2/26/12-10:10 PM: No blog Monday. Family Visit and unfortunately no 'Oh Hellers" but enjoyable by their presence..
Our best wishes to Dan for a rapid recovery and a resumption of his community service blogs. We never realize the value of an asset until it is missing.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
THE MRMC PROPERTY #B
This is #2 in a series:
If you were to ask me if I believe that there will be in the near future a functioning health care center including an inpatient facility on the MRMC site my answer would be an emphatic NO.
Why? Politics for one thing. JFK was able to dump Muhlenberg and absorb its paying clientele because MRMC's Governors had given them the property control years ago. They had a legal lever to use with the Corzine and Democratic administration in Trenton to close the hospital. The public never had a chance.
Rahway's hospital which was at one time in worse shape and an inferior facility survived by working out an agreement with Robert Wood Johnson. If one reviews the enabling factors used as an excuse to close Muhlenberg and compare with Rahways physical location vis-a-vis other area hospitals it is obvious that every stated fact was more applicable to Rahway than Plainfield yet it was Plainfield that got the shaft.
Hospital executives talked about "their competition"; Muhlenberg and JFK were direct competitors and never should have been united in an agreement especially one that made JFK the senior institution. And it should have been obvious that JFK/Solaris wold never permit even a limited inpatient facility to fill the a MRMC site.
That is water long under the dam. There are many factors why we can not expect any reestablishment of a inpatient facility in the MRMC site:
The first is that our local powers have never aggressively pursued any viable options; certainly none of the public who had any expertize were ever involved. No attempt was made to look into non-profit possibilities and/or a commercial operation.
The second is that even if they had with the passage of time there would have been no core here to build on. The quality physician resources had switch alliance to other institutions, therefore a complete new medical staff would have to be assembled.
Plainfield's reputation as a gang-ridden dangerous community to which inhabitants from surrounding communities tend to avoid would -present a negative impression to a commercial group who would fear that the beds would not be occupied by paying (insurance covered) patients.
Without local specialists available a paid staff would be needed. High quality specialist in all parameters expect appropriate to their specialty compensation. This is a materialistic world This coupled with the above would in effect eliminate a non-profit even if such a group could raise the funding.
Economics is the main reason that we will not be able to attract the only possible replacement hospital
For those that say I am being a bigot; just compare our downtown business district which was once the greatest in Central Jersey, with that of Westfield.
.
Until we get a hold on the overall conditions in Plainfield and develop a society that as a whole will make an effort to upgrade living conditions here which include the educational system; this city is doomed to its inadequate health care facilities.
The sad fact is that from the many vicious anonymous comments we receive; we bloggers as a group have the impression that there is a substantial body of residents that are happy with the status quo. Such individuals not only would resist any change but castigate and even threaten those who would suggest such ideas much less work to accomplish a better city.
Irregardless, I can not conceive how the Planning Board or the Zoning Board in good conscience can approve of the requested zoning changes. To approve would forever kill any possibility of someone reviving a hospital. It would also solidify Solaris' theft of Plainfield's physical and fiscal assets repesented by the property and the trust funds.
If you were to ask me if I believe that there will be in the near future a functioning health care center including an inpatient facility on the MRMC site my answer would be an emphatic NO.
Why? Politics for one thing. JFK was able to dump Muhlenberg and absorb its paying clientele because MRMC's Governors had given them the property control years ago. They had a legal lever to use with the Corzine and Democratic administration in Trenton to close the hospital. The public never had a chance.
Rahway's hospital which was at one time in worse shape and an inferior facility survived by working out an agreement with Robert Wood Johnson. If one reviews the enabling factors used as an excuse to close Muhlenberg and compare with Rahways physical location vis-a-vis other area hospitals it is obvious that every stated fact was more applicable to Rahway than Plainfield yet it was Plainfield that got the shaft.
Hospital executives talked about "their competition"; Muhlenberg and JFK were direct competitors and never should have been united in an agreement especially one that made JFK the senior institution. And it should have been obvious that JFK/Solaris wold never permit even a limited inpatient facility to fill the a MRMC site.
That is water long under the dam. There are many factors why we can not expect any reestablishment of a inpatient facility in the MRMC site:
The first is that our local powers have never aggressively pursued any viable options; certainly none of the public who had any expertize were ever involved. No attempt was made to look into non-profit possibilities and/or a commercial operation.
The second is that even if they had with the passage of time there would have been no core here to build on. The quality physician resources had switch alliance to other institutions, therefore a complete new medical staff would have to be assembled.
Plainfield's reputation as a gang-ridden dangerous community to which inhabitants from surrounding communities tend to avoid would -present a negative impression to a commercial group who would fear that the beds would not be occupied by paying (insurance covered) patients.
