Our Beloved Chronicle Does It Again

Our Beloved Chronicle Does It Again!!!

Dear Nieces and Nephews, make sure you take a look at the article on Valley View in this week’s Chronicle, your Auntie has provided a link below for your convenience.

http://chroniclenewspaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140417/NEWS01/140419953/Did-Neuhaus-campaign-on-Valley-View-transfer?

 

Spot on! Chronicle! When you lay out the progression of the CE’s comments as you have done, one will see the wiggly path to selling Valley View. (Yes, I said selling, explanation to follow*) And then, one will also notice that it is the legislature’s fault, then the CSEA’s fault and then the robot’s-in-his-head fault (surely that is true since this whole story of of the CE’s is just bad science fiction). This is also reminiscent of the little boy who responds “He did it” when his parents ask "who ate the apple pie?"

Despite his protestations of transparency, it seems that the ONLY mention of an LDC as an option was in the document “Steve's Platform” on his website. How many people do you think saw it? 

Let’s take a look at what STEVE SAID:

April 4, 2014: “We can keep Valley View open,” The Chronicle: “An LDC is not a path to closure. Transferring management to a Local Development Corporation could keep it publicly run, like in Lewis County, or privately administrated. Either way, however, a Local Development Corporation is a means to keep a nursing home open and caring for patients, as it has in the case of Ulster County.”
April 12, 2014: “Legislature was responsible on Valley View,” The Chronicle: “I stated during my campaign that I would seek to transfer Valley View to a local development corporation because I believe it is a way we can keep Valley View open and provide care to seniors for years to come.

REMEMBER: His own attorney stated that this was unlikely and that an LDC is formed to keep the facility in county hands: "It is possible”, Griffin said, “that the LDC will decide that it is more advantageous not to sell this facility, although this is the exception rather than the rule.”

From the Chronicle again:

Much confusion stems from Neuhaus' oft-repeated promise, which he continues to make, that the nursing home will stay open. When he made the promise during his campaign, people assumed the nursing home would stay under county control. Otherwise, how could the county guarantee that another owner will keep it open, not to mention as well-run and affordable as it is now?

All this remains to be seen.

*Now, back to why I said selling.

In the notice of Public Hearing announcing the “let’s-go-through-the-motions-but-disregard-anything- said”  meeting it states: “The transfer of the Facility will be by 99 year lease with exclusive option to take fee title to the Facility at any time, reserving to the County the right to continue to operate the Facility under the County License until such time as the newly formed local development corporation terminates such right.”

“Take the facility at any time…”   until the ldc “terminates such right”  Yup! That means “county-owned” to me!!!

Just exactly WHO is running this county?