Part I. Site Selection - Downtown Hospital DEIS

Comments on the Downtown Hospital Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS).  The Applicant is Mohawk Valley Health System. The Project is the proposed Hospital.

Part I. The Site Selection Process:

This issue is addressed in the Draft EIS in Section 2 and Appendix D.

A. The Study vs. a Summary:

The Applicant was requested numerous times to disclose the Site Selection Study it relied upon in choosing the Downtown site. Instead, the Draft EIS supplies only a “Summary Memorandum” of the site selection process (and only in draft form). This appears at Appendix D to the Draft EIS.

The Applicant needs to submit the actual study its Board relied upon rather than a summary, so the Public and relevant authorities do not have to speculate on what was left out.

B. The Need for a New Site:

When Applicant announced in September, 2015, that it had chosen to build the Project at the Downtown site, it also stated that “In the event the downtown site proves not to be financially viable, we will move on to our second site option at the St. Luke’s Campus, which the board feels will also serve the community well.” This is an admission that the Project is feasible at the St. Luke’s Campus in New Hartford.

Since an applicant under SEQRA cannot be made to consider sites it does not own (see 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v) ('g')), the Draft EIS needs to explain why the Applicant felt compelled to do so.

C. The Lack of Public Engagement:

Applicant’s Project depends upon a grant provided under Public Health Law (PBH) Section 2825-b. The grant application will be judged on “the extent to which the applicant has engaged the community affected by the proposed capital project and the manner in which community engagement has shaped such capital project.” (PBH 2825-b (4)(f)). The Applicant never at any time engaged the Public on the proposed location of the Project. In fact, there is evidence that local officials deliberately kept the discussion of facility location away from the Public (See word-searchable e-mail ‘dump' or images, 9/1/15 e-mail, Anthony Brindisi to Steven DiMeo and Anthony Picente: “I don't want public opinion derailing this.”) Had the Applicant engaged the Public at the site selection stage, Applicant would have been able to develop appropriate siting criteria to address the Public Interest (e.g., convenience of the Public to access current medical providers and the new facility, loss of businesses and taxable properties, disruption to traffic patterns, need to construct new municipal facilities and public infrastructure, changes to community character, facility location relative to transportation of hazardous substances, etc.).

Given PBH 2825-b(4)(f), if the Applicant continues to pursue a site other than St. Luke’s Campus, it needs to reopen the site selection process for Public Input and to develop appropriate criteria for choosing a site that protects the Public Interest.

D. Inconsistent Screening of Sites:

The Summary Memorandum states that a Geographic Information System analysis was initially used to “identify parcels 50 acres and larger that could potentially host a new combined facility”. Of the 12 sites subsequently considered for “fatal flaws,” an exception to the above rule appears to have been made for the Downtown Site because it is neither a “parcel” (actually being about 90 parcels as shown on County ownership maps) nor is it 50 acres (actually being from 17 to 34 acres depending upon how the site is defined). Since the other 11 sites (e.g., 5 of them are golf courses) more closely match the 50-acre-parcel rule, the Downtown site is dissimilar to the others.

The Applicant needs to explain why an exception was made to its 50-acre-parcel site-screening rule to put the Downtown Site on the list of sites to be considered, otherwise its placement on the list appears arbitrary.

E. Fatal Flaw Analysis – Land Use History:

According to the Summary Memorandum, the 12 sites were screened for “fatal flaws” – “factors that could impact the development potential of the site.” The Downtown Site is currently occupied by some 40 entities including Private Businesses, Not-For-Profits, and a Municipal Police Garage. It is also occupied by streets that would have to close to accommodate the Project. The Site has been in use for nearly 200 years. The length and level of use of the Downtown Site (detailed in Appendix E of the Draft EIS), which could be expected to complicate any redevelopment, make it markedly dissimilar to the other sites which are mostly outside the urban core.

The Applicant needs to explain why the current and past history of uses were not considered a “fatal flaw” that would warrant rejection of the Downtown Site, otherwise its “fatal flaw” analysis appears arbitrary.

F. Fatal Flaw Analysis – Existing Plans and Rules

The current occupants and uses of the Downtown Site reflect almost 200 years of official City of Utica decision-making (ranging from zoning and street layout to lot sizes). Applicant’s proposal to replace the Columbia-Lafayette neighborhood with a campus of medical buildings, parking facilities, and discontinued streets is inconsistent with these prior decisions. The Gateway Historic Canal District (which covers the Downtown Site) has a plan and design requirements that were adopted in 2005. The Utica Master Plan of 2011 and its 2016 Update, were officially adopted to guide future development within the City. None of these call for a transformative change to the Columbia-Lafayette Neighborhood. Neither the Applicant, nor its consultants, nor the elected/non-elected persons/officials who want the hospital Downtown (see K., infra) have the legal authority on their own to change Utica’s official plans, ordinances, etc.

The Applicant needs to explain why the existing laws and plans etc. were not seen as a “fatal flaw” that would require rejection of the Downtown Site, otherwise its “fatal flaw” analysis appears arbitrary.

G. Fatal Flaw Analysis – Objectives of PBH 2825-b:

The Applicant currently operates two hospitals (St. Elizabeth’s and St. Luke’s) and a number of other facilities in the Utica area. The largest facility is St. Luke’s Hospital in New Hartford with 370 inpatient beds (inclusive of 24 physical medicine and rehabilitation beds co-located in a separate building on the St. Luke’s Campus with a 202 bed nursing home). Applicant proposes to use the grant provided under PBH 2825-b to consolidate and reduce beds from its 201-bed St. Elizabeth’s Campus (SEMC) with those from St. Luke’s into a new facility that would have 373 beds (excluding the 24 physical medicine and rehabilitation beds, which would remain in their current location at St. Luke’s) (see Draft EIS p173/3527). In spite of the consolidation of hospital beds from two facilities, the Applicant proposes to maintain some functions at both the St. Elizabeth’s and St. Luke’s Campuses.

