages"
-----------------------------------------
So much for democracy; if you don't win a vote, just whine a lot and sue ...

Posted by OhTheHumanity (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mmm, yes, so much for democracy -- Loudoun County BOS says: no competition allowed, it's bad for business! Where do they teach that principle, Kmart University?

Posted by Yocomclan (anonymous) on February 6, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)