Without local specialists available a paid staff would be needed. High quality specialist in all parameters expect appropriate to their specialty compensation. This is a materialistic world This coupled with the above would in effect eliminate a non-profit even if such a group could raise the funding.
Economics is the main reason that we will not be able to attract the only possible replacement hospital
For those that say I am being a bigot; just compare our downtown business district which was once the greatest in Central Jersey, with that of Westfield.
.
Until we get a hold on the overall conditions in Plainfield and develop a society that as a whole will make an effort to upgrade living conditions here which include the educational system; this city is doomed to its inadequate health care facilities.
The sad fact is that from the many vicious anonymous comments we receive; we bloggers as a group have the impression that there is a substantial body of residents that are happy with the status quo. Such individuals not only would resist any change but castigate and even threaten those who would suggest such ideas much less work to accomplish a better city.
Irregardless, I can not conceive how the Planning Board or the Zoning Board in good conscience can approve of the requested zoning changes. To approve would forever kill any possibility of someone reviving a hospital. It would also solidify Solaris' theft of Plainfield's physical and fiscal assets repesented by the property and the trust funds.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
THE MRMC PROPERTY #A
Although I was not present at Thursday’s CAG meeting I the City Hall Library it seems evident that the final nail is being driven in the JFK(Solaris) plan to consummate the pilfering of Plainfield’s health assets represented by the MRMC and he Muhlenberg Foundation’s monetary assets.
Disregarding the prospects of the so called residential/business development subdivision I on the property which had been foreseen from the onset; the promises made by JFK/Solaris is once again as good as their word to carry out all the conditions in the original Certificate to close the hospital.
Read carefully; to establish a new“ Satellite Emergency Room capable of handling all basic emergencies, but its most appropriate use is the treatment of non-life threatening conditions;
In essence this is no more than another “Medimerge” walk-in” open hours not stated facility with the ability to treat minor medical problems only.
JFK-(what happened to the Solaris entity?) uses as a consultant the Urban Health Institute of NJ (UHI) of Roseland NJ. One hires a consultant to back up a controversial position and UHI comes through with flying color; (sic) “The environment in the former MRMC service area cannot support development of a new hospital and it is not credible that either not-for-profit or for-profit parties would see an acceptable balance or return in a reasonable time. We conclude there is no viable future for a new hospital in Plainfield.” and “Pascack and MRMC cases are not comparable and that it is unlikely that a legitimate for-profit hospital company would invest in the service area, although the 17-acre HRMC site might be of interest as a real estate development option
The entire report is contained in JFK’s “Moving Muhlenberg---“ statement click HERE with a real estate developer consultant OTTEAU Valuation Group, Inc who visualizes the hospital property containing rental apartment units and the parking lot on the corner of Park and Randolph as a strip mall.
This was just a presentation to smooth the way for a presentation in the near future to the Planning Board for rezoning. Perhaps this would explain Assemblyman Green’s interest and presence at the meeting
We will never know if any honest attempt was made to interest either a for profit group or a possible non-profit organization to initiate even limited “hospital services” in the structure before it was left as a shell to deteriorate.
I seriously doubt that any political pressure was ever be forced upon JFK to even maintain a trauma capable ER at the site, much less to establish an in patient facility.
More on this subject tomorrow.
Addendum: Once again I must apologize for the font change which I don't seem able to correct or change.
Another thought: Consultants in the business world are most often used not to give an honest independent opinion but to reinforce what has been already decided.
Friday, February 24, 2012
ONE BRIGHT SPOT
Wednesday night I listen to what I hope will be the last Republican debate. I have come to a conclusion that if I were to vote for a Republican; Paul is out of touch in foreign policy and to much impressed with himself while Gingrich, and Santorium for various reasons are too dangerous in regards to personal civil rights to be President. That leaves Romney for whom the Reactive Far Right Republicans have no use. Understanding that he is no different than 99.9% of politicians is needed to even accept him.
We will watch with interest Super Tuesday's delegate selections. There is still a possibility that the GOP will have a "Brokered Convention" and their Nominee will be none of the above four. At this point though I am still looking for a Romney;Christie ticket to oppose and run far behind Obama.
Despite all the depressing events locally, nationally and in the world; there are some bright spots that can give pleasure.
One in this photo taken at sunrise by my son from his hotel room overlooking the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. As with all blog photos, clicking on it will enlarge the picture.
Some may not consider this a "Bright Spot" but having looked up the actuarial tables as of today my life expectancy is 10.2 years. Thus if I make 2022 I will then have a life expectancy of 5.5 years or midway through 2027. At that point the odds are for another 3.9 years or 2031. at which point I am good for 2.9 years and after that about a biannual increase.