The St. Luke’s Campus qualifies for funding under PBH 2825-b because, being on Utica’s western boundary, it is located in Oneida County’s “largest population center,” the wording of the law deliberately not restricting funds to the City of Utica. As noted under B., above, Applicant acknowledged that the Project is feasible and would be built on the St. Luke’s Campus if it could not be done Downtown. If the new facility were to be constructed at the St. Luke’s Campus instead of Downtown, it would represent an increase of only 27 hospital beds (about 7%) on that site. In this regard it is also noted that the St. Luke’s Home on-site has already reduced its long term care beds by 40 (Draft EIS p653/3527). While long term care beds may not be the same as hospital beds, it suggests that even with the addition of beds transferred from SEMC, the overall use of the St. Luke’s Campus with a combined hospital facility would be less intense than it had been in the past.

The Project is supposed to be judged upon the extent to which it “will contribute to the integration of health care services and long term sustainability of the applicant...” (PBH 2825-b (4)(a)). Focusing on (4)(a)’s “sustainability” clause, creating an additional campus Downtown for the Applicant to build and maintain intuitively seems to contradict this goal. Intuition, however, appears substantiated by Applicant’s own numbers which reveal that, in spite of a projected reduction of 184 employees, there will be an almost 33% INCREASE in the number of employees PER BED from about 4.75 before consolidation to at least 6.3 after consolidation. (See the number of beds cited above and Applicant’s pre and post consolidation employee estimates at Draft EIS pp589-90/3527).

Focusing on the “integration of health care services” clause of PBH2825-b(4)(a),

placing an additional 2 miles between a new hospital Downtown and Applicant’s 24 bed rehabilitation and 202 bed skilled nursing facilities remaining at St. Luke’s seems contrary to both the "integration” required by (4)(a) and PBH 2825-b’s general purpose to “consolidate multiple licensed health care facilities...”

The Project is also to be judged on “the extent that the proposed capital project furthers the

development of primary care and other outpatient services...” PBH 2825-b (4)(d). The presence of St. Luke’s Hospital has spawned a de facto medical district of providers in the Utica Business Park and along Burrstone and French Roads (e.g. Slocum-Dixon Medical Group, Omni Surgical Center, Mohawk Valley Endoscopy Center). Removal of the anchor institution, St. Luke’s Hospital, to Downtown Utica will result in less convenience for the medical providers and their patients, reduce opportunities for collaboration, and appears contrary to the intent of PBH 2825-b (4)(d).

Since it acknowledges the feasibility of putting the Project on the St. Luke’s Campus and its plan to retain at least some services both there and at SEMC, the Applicant needs to explain why the purpose and provisions of PBH 2825-b were not seen as a “fatal flaw” to the Downtown Site (and to any site other than St. Luke’s Campus), otherwise its “fatal flaw” analysis appears to be arbitrary.

H. Arbitrary/Subjective Criteria and Ranking Scheme:

After most of the sites were eliminated due to “fatal flaws” the Summary Memorandum indicates that the remaining three (St. Luke’s, Downtown, and the Psych Center) were scored based on points assigned for certain criteria. As noted under C, above, the Applicant made no effort to determine criteria to protect the Public Interest. The criteria that were chosen appear arbitrary/subjective. For example, proximity to the Thruway and Oriskany Blvd. is deemed important, but proximity to the Parkway/Pleasant/Burrstone corridor that would collect traffic from Corn Hill, South East Utica, and northeastern Town of New Hartford; and French Rd./Champlin Ave. that would collect traffic from South Utica and New Hartford Village, is not. Distance to employees (using zipcode “centroids” rather than actual distances) is deemed important, but distance to actual patients is not, and distance to medical providers is not.

The scoring appears equally arbitrary/subjective. Two points are assigned to Downtown for having a “Potential microgrid opportunity,” while St. Luke’s received no points for actually having a microgrid (the Co-Gen Facility). Why were 4 points not deducted from Downtown for the 2500 foot gas line referenced on Draft EIS p. 94/3527? Why was a point not added to St. Luke’s for not encroaching on a potential federal wetland when the Draft EIS’ “Capacity Analysis” (p. 1596/3527) demonstrates project elements could be arranged on-site so as not to encroach on the wetland? As previously indicated, the criteria have not been related to the purpose, objectives and goals of PBH 2825-b . In so far as the environmental criteria are concerned, they appear selective, subjectively scored and inadequately explained and have not been related to the legal requirements of SEQRA (as detailed under Part III, infra) to avoid/minimize environmental impacts or of other provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law. Applicant’s choice of St. Luke’s rather than the 2^nd-ranked Psych Center as its “second option” suggests that even Applicant believes that the scoring process was arbitrary and subjective.

In light of the above, the criteria and scoring provisions of the site selection process appear to have been arbitrarily chosen and calculated to achieve a predetermined result, making them unreliable for decision-making.

I. Capacity Analysis: A “conceptual capacity analysis” was performed on the top three sites to, essentially, position the elements of the Project on those sites. Interestingly, the analysts chose to distinguish an “urban site” (with a 10 acre requirement) from a “suburban site” (with a 45 acre requirement) without explaining why an urban configuration of elements could not be employed on a suburban site to conserve space, avoid environmental impacts, and allow for future growth. Although an answer to the question “What is the cost premium of the recommended site?” is promised, it appears no where. (Draft EIS p. 39/3527, and Appendix D). Again, the selection of data and conclusions presented appear to be arbitrary and unreliable for decision-making.

J. The Site Selection Process’ failure to incorporate 6 NYCRR 617.7(c)(1) criteria makes the Draft EIS incomplete and insufficient to support SEQR findings.

All levels of government that will fund and/or approve aspects of the Project are obliged to make a SEQR finding that the project will avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable (etc.). All draft environmental impact statements must contain “a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. . . The range of alternatives may also include, as appropriate, alternative: (a) sites . . .” (6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v)(a)).

While an applicant cannot be made to consider sites it does not own or have under option as an alternative (see 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(v) (‘g’)) (i.e., the Applicant here could not have been made to consider Downtown as an alternative), where an applicant, as the Applicant here, admits that it owns a site that meets all its objectives and capabilities, a government agency could not honestly make its SEQR finding if it appeared that the owned-site might better avoid/mitigate adverse environmental impacts.

