Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Those favoring Home sale ‘uncharitable’

February 1, 2013

Editor, OBSERVER: In regard to the Chautauqua County Home, there is a vital word that should be deeply pondered, and that word is “charity....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(19)

American

Feb-01-13 12:48 AM

Charity begins at home. Sell the home.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FredoniaFred

Feb-01-13 6:09 AM

It is not the governments "duty" to take care of the poor. It is our individual responsibility to take care of widows and orphans and to help the poor. When we ask government to do what we are supposed to do, we are shirking our duties.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

foreveratownie

Feb-01-13 8:46 AM

Well said FredoniaFred

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Feb-01-13 8:59 AM

Lost in all sell/keep talk is the moral imperative I believe we all have to help those in need - - whether it’s donating to the “second collection” in church, delivering Meals on Wheels, or providing a home for seniors at their time of greatest vulnerability and need.

If the argument simply “dollars and cents,” then please be consistent: Speak up and insist the county sell anything and everything that is not at a break-even point without taxpayer assistance.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

Feb-01-13 9:16 AM

You will wish you voted sell when it goes belly up and either ends up a part of Absolute or closed and residents are sent where ever there is a spot. Think that can't happen.....wrong. The marketing firm found only one buyer. That should be a loud and clear message but it was not!!!!!

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FredoniaFred

Feb-01-13 10:39 AM

By selling the home, we are insuring that it will remain for years. The other alternative is closure in a few years when it goes broke. The private sector can do anything better than government, including the operation of a nursing home.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Feb-01-13 12:02 PM

FF wrote: "The other alternative is closure in a few years when it goes broke." This is simply not true, UNLESS the CCLeg ALLOWS it to close.

It costs OVER $22M per/yr just to run the Sheriff's Dept, yet it hasn't "gone broke." Why is that? In fact, the CCSD hasn't even been "forced" to downsize, an alarming fact considering the staggering costs to fund it.

It's an OPTION to sell/close CCH, one that Co Exec & CCLeg continually threaten to do b/c they refuse to take the proper action needed to force other services to become less costly to taxpayers. We can afford both the CCSD & CCH, but it would require reducing the CCSD budget. This is also an OPTION, but one the CCLeg is not willing to do.

Reduce the CCSD budget by $3M and transfer it to the CCH. Or, since the county has accumulated a $16M deficit, have ALL employees, both hourly & salary alike, take an equally modest pay cut and apply the savings to keep CCH fully funded.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Feb-01-13 1:27 PM

Agree with Captain.

If the County Exec has to sell assets to cover years of poor cost management, put ALL county assets and departments on the table and up for discussion.

Shouldn't there be more debate about the executive and legislative actions which put the county (and taxpayers) in this position?

"This year, I'll sell a kidney, next year a lung, and the year after that I guess I can get by with one eye."

What will Edwards want to sell next year or the year after?

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Feb-01-13 2:14 PM

"Lost in all sell/keep talk is the moral imperative I believe we all have to help those in need"

Yes, but there is a difference between my choosing to do something and the government taking my money, under threat of force, to do it.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Feb-01-13 3:03 PM

"...there's a difference between my choosing to do something and the govt taking my money, under threat of force, to do it."

Sounds like you're saying that non-mandated services (CCH) is a choice and that we should not be forced to support?

I agree, however, I too feel that I shouldn't be forced to support the excessive costs it takes to fund the sheriff's vast empire, or the airports that are enjoyed by a privileged few, or the excessive wages and benefits for employees (both hourly & salary) of other non-mandated services.

You say sell CCH...I say lower costs for ALL county services, both mandated & non, and use the savings to keep the CCH running properly.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Feb-01-13 3:05 PM

"Yes, but there is a difference between my choosing to do something..."

If one believes in what I term a moral imperative to help provide for seniors who need our help, many of those folks lose their homes to pay for their care, so they're certainly contributing!

If one begrudges taxpayer contribution to local elder care, one doesn't believe in the moral imperative (methinks).

Should taxpayers instead spend their money on, for example, the airports? (Notice how all the money spent on the Dunkirk Airport kept Carriage House open.) /sarcasm

Edwards and the CCL need to look for ways to balance the budget with prudent spending, not one-shot deals to bail them out.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

caregiver

Feb-02-13 8:18 AM

American, if the County Home was "home" to one of your loved ones or even yourself, would you still feel the same? The only way the Home would close is if our County Gov't allows that to happen. We obviously have no say in how other county dept's are funded so why should the Home be singled out? I certainly don't hear you all crying over your tax money being spent on everything else. Perhaps then it's our "due diligence" to force our local gov't into telling the taxpayers just how much each and every single county dept. costs us! How much does each and every employee in those dept.'s get paid. Let's have the County Exec send out an itemized cost of each and every single county dept. and then lets see who's costing the taxpayers the most money and focus on cutting costs in that dept. It seems only fair that if you want this to be a business decision and not a moral one then lets look at what dept. is costing the county the most money.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jain4animals

Feb-02-13 8:57 AM

Most of our society is only concerned with the bottom line. There is enough for everyone but we all seem to be fighting for that tiny slice of the pie. Why can't people be the priority?

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Feb-02-13 9:50 AM

What other county funded agency has in the past had a surplus enough that the county borrowed from it? We all know that in the past this is exactly what the county did in the past, borrow money from the HOME.

Now that expenses (cost of health care which is hurting us all everywhere..hello single payer)..have gone up, the county wants to turn its back on them.

With the IGT funding (which yes I know is still tax payer funds) the HOME even today shows a SURPLUS. what other agency in our county shows a surplus? And YES many if not most of them receive some kind of state or federal aid as well.

Why do we have to invoke a FOIA to get basic information on the gas well? Why have the suggestions in the report that we paid for not been reviewed and determined if feasible?

Someone has an agenda. I just am confused as to the reasons. A quick fix to a poor budget?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Feb-02-13 11:03 PM

Judge, did you ever get the gas well information?

It'd be interesting to learn what kind of sweetheart deal that was, and even more interesting to have the County Exec explain why someone who wasted $400,000 of taxpayer money is still employed by the county...

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Feb-03-13 10:15 AM

Judeye, with those IGT funds, show me how they helped provide a surplus. Said surplus being = (profit - IGT tax money) > 0. Then, and ONLY then, will the Home actually have made a "profit".

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Feb-03-13 12:15 PM

the county running the home will insure that area residents will have a place to spend golden years is a big a fallacy as spending and taxes will be reduced and services will increase,its all numbers only so many beds and so many tax payers,it doesn't matter who runs it,but a increase in tax revenue from private ownership is

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Feb-03-13 12:22 PM

add this to the mix,ask area families who tried to get loved ones into the home and were denied because of lack of beds,but relocated seniors got admission after 6 month state residency requirement was achieved,don't belive it check how many from Ohio are in home now

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Cassadaga14718

Feb-11-13 8:50 PM

The county home has a one star rating. I can't believe we allow our seniors to be treated in that manner. If we have to we should be spending millions more to give them dignity in their final years. Really now, government should do for people what they cannot do for themselves. And in this case private sector provides a better service.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 19 of 19 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web