Don't worry, somewhere along this long trail I shall most likely loose interest in writing a blog. The computers of that decade will be too small for my klutzy fingers.
Since the insurance companies for health and/or life are like casinos in business to make money, they want the odds to be on their side. The premiums are largely based on these tables and no life insurance companuy has gone broke from policy losses.
We will watch with interest Super Tuesday's delegate selections. There is still a possibility that the GOP will have a "Brokered Convention" and their Nominee will be none of the above four. At this point though I am still looking for a Romney;Christie ticket to oppose and run far behind Obama.
Despite all the depressing events locally, nationally and in the world; there are some bright spots that can give pleasure.
One in this photo taken at sunrise by my son from his hotel room overlooking the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. As with all blog photos, clicking on it will enlarge the picture.
Some may not consider this a "Bright Spot" but having looked up the actuarial tables as of today my life expectancy is 10.2 years. Thus if I make 2022 I will then have a life expectancy of 5.5 years or midway through 2027. At that point the odds are for another 3.9 years or 2031. at which point I am good for 2.9 years and after that about a biannual increase. Don't worry, somewhere along this long trail I shall most likely loose interest in writing a blog. The computers of that decade will be too small for my klutzy fingers.
Since the insurance companies for health and/or life are like casinos in business to make money, they want the odds to be on their side. The premiums are largely based on these tables and no life insurance companuy has gone broke from policy losses.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
MORE PMUA ISSUES #2
This is the second of two postings this AM about the PMUA'
One problem that will be troubling if and when the PMUA is abolished or defaults on its obligations is the status of the PMUA's Bond issues.
I believe that the Ordinance and or Inter-local agreement creating the PMUA has the City as guarantor of any PMUA Bond issue. That in itself is of wonder; how could the Council of that time given the PMUA a blank check?
Obviously the City will have to assume the debt. However, if the PMUA ceases to exist will the bonds be due immediately or remain open until due date or being called? How will the new debt be factored into the city's budget if there is a cap on increase tax impact? Two more serious questions that need answers before an radical action is taken'
Also can a change for a stricter Council oversight of the PMUA , its Commissioners, and its finances be enacted?
One problem that will be troubling if and when the PMUA is abolished or defaults on its obligations is the status of the PMUA's Bond issues.
I believe that the Ordinance and or Inter-local agreement creating the PMUA has the City as guarantor of any PMUA Bond issue. That in itself is of wonder; how could the Council of that time given the PMUA a blank check?
Obviously the City will have to assume the debt. However, if the PMUA ceases to exist will the bonds be due immediately or remain open until due date or being called? How will the new debt be factored into the city's budget if there is a cap on increase tax impact? Two more serious questions that need answers before an radical action is taken'
Also can a change for a stricter Council oversight of the PMUA , its Commissioners, and its finances be enacted?
MORE PMUA ISSUES #1
This part of a comment by Bill Kruse enacted a response from Councilor Rebecca Williams : "Our City Council is so intimidated by the PMUA, and whomever is behind them, that the Council was afraid to put the matter of the 1,000,000 settlement in the agenda at the joint meeting of Council and PMUA Commissioners. The "settlement' issue overshadowing all other matters. "
Councilor Williams response follows: Hi, Doc,
I would like to respond to Mr. Kruse regarding the joint meeting that took place last month between the council and the PMUA commissioners. I actually did bring up the question of the settlement, which Mr. Sanders questioned, since he said he did not see the topic on the agenda--I maintained that anything having to do with ratepayers came in under the agenda, i.e., the proposed settlement. Mr. Toliver and Mr. Sanders inadequately answered my questions--it was clear to me that they had barely a clue about what they were saying--their respective comments were contradictory and quite evasive. I was not on the council when Mr. Toliver was appointed, and I voted against Mr. Sanders and Mr. Dunn--neither candidate impressed me as wanting to reform the PMUA. Now, in apparently going outside the arbitration process (certainly unethically and possibly illegally), my first impressions have been confirmed. I will be blogging about this topic before the end of the week, my schedule permitting. In the meantime, I encourage residents (in addition to signing the petition) to call the office of the governor, and to write a letter as well--that is what I think needs to be done, at this point. As much as I can do from my seat as a councilor (including asking the governor's office to review and intervene with my own correspondence), I am committed to doing.
Rebecca
The Councilor is 100% correct in that she brought up the subject of the settlement which most of us agree was egregious. I hope she will keep us informed through her own blog as to the status of her request to the Governor's office.