The State has promulgated a non-exhaustive list of such adverse environmental impacts in 6 NYCRR Part 617.7 (c)(1). The Site Selection Process failed to incorporate these criteria into the analysis of site alternatives to permit the determination of which sites best minimized or avoided adverse environmental impacts (see Part III infra)

Failure to include this analysis is fatal to going forward on the Downtown choice because at this point the record is incomplete for the purposes of supporting a SEQR finding. The EIS needs to supply this information and be able to support a conclusion that the Downtown Site better minimizes/avoids environmental impacts.

K. Undue Influence:

Various e-mails (see e-mail ‘dump’ or images) exchanged in January and February 2015 (about the time that the PBH 2825-b funding was announced) among County Executive Anthony Picente; former State Senator, County Executive and current counsel to MVHS Raymond Meier; Lawrence Gilroy, Co-chairman of the Mohawk Valley Regional Economic Development Council (MVREDC); Mohawk Valley EDGE (MVEDGE) President Steven DiMeo and Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi; reveal that this group of individuals, who are effectively the local “gate-keepers” controlling Applicant’s access to the State’s Grant apparatus, wanted the Project to be located Downtown for urban renewal purposes and that they would try to steer the process to that end.

Relevant to this is the 2/3/2015 e-mail from Mr. DiMeo to Mr. Brindisi wherein Mr. DiMeo stated:

" … My whole thought process in bringing Elan on board is to make sure that we guide siting decision in favor of downtown..." [emphasis supplied].

MVEDGE hired Elan to do the site selection study, and the Summary Memorandum was provided by MVEDGE, Elan, and O’Brien & Gere (OBG, also author of the Draft EIS).

Also relevant is the 11/5/2015 e-mail from Mr. Brindisi to Mr. DiMeo, wherein Mr. Brindisi stated:

“… I feel like walking away from this whole thing and telling the community and hospital if you don't want this thing downtown then good luck at St Luke's and don't come see me for one ounce of state support ...”

Against the backdrop of a Summary Memorandum that shows an inconsistent and somewhat arbitrary process, the still-secret status of the siting study, and Applicant’s voluntary designation of St. Luke’s Campus as its ‘second option,’ the e-mails suggest that the site selection process may have been tainted by undue influence and that the conclusions and recommendations of the site selection process, to the extent reported in the Draft EIS, reflect this influence and must be discounted accordingly.

L. Conclusions regarding Site Selection:

The Applicant is unable to proceed on the Downtown Site in light of its ownership of a satisfactory site at St. Luke’s Campus, and the lack of data in the EIS to support a conclusion that the Downtown Site better avoids/minimizes adverse impacts than the St. Luke’s Campus – which is unlikely given the analysis in Part III below.

Applicant’s choice of its St. Luke’s Campus as a “second option” is supportable on the existing record because it already owns the site and cannot be made to consider sites it neither owns nor has options upon. If the Applicant wants to proceed with the Project on the St. Luke’s Campus, it would accordingly have to revise its designs and the EIS.

(continued)

The Downtown Hospital DEIS: Not Protecting the Environment (and not improving health care)

Days before Thanksgiving, the Utica Planning Board released for Public comment the 3500
page Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on Mohawk Valley Health System’s
(MVHS, the Applicant) proposed Downtown Utica Hospital (the Project). Here are highlights of
my filed comments. [My full set of comments will be published here, in parts, over the next few days.]

I. The Site-Selection Process:

When MVHS announced in September 2015 that it had chosen Downtown as the site of its
Project, it took the unusual step of also announcing that its own St. Luke’s Campus would be
a back-up “which the board feels will also serve the community well.” With that, why was there
even a need to look elsewhere? FOIL-ed e-mails have since made clear that local officials
used their positions and influence to steer the Project to Downtown for urban renewal – not
health care -- purposes. The “Site Selection Process” (we still do not have the actual study)
described in the DEIS, employing arbitrary criteria and subjective scoring, was designed to
lead the hospital board and the public into believing that Downtown was somehow a
legitimate choice.

But it is not a legitimate choice.

Public Health Law 2825-b (the Grant) requires that the Public be deeply involved in shaping
the Project – but the Public was cut out of the Site Selection Process. The Grant is to be
used to “contribute to the integration of health care services and long term sustainability of the
applicant” – but putting the Project Downtown DISINTEGRATES services by separating
MVHS’ hospital from its rehab facility and nursing home, which will remain at St. Luke’s. This
would give MVHS an additional campus to manage. When one applies a little math to the
DEIS’ numbers showing reductions in hospital beds and employment, the number of
employees per hospital bed actually INCREASES from 4.75 to about 6.3. Does that sound
“sustainable?” The Grant is also to be used to further “the development of primary care and
other outpatient services,” but removing the anchor institution from the de facto medical
district of providers and services which have grown up in the Utica Business Park and along
Burrstone and French Roads nearby (e.g., Slocum Dixon Medical Group, Omni Surgical
Center, Mohawk Valley Endoscopy Center) would seem to have the opposite effect.

Simply put, putting the Project Downtown (instead of at St. Luke’s) UNDERMINES the intent of the Grant.

 II. Relevant Environmental Concerns:

The DEIS acknowledges that the Project Downtown will result in multiple significant environmental impacts and proposes mitigation for them.  Unfortunately, the DEIS (1) downplays or entirely leaves out impacts and (2) fails to consider that most adverse environmental impacts can be minimized or avoided by simply relocating the Project to the St. Luke’s Campus, where the completed facility would result in ONLY 27 BEDS of net increase on that site.

The DEIS uses significantly different numbers for the Project’s water usage vs its waste water production, failing to demonstrate whether all wastewater will be treated or whether it will pass through one of Utica’s Combined Sewer Overflows untreated into the Canal or River.  It fails to distinguish the Project’s potential to create flooding from the nearby 7/1/17 flood that took place on the newly reopened (and presumably properly designed) N-S Arterial. It fails to acknowledge that the Project is inconsistent with the Utica Master Plan, Gateway Historic Canal District requirements, and Utica’s street ordinances.  While it acknowledges many architectural and historic structures/places will be destroyed/disturbed/altered, it proposes little in mitigation other than perhaps make records of what is found and keep a few artifacts before demolition takes place. The DEIS acknowledges that the Project will generate traffic, close streets, and reduce the capacity of certain intersections to move traffic – and inundates the reader with mountains of calculated minutiae – but both descriptions and traffic modeling fail to acknowledge that the disruption of the Street Grid (with parallel streets that can be used to go around the blockages typically found in any busy city) could turn what now would be a minor inconvenience (e.g., from delivery trucks, broken water mains, sporting and cultural events, etc.) into gridlock. The DEIS blathers on about which organizations are responsible for what response in the event that a train hauling Bakken Crude were to derail 900 ft. from the Project, but fails to answer the basic question: Is evacuation of what will be Utica’s only hospital even possible in that situation?

III.  Comparison of St. Luke’s Campus with Downtown using environmental regulatory criteria.

While the DEIS made much ado about its made-up criteria for Site Selection, it completely disregarded the environmental criteria indicating significant adverse environmental impacts found in New York State regulations (specifically 6 NYCRR Part 617.7(c)(1)).  These criteria could have and should have been used to compare St. Luke’s with Downtown to see which site would best minimize or avoid the environmental impacts of the Project – but were not. Taking only a few hours, I came up with Downtown having nineteen (19) adverse environmental impacts vs only one (1) for St. Luke’s.  Different people might apply the regulations to the sites and come up with numbers different from mine. However, most people using a little common sense would conclude that trying to shoehorn a hospital with acres of parking into the middle of a Central Business District that was built for another era, another style of development, and a different purpose, would be more disruptive to the environment than locating the hospital on a site that had enough room and had been specifically designed for that type of use. The environmental criteria alone should have disqualified the Downtown site. It is no surprise that the choice of site is still a controversial topic even after three years.

IV. The State Environmental Quality Review Process

As described in the SEQR Handbook (p.3) :

“SEQR establishes a process to systematically consider environmental factors early in the planning stages of actions that are directly undertaken, funded or approved by local, regional and state agencies. By incorporating environmental review early in the planning stages, projects can be modified as needed to avoid adverse impacts on the environment.”

The availability of State funds for the Project was announced in early 2015, the site for the
Project was announced in September, 2015, and we just got around to SEQR in 2018 when the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency made a Positive Declaration. Does that sound like “incorporating environmental review early in the planning stages” so that “projects can be modified as needed to avoid adverse impacts on the environment?”

The regulations make clear that a government agency cannot undertake, fund or approve of an action until it has complied with the provisions of SEQR (see 6 NYCRR 617.3 (a)). But that is, in deed, what happened at least as far back as Summer 2016 when Oneida County and the City of Utica put their planners to the task of engaging in regular meetings with MVHS to help plan for a Downtown Hospital. Government employee time is money, and providing planners to plan a Downtown Hospital was funding it – all done before the SEQR process was opened.

If the applicability of SEQR and need for an EIS was not apparent to the local authorities at that point in time, then it should have been apparent when the County Legislature approved funding for MVEDGE to provide property appraisal services to MVHS in pursuit of the Downtown Site. The County should have stopped further action and opened the SEQR process then, but it did not. Nothing was done about SEQR until there was an “application” that triggered a review – but, as noted above, the law wants the environment taken into consideration “early in the planning stages” so that “projects can be modified as needed to avoid adverse impacts on the environment.”

Simply put, Utica and Oneida County materially aided this Project for over two years before they got around to considering the Environment.

Under SEQR, before giving approvals, the agencies reviewing this Project must be able to find that the Project avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable.

At this point in time the Planning Board is faced with (1) an EIS that cannot support a SEQR finding because St. Luke’s appears to be the environmentally superior site and (2) having to give up its Lead Agency jurisdiction because it has no legal authority over the St. Luke’s Campus in New Hartford.

The EIS must be rejected as inadequate, and the process reopened for a new Lead Agency to produce a revised Draft EIS that addresses all the issues.

[This article also appears in the January 2019 Utica Phoenix. Pick up a copy from a news rack near you.] 

Our Abominable Environmental Record . . .

Another year, another Observer-Dispatch article about climate change: Climate report warns of increased flooding in region.

The article's focus on "climate change" is an unfortunate distraction from the Mohawk Valley's real environmental issue: urban sprawl.

Simply put, governmental policies have encouraged our shrinking population to occupy ever more acreage in an unsustainable fashion.  This not only has resulted in increased taxes and water/sewer user fees to extend and maintain services into less densely-populated areas, but has resulted in environmental consequences -- flooding being one of them.

As the urbanized population spreads out, there are more roads, parking lots, roofs etc. covering more land, preventing the infiltration of rainwater (i.e. wasting the natural capacity of the covered areas to hold water), and increasing the amount of runoff which will to go somewhere lower quickly. If what is on the receiving end of the runoff cannot absorb or carry it away, flooding is the result. This is not due to a changing climate, but to poor design that fails to account for the lack of capacity of what is on the receiving end.

Case in point: the 7/1/17 flood event on the newly-reopened North-South Arterial south of Court St. The neighborhood has a naturally high water table anyway so flooding has been common for years on Lincoln Ave. But the Arterial never flooded until its remake added acres of concrete that would quickly shed water in a storm, and a concrete median would act like a dam. In news accounts state officials claimed that their drains were working properly -- but what good is a drain if it leads to something that is filled to capacity? There was simply no place for the water to go. Sounds like no one bothered to check to ensure sufficient capacity in what would get all the new runoff. Maybe the old bed of the Chenango Canal was not the place for an expanded Arterial. That's design error, or placement error -- not climate change!  Did the O-D ever follow up on this?  Of course not.  That might put someone on the spot.