From reading the minutes of the PMUA executive session, one can come to a conclusion that Commissioner Dunn's question about D &O Insurance protection indicated that he was considering an action that could be if not illegal the source of a suit.
The question is entitlement since the two beneficiaries were not terminated by the Commissioners so "cause" can not be a question. Instead they voluntarily submitted their resignation which would negate any termination for cause agreement. If the Commissioners retroactively agreed to terminate them, or if the Commissioners who voted out of the goodness of their heart to allocate the funds disregarding circumstances; then there is grounds for suit.
If under either circumstances there is a question of even if they are eligible for a D&O defense which may be questionable, who will pay he costs. Can any cost to the PMUA and therefore the City be recouped from the individuals if it is found that they violated their fiduciary responsibility?
Any opinion from legal authorities or Philadelphia lawyers will be welcomed.
Councilor Williams response follows: Hi, Doc,
I would like to respond to Mr. Kruse regarding the joint meeting that took place last month between the council and the PMUA commissioners. I actually did bring up the question of the settlement, which Mr. Sanders questioned, since he said he did not see the topic on the agenda--I maintained that anything having to do with ratepayers came in under the agenda, i.e., the proposed settlement. Mr. Toliver and Mr. Sanders inadequately answered my questions--it was clear to me that they had barely a clue about what they were saying--their respective comments were contradictory and quite evasive. I was not on the council when Mr. Toliver was appointed, and I voted against Mr. Sanders and Mr. Dunn--neither candidate impressed me as wanting to reform the PMUA. Now, in apparently going outside the arbitration process (certainly unethically and possibly illegally), my first impressions have been confirmed. I will be blogging about this topic before the end of the week, my schedule permitting. In the meantime, I encourage residents (in addition to signing the petition) to call the office of the governor, and to write a letter as well--that is what I think needs to be done, at this point. As much as I can do from my seat as a councilor (including asking the governor's office to review and intervene with my own correspondence), I am committed to doing.
Rebecca
The Councilor is 100% correct in that she brought up the subject of the settlement which most of us agree was egregious. I hope she will keep us informed through her own blog as to the status of her request to the Governor's office.
From reading the minutes of the PMUA executive session, one can come to a conclusion that Commissioner Dunn's question about D &O Insurance protection indicated that he was considering an action that could be if not illegal the source of a suit.
The question is entitlement since the two beneficiaries were not terminated by the Commissioners so "cause" can not be a question. Instead they voluntarily submitted their resignation which would negate any termination for cause agreement. If the Commissioners retroactively agreed to terminate them, or if the Commissioners who voted out of the goodness of their heart to allocate the funds disregarding circumstances; then there is grounds for suit.
If under either circumstances there is a question of even if they are eligible for a D&O defense which may be questionable, who will pay he costs. Can any cost to the PMUA and therefore the City be recouped from the individuals if it is found that they violated their fiduciary responsibility?
Any opinion from legal authorities or Philadelphia lawyers will be welcomed.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
VEENTING
Bernice waxes philosophically in her blog today. I can reflect that on April 12 2008 almost 4 years ago I posted my first blog. It was fun because I am a frustrated columnist, and has been for almost forty years a frequent contributor to the Courier Opinion page. That is when the paper had a meaning to Plainfield.
With few exceptions I have posted at least one "blog" daily. But fresh subjects have become a rarity and it is most frustrating beating a tired old horse. That is the main reason there is often a delay in posting.
Aside to "Nasty"; Most of my sports viewing is limited to college basketball and football when my alma mater (BA40,MD43) is involved as well as some of March Madness. I also watch the Mets at times since I saw the original team play at the Polo Grounds. I was also a boyhood Brooklyn Dodger fan which of course even then made me anti-Yankees.
Over the past two decades there have been two Plainfield scholar-athletes who have attended my University with honor. T hat there have not been more represents a failure of our School System and its BOE. You all should be joining Maria in her crusade to improve our youth.
Having gotten this off my chest, I shall try to be constructive tomorrow, an important day.
With few exceptions I have posted at least one "blog" daily. But fresh subjects have become a rarity and it is most frustrating beating a tired old horse. That is the main reason there is often a delay in posting.
Aside to "Nasty"; Most of my sports viewing is limited to college basketball and football when my alma mater (BA40,MD43) is involved as well as some of March Madness. I also watch the Mets at times since I saw the original team play at the Polo Grounds. I was also a boyhood Brooklyn Dodger fan which of course even then made me anti-Yankees.
Over the past two decades there have been two Plainfield scholar-athletes who have attended my University with honor. T hat there have not been more represents a failure of our School System and its BOE. You all should be joining Maria in her crusade to improve our youth.
Having gotten this off my chest, I shall try to be constructive tomorrow, an important day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