In so far as the article's discussion of the Water Pollution Control Plant goes, the WPCP expansion became necessary not due to climate change but County violation of the Clean Water Act. Oneida County failed to properly manage its sewer system to accommodate urbanization in New Hartford and Whitestown. We would not have a "Consent Order" if there had not been a law violation. While there have been many stories on the Consent Order and the millions it is costing sewer users, did the O-D ever do a story on how the violation occurred?  Or what changes would be necessary to ensure that similar legal problems would not occur elsewhere in the future?  Of course not.  That might put someone on the spot.

Instead of fixating on "climate change" that is not going to be solved locally, the O-D needs to examine how our own local officials deal with environmental problems and laws. But that would expose not only official errors, but the O-D's own willingness to dispense with environmental requirements to expedite an agenda.

Here I am speaking of the Downtown Hospital and both Oneida County and Utica officials.  New York's environmental laws require that BEFORE government approves or funds a project, the government must comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.  That was not done here.  Oneida County and Utica both tasked employees to attend regular meetings with MVHS to aid the planning of the Downtown Hospital -- expenditure of funds on these employees was aiding the project.  Then Oneida County funded MVEDGE to obtain property appraisals for MVHS -- funding the project before complying with SEQR.  Then there was the agreement for the parking garage . . . .

It took three years before local government got around to considering the environmental consequences of the Downtown Hospital. But by then they had already decided for it to be Downtown -- before considering environmental impacts.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense could tell you that  it is more environmentally disruptive to try to shoehorn a hospital and acres of parking into a Central Business District designed in another era, for other purposes, and used for other purposes for almost two centuries, than putting it on a campus already designed for the same kind of use.  But doing what is right environmentally would mean putting the hospital at St. Luke's --- which is not the agenda.

It's nice to show environmental concern by talking about "climate change." But let's not let "climate change" distract us from the real environmental abominations occurring right under our noses. 

More OD Confusion and Over-Simplification re Environmental Policy . . .

The OD Editorial "Good environmental policy nature's best healer" states the obvious.  Good environmental laws have produced great benefits for both our environment and "We the People."  

The editorial board goes wrong when it, again, conflates acid rain with climate change, seemingly for the purpose of taking a pot shot at President Trump for rescinding the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan.  The issues of Climate Change and Acid Rain are different, scientifically and legally.

Acid Rain is caused by specific pollutants that are listed in the Clean Air Act (CAA) because Congress determined that the benefits of regulating those pollutants outweighed the detriments.  The "Clean Power Plan" (CPP), however, had nothing to do with the listed pollutants, but,  rather,  was directed toward reducing CO2 in the belief that it would help to prevent Climate Change.

Neither CO2 nor Climate Change are mentioned in the CAA because Congress was not able to agree that these should be subject to regulation.  

Regulation of CO2 was authorized under a different provision of the CAA, based upon an EPA (not Congressional) finding that CO2 causes sufficient harm to humans to be worth regulating.  Because a regulation impacts people's lives, the determination is not purely a scientific one, but, rather, it has a political component.   While there appears to be a scientific consensus that CO2 should be regulated, that is not the same as Congress (or an administrative agency) that are ultimately answerable to the people making that determination. 

Since a number of scientists do not see a clear benefit from regulating CO2, the Trump Administration is free to rely upon their opinions, rescind the EPA finding, and rescind the CPP. 

If the Editorial Board, or OD readers, are sincere in their belief that CO2 needs to be regulated, they need to lobby Congress to change the CAA to specifically regulate CO2 to prevent Climate Change. It will then be up to Congress to balance the benefits against the detriments to determine if such regulation is needed. 

If Congress strikes the wrong balance it will have a political price to pay (as is apparently happening now in France with the "Gilet Jaune" (Yellow Vest) movement).

In the end, Protecting the Environment must always involve doing what is Best for People.

The Fake Site Selection "Process" . . .

According to the Observer-Dispatch: "Study reveals how downtown hospital site was chosen"  

Actually the study DOES NOT reveal how the Downtown Site was chosen because it does not explain how the Downtown Site got on the list of sites to be considered.

Five of the 12 sites are golf courses; three others include current or former hospital sites; one is a business park; one is owned by a business; one sounds like vacant land; and, finally, one is Downtown.

Supposedly "parcels 50 acres and larger"  were identified to host the facility, but the Downtown Site is neither 50 acres, nor is it a "parcel,"  but, rather, it is about 25 acres consisting of about 90 parcels, occupied by about 40 business and other entities, plus blocks of city streets. The dis-similarity of the Downtown Site to all the others on the list begs the question: "Why was Downtown even looked at?" 

It's clear from the FOILed e-mails of county officials that the site selection "process" involved designating sites that could be eliminated (straw-men to be knocked down) in order to steer the MVHS Board to choose the Downtown Site that was preferred by local economic development and various elected officials. "Elan" was the consultant brought on board by EDGE to perform this task.   Per the 2/3/2015 e-mail of EDGE President Steven DiMeo to Anthony Brindisi . . .

"My whole thought process in bringing Elan on board is to make sure that we guide siting decision in favor of downtown."

This Blog previously drew the conclusion that no criteria were included in the siting process to protect the public's interest.  The "Summary Memo" of the selection process included in the Hospital's Draft Environmental Impact Statement reinforces this conclusion.  

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement's failure to include the actual Site Selection Study (as opposed to a "Summary Memo") and to explain how the Downtown Site even was put on the list leads to the conclusion that the site selection "process" was merely a sham - window dressing -  to hide from the Hospital Board, the Public, and, now, the involved State Agencies that putting the hospital Downtown was merely the arbitrary and personal choice of certain local officials.
 

Win, Place, or Show -- 3 Ways to Win by Voting for Larry Sharpe...

In case you missed the 4-way debate for NY Governor (Cuomo absented himself) held by the League of Women Voters, here is a link.  The awfully-moderated earlier debate between Cuomo and Molinaro may be painfully watched here. (It only demonstrates Cuomo's big mouth and lack of self control).

We know that Cuomo's policies have produced zilch results economically for Upstate NY, in spite of spending unprecedented amounts ($Billions) of tax dollars on buildings for industries, airports, and public infrastructure. How many times does the Communist approach to economic development (public ownership of the means of production) have to be tried before it is relegated to the dust-bin of history?

Mr. Molinaro, while more moderate than Mr. Cuomo, is unconvincing that he would bring needed changes to New York. On social issues he expresses more concern about maintaining abortion rights than he does about protecting 2nd Amendment rights (his running mate is pro-SAFE Act).  He may wear the Republican label but acts like a "Lite Democrat."

Most telling, and concerning, was Mr. Molinaro's side-stepping any endorsement of President Trump's economic policies, even after at least 3 challenges by Mr. Cuomo to do so.  Does Molinaro not see the significant improvement in the Nation's business climate brought by Trump's tax changes and regulation reductions?  The economic numbers are the best the Nation has seen in Decades! Why would the State's GOP pick for Governor not embrace the President's policies that have worked so well, particularly in "flyover" parts of the country that are similar to Upstate NY? Why would the GOP pick for Governor not show how NY could profit from these policies?  Is he OK with the Nation leaving NY behind?

Libertarian Larry Sharpe, with the "less government" message, offers the best hope for New York to advance economically, especially in the Trump era.  He is the ONLY candidate that recognizes that turning New York around will require a "culture change" toward less government in Albany.  He has demonstrated his willingness to take on that challenge given the map of all the places in New York State that he has visited during his campaign. I don't think we have ever seen a candidate for governor work this hard!

Mr. Sharpe is clearly in this race to win -- and if he does, New York will become a much better place to live by shrinking the size of government and its control over our lives.

But if you vote for Mr. Sharpe, you will win Something even if he comes in second or third.

In New York, a Party's placement on a ballot depends upon the number of votes cast for the Party in the governor's race.  If Sharpe places second, the Libertarian Party will take over the second line on the Ballot, sending a strong message to Republican leadership that it needs to change in a "less government" direction.

There have been a LOT of funny (ha ha) radio ads asking voters to vote for Mr. Molinaro on the Conservate Party Line "to show support for President Trump" - which makes them "funny" in a "weird" sense since Mr. Molinaro does not support President Trump.  The ads show Conservative Party desperation to hold on to that 3rd Ballot line -- which is too often squandered on candidates that are not really conservative. If Sharpe places 3rd, which he can do very easily, the Libertarian Party will take over the 3rd line, telling the Conservative Party that it needs to move in a "less government" direction.

Culture change in Albany will not come easily.  A vote for Sharpe gives the voter 3 chances to start that culture change.

Bigger than Tenney v Brindisi . . .

Tuesday's congressional election is bigger than Tenney v Brindisi and Gillibrand vs Farley.  It is about who will control the Congress.  Here's your real ballot (from a Facebook meme):

 

It is also directing your own life vs government running your life, and taking care of Americans vs taking care of the world. 

 

The Democrats have moved to the radical left.  "Medicare for All" means taking Medicare from Seniors who have paid into it for a lifetime and using it to pay for medicare for everyone else. It won't be healthcare between you and your doctor -- it will be between you and your government. Proposed Democrat "middle class tax cuts" (see Kamala Harris) will be "Welfare for All" because they are designed to make the middle class as dependent upon government checks as the poor. Democrats want to control you and everything about you, including what you think, say or do.  They will use every means necessary to take power and lord it over you -- including turning government agencies against those with differing ideas, spying on phone conversations, invading personal computers, harassing individuals and their families, filing spurious or false charges and lawsuits, and character assassination. Once they have power, they will not cede to contrary wishes of the voters because they will populate the government with civil servants that will be obedient only to them. These are things that have already been done, or will be done.  

The election is no longer about who will represent you, but  in what direction do you want the country to move.

My Apology!

I love it when people comment on my posts, even when they disagree.  I approve probably 95% of the comments coming my way, usually within 24 hours.

However, I discovered this morning a cache of 17 comments going back several weeks that somehow escaped my notice (i.e., I never got an e-mail that someone had commented.)  They have now been approved and posted.

So to those of my readers who posted comments and did not see them, I was not ignoring you.

My Apology!

OD Conflating Acid Rain with Climate Change . . .

In Response to OD's VIEW: New energy plan bad for ADKs, environment

It is wrong when an editorial board plays upon people's ignorance to advance a political agenda.

The culprit in acid rain is SO2 and NOx, NOT Greenhouse Gases, and it is misleading to conflate the two.  The mechanisms producing Acid Rain are well understood, SO2 and NOx emissions have already been limited, and the benefits are capable of being calculated and documented. 

The Obama Clean Power Plan, however, was targeted to preventing Climate Change, not Acid Rain, by curbing Greenhouse Gas emissions (mainly CO2).  While many claim that CO2 is driving climate change, the mechanisms producing climate change are not as clear as those producing Acid Rain, and the benefits of restricting CO2 through the Clean Power Plan are speculative.   Accepting UN calculations, the Paris Accord would only shave an imperceptible fraction of a degree from world temperature -- meaning that US citizens would have been forced to suffer a reduction in their standard of living to achieve virtually nothing.

Unfortunately those of us in Upstate NY have been forced to sacrifice our economy for the "environmentally virtuous" policies of Andrew Cuomo and his predecessors going back to Mario Cuomo. 

"Protecting the Environment" is emotionally appealing, but unintended consequences to Ordinary People need to be determined and understood, too, if public policy is to be sound.

Net Neutrality: Unneeded and Counter Productive . . .

Per today's OD: Lawmakers: New cable operator should observe net neutrality

"Democrats in the New York state Assembly say any broadband provider picked to replace Charter Communications in the state should be required to observe net neutrality. . . 

"The lawmakers say whichever company replaces Charter should be prohibited from altering web speeds or traffic to favor certain sites or apps."

Good luck finding a provider willing to do this without an outlandish NYS-style taxpayer or ratepayer subsidy to finance defiance of the laws of economics. Net Neutrality may sound good, but it is really the opposite.

Requiring "Net Neutrality"  unnecessarily extends government control,  worsening service, raising rates for most people, and inhibiting expansion and innovation. 

"Unnecessary" because new technologies (eg., 4G LTE) are introducing competition into the marketplace, giving customers options of doing business with another internet provider if they feel their current provider is being unfair to them.

"Worsening service" and "raising rates" because non-affiliated content makers (eg. TV channels, movie industry, news sources, etc. ) will siphon income that the internet provider needs to maintain its network. Remember that Spectrum/Time Warner Cable/ and Harron Communications (locally) began with delivering content (TV), not internet, and their wired networks' well-being depended upon the income received for content.  

"Inhibiting expansion and innovation" because a provider will not make the needed investment if an investment will benefit competitors more than itself.
 
It's like the old "Fairness Doctrine" of 40-50 years ago which required that broadcasters give "equal time" to opposing viewpoints.  The result was that many broadcasters simply stopped disseminating any viewpoints at all in order to avoid the government's paper work.  Instead of providing the public with alternative viewpoints on an issue, the public would up receiving less information.

With apologies to Mies van der Rohe, "Less (governmental control) is More (public benefit)"    

PSC: Substituting "Politician" for "the Public" . . .

Continuing on the subject of "Short Circuiting Upstate," the NY Post opines that "Consumers are going to lose in Cuomo’s bet on wind energy." The Post explains that the Cuomo-PSC Order will require NY utilities to purchase offshore-wind power that will cost FOUR TIMES the current average cost of power in NYS -- with that current average being already 40% higher than the national average! The Post suggests that damages to the environment, the fishing industry and grounds, and navigation will also result from the Cuomo-PSC action.

The environmental impact statement (EIS) for the PSC Order avoids assessing specific environmental impacts with a statement that the order is not tied to any particular site. The EIS only considers "no action" as a reasonable alternative, with nuclear power -- particularly the  continuation of existing Indian Point nuclear power (which Cuomo has vowed to shut down by 2021) -- conspicuous by its absence.  It certainly looks like the SEQRA process, which in barest essence is supposed to ensure that decision-makers will know the environmental consequences of what they are doing, has been bent to fit the governor's notion of what is in the public interest. But, as the Post editorial suggests, it is not just SEQRA that is being bent:

During his successful 1932 run for the White House, New York Gov. Franklin Roosevelt campaigned hard on the issue of electricity affordability. In a speech in Portland, Ore., he told voters that as governor, he had made sure that the New York Public Service Commission was acting “as an agent of the public.” Because electric utilities are monopolies, government’s job was to ensure consumers get a “fair deal” — “adequate service and reasonable rates.”

Gov. Roosevelt's view reflects the "traditional" view of why we have a PSC: Certain services are so expensive to implement that they would never be built without the builder being assured that competitors will not prevent the builder from recouping its costs.  The government grants the builder a monopoly in return for government control of rates to keep consumers from being gouged. How times have changed!

Does PSC forcing Utilities to purchase power that costs 4 times the current inflated average sound like ensuring that "consumers get a 'fair deal?'" 

Now the Cuomo-PSC is at the center of another controversy.  Per WKTV "Public Service Commission orders Charter/Spectrum to leave New York State" because, supposedly, Spectrum has not lived up to promises to expand its broadband network to underserved areas.  Assemblyman Brindisi was quick to jump on the bandwagon.

"It’s high time New York cut the cord with Spectrum Cable and provided residents with more competition. Over the past several years, I have heard from literally hundreds of constituents who have called me and signed my online petition, and they are absolutely fed up. They’ve had it with poor customer service; sudden surprise rate hikes they cannot afford; and promises that are not being kept by Spectrum. What is just as bad is that thousands of New Yorkers who are waiting for the broadband access Spectrum keeps advertising it is providing are still stuck with 20th Century technology. I am pleased that the PSC is taking these serious concerns to heart, and is looking out for the hundreds of thousands of Spectrum customers across the state being shortchanged when it comes to cable and Internet service.”

First, how does kicking a company out of the marketplace provide residents "with more competition?"

Second, per Ars Technica, the "poor service" and "surprise rate hikes" cited by Mr. Brindisi are NOT the basis for the PSC's order.  In fact, the PSC acknowledges that it does not regulate the rates that seem to bother people.  Rather, PSC is in a snit because broadband is not being extended quickly enough -- in its opinion. However that dispute involves potential customers, not those of us who are already paying the bills.  In other words, PSC is NOT "looking out for the hundreds of thousands of Spectrum customers being shortchanged when it comes to cable and Internet service" as claimed by Mr. Brindisi, but, rather, for those hoping that the government will give them the opportunity to become customers at someone else's expense.

If water and sewer service extensions are a guide (the subject of many blog posts here) , extension of wired services into sparsely populated areas will lead to higher rates for us all because someone will have to pay to install and maintain all that additional wire and other equipment, and there are not enough someones in the rural areas to do it. In essence, this is a redistribution scheme where more money will have to be taken from those with broadband to give broadband to those without it.

In addition, the Cuomo-PSC directive forces Spectrum to spend money on a (wired) technology that will become uneconomical in rural areas as newer (wireless) methods of product delivery become available - ensuring that the builder will not be able to recover its costs. (See the difference between FDR in 1932 and now?)

These two stories indicate that the role of the PSC has changed from an organization that nurtures development while protecting the public from gouging, to one that defies the laws of economics to advance political agendas.

The Public Service Commission's name should be changed to the Politician Service Commission because its mission now, apparently, is to make politicians look good.

Short Circuiting Upstate . . . Again

Gov. Cuomo, local representatives in the Senate and Assembly, and local officials who count state dollars spent here as "success,"  spare us your "economic development" schemes that cost NY taxpayers billions of dollars supposedly to lure big jobs to Upstate New York. They haven't worked because you have never addressed any root causes of our businesses leaving.

Instead, if you were really interested in improving the economic conditions Upstate, you would stop harebrained schemes such as this: Governor Cuomo Announces Plan Directing the Procurement of Approximately 800 Megawatts of Offshore Wind to Jumpstart Industry

While this may sound nice, per the Empire Center:

"Upstate New York ratepayers will pick up more than half the multi-billion-dollar tab for a massive offshore wind turbine project that will provide very costly power for Long Island and New York City."

This is just the latest assault on the cost of doing business and living in NY that will have an outsize negative impact on Upstate as compared to Downstate . . . But the Downstaters make all the rules.

For the analysis read "Wind Costs Will Blow North."

Followup to Dazzling and Disgusting . . .

Here's a followup to the Downtown: Dazzling and Disgusting post earlier this year . . .

The rain forest . . . I mean rain garden in front of my barber's shop is still disgusting.  It contains junk, and is overgrown with weeds, one over five feet tall.

Maybe it will get cleaned up for the Boilermaker. 

New Term to Learn: Project Labor Agreement

"Project Labor Agreement (PLA)."  I had never heard the term before until a friend called yesterday to relate that the term had been used by some of the Union demonstrators in favor of the Downtown Hospital Project the other night.  No sooner did I hang up the phone when I heard the term used again during an interview with Tommy Carcone, President of the Utica Fire Union on WUTQ.

WikiPedia defines a PLA as

"a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project. Before any workers are hired on the project, construction unions have bargaining rights to determine the wage rates and benefits of all employees working on the particular project and to agree to the provisions of the agreement. The terms of the agreement apply to all contractors and subcontractors who successfully bid on the project, and supersedes any existing collective bargaining agreements. . . ^{" (superscripts omitted)}

PLAs can be good things, ensuring that workers on taxpayer-funded projects have protections against being taken advantage of (pay, working conditions, hours, safety, etc.,etc.).  However, the website The Truth About Project Labor Agreements calls them

"special interest schemes that end open, fair and competitive bidding on taxpayer-funded construction projects."

So like anything well intended, abuses can occur.

How does this relate to the Downtown Hospital proposal? It can be presumed that since taxpayer dollars are involved and since NYS favors the use of PLAs (24 states apparently take the opposite view), there would be a PLA no matter where the hospital is built. So why was the term was used by demonstrators?  Is there a PLA in existence for the proposal? If so, who signed it and when, and what are its terms? Is there a PLA that requires the hospital to be built Downtown -- or one that is conditioned upon the hospital being built Downtown?

At this point it is unclear why the Union demonstrators have chosen sides in the hospital location debate, or whether it is related to a PLA or not, but maybe someone out there can clarify with a comment.

Mr. Carcone's interview, however, is another story -- a troubling one. Beginning at around 13:00 he talks about the Utica Ambulance service being a revenue source for the city of Utica and having a Certificate of Need to serve Utica (exclusively?). He argues that this somehow will make up for the loss of tax revenue that will come into the city due to the hospital being tax exempt.  [Of course, that loss of tax revenue to Utica would be totally avoided if the hospital were built at St. Luke's].

The Utica Ambulance Service has already gone into competition against private ambulance companies. If my memory serves me correctly, that was done supposedly to increase revenues into the City of Utica (by tapping deep-pocket insurers). But if the costs to customers are going into balancing the city budget in addition to the supply of the actual service, CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING MORE FOR THE AMBULANCE SERVICE THAN IT IS WORTH IN THE OPEN MARKET. In addition, the service will be subject to the same abuses that we see often in local government as compared to private businesses, further increasing costs. See "Ambulance Chasing" from March 2011. I do not think that the Utica taxpayers have ever been given a breakdown of the actual cost of their ambulance service.

Mr. Carcone talked about an agreement with Utica College and proposed that the hospital should buy an ambulance for the UFD. (Why should our regional hospital buy an ambulance for Utica?) Maybe I am wrong but it sounded like putting the hospital in Utica would somehow be used to get suburban residents to contribute to Utica. Could patients some day be faced with a Utica law that says "All persons travelling to hospitals in Utica by ambulance must be transported by the Utica Fire Dept?" That seemed to be what this guy was implying but maybe I misunderstood him. Yet we've seen how the rules and laws can be manipulated both in regard to the ambulance service and other things.   This would increase benefits to the Utica Firefighter's Union, put the squeeze on private businesses, increase local insurance rates, and do nothing to improve healthcare.

Mr. Carcone also discussed negotiating "Project Labor Agreements" after the project is built.  My understanding is that hospital workers already have their bargaining representatives.  What is his interest in this?  Is he thinking that Utica's municipal workers' unions will somehow get involved?

It sounds like putting the hospital in Utica is going to subject its operations to Utica special-interest politics.

This is probably the best reason for KEEPING THE NEW HOSPITAL OUT OF UTICA. Who thinks that forcing the Hospital to deal with Utica politics will benefit their healthcare?

The Balloon has Burst . . .

A few days ago area officials were whining about this area losing out as a drone testing site.  Tonight we are hit with this bombshell: Premier Aviation in Rome to close, 150 jobs lost.

No Drones . . . No Aircraft Maintenance . . . So what do we have to show for the Taxpayer $$$$$ invested at Griffiss "International" Airport? 

Meanwhile we gave up our old County Airport in Whitestown for a "Homeland Security" Training Center that has created how many jobs? ...  that is used how often?

We destroyed what we had that met our needs to build something "better"  -- and more expensive to maintain -- 5 miles away. Did that make sense for a region of shrinking population?

We are doing the same thing now in Utica where two existing hospitals will be closed and consolidated into something "better" at an entirely new site -- yet the old hospital sites will remain and the existing tax-paying businesses at the new site will be destroyed. Does this not waste the prior investments made at both hospitals and businesses?  Aren't we increasing future expenses for the taxpayer?

We seem to be building for the sake of building - - like pumping air into a balloon.

What will we have when the balloon bursts?

Downtown Utica: Dazzling & Disgusting . . .

 Old intricate brickwork contrasting with New marble, steel and glass = Dazzling!

Meanwhile, only One block away . . .  a taxpayer-financed  so-called "green" "rain garden" is Disgusting with garbage!

With the taxes Uticans pay, one would think that city leaders could at least keep our "5-Star Main Street" clean.

If we cannot trust them with small things, how can we trust them to make the right decisions about Downtown's future?