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

No sale

Resolution to sell County Home fails again

February 28, 2013

MAYVILLE — After a meeting lasting nearly four hours, no change has been made in regard to the Chautauqua County Home....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-02-13 4:25 PM

Interesting, wastelander. You, as a nurse & former employee (albeit for only 1 month), contend the home is "completely understaffed", yet the general consensus on these threads is that labor costs at CCH is the alleged root of the problem?

Based on that particular comment, is it safe to assume you left b/c the workload/responsibility wasn't worth the pay, was the home simply mismanaged, or were there other reasons?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-02-13 3:08 PM

Captain, No, its just something thats hidden and not talked about. And with good reason! The CSEA nor the county wants anyone to know how its really being run. Completely understaffed.

And no, actually they begged me to stay. They can't keep nurses there. Its no wonder they pay so much more an hour... its the only way to try and keep staff.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-02-13 6:27 AM

wasteland: you dispute the quality of care at CCH, which contradicts the state auditor's report, and now you accuse members of the CCLeg of accepting bribes? wonder you only lasted a month.

Is it possible you couldn't make it through the probation period, and therefore you're merely a disgruntled former employee?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 3:21 PM

So now we see that the legislators that voted against the home really aren't just missing some brain cells-they're being paid off by the CSEA to vote against the sale of the CCH. They had a second chance to make things better for the citizens of the county, and decided to take the bribes instead. But the people around here let it go on... I have no idea why either... why aren't people rioting over this issue? How much longer are the people in this county going to stand for the corrupt legislators making decisions that are hurting this county. Or do the people that live here really care or understand whats going on...

...and when it comes to how the CCH is currently operated. No way in **** I would allow any of my family to stay there. As i've said before-I was a nurse there for a month, till I realized how lacking the quality of care is there. Privatizing it would increase care, and take the burden off the county.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 12:53 PM

Heslin is wrong,they weren't the weapon used in any of those conflicts and since Judeye agreed she is also mistaken.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 9:22 AM

and I applaud the three legislators that had the courage to vote no to reject the SAFE act.

Took much courage especially given the number of people who showed up in support of the rejection..and the comments directly towards those who voted NO.

Came home from that meeting only to catch a clip of Neil Heslin, father of Jessie a 6 yr old who was murdered at Sandy Hook testimony in Congress... "There's many changes that have to happen to make a change effective. Mental health issues, better background checks, bans on these weapons, bans on high-capacity magazines — they all have to come together and they all have to work effectively... Common sense tells you that."

Addressing military-style weapons specifically, Heslin said, "Those weapons were used in a battlefield in Vietnam. They were used in the Persian Gulf, they were used in Afghanistan, in Iraq. "

I agree

He later made the point that since we have banned machine guns..not one mass murder from that type of

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 11:26 PM

Thanks to all who voted to "Repeal the NY SAFE ACT".as for the rest-duly noted.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 10:21 PM

What was not mentioned in the article relating to the Resolution to remove the prayer from the order of business, was that Legislator Hoyer also requested to futher amend to remove the Pledge of Alliegiance as the third item of business.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 9:32 PM

Captain: if only higher powers that be would listen to what you just said. Instead it has become a********contest that makes this county look terrible. I am behind you 100%. How can we get them to listen?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 8:44 PM

Time to go back to fundamentals:

Immediately fire CCH Admin Hellwig; impose all CGR recommendations; and negotiate with CSEA.

Hopefully, this will help CCH start running as efficiently as possible, which is all we should expect.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 8:12 PM

DKexpat..going next week to go through that file...will keep you and all informed as to what I can find out.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 8:11 PM do understand that a sale of the HOME would NOT lower your taxes by one dime. Edwards himself has said this.

and have you bothered to read the report at all..the one that states the HOME actually has a SURPLUS?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 7:58 PM

Can not put it to a public vote. Sorry, laws are in place to prevent that. We just keep spinning the wheel and hoping it will stop where Edwards wants it. It hasn't worked yet and he keeps getting knocked down. Whats next. Placing blame on others for your incompetency is a cop out. Sell everything and bust the union. That will solve everything NOT. Lets eliminate all the villages and towns and make just one Chautauqua City and consolidate services. Great concept don't you think. It could work if the right people are in place. Poor management will only create more controversy. Wake up Greg. It's not working.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 7:29 PM

captian a public vote is the way this should have been handled from day one instead of wasting all of this time and money!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 6:52 PM

Those who support selling the CCH now want this put to a public vote? Apparently they don't comprehend the super majority law, or that the CCLeg tried to change it but failed.

The law requires a super majority of county legislators, NOT a majority of county voters!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 6:34 PM

If there were 17+ Legs who agreed to sell, and all the opposing posters on here screamed: "let the public decide", you'd all be defending the legislature's vote. Go figure.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 6:30 PM

Put the issue up for public vote would put it to rest once and for all!!!! Obviously the sniveling cowards in the legislature can't do it!

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 3:48 PM

I agree put it on the ballot and let the people that pay decide.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 12:56 PM

Remember that definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

What was it last election – something like 17 of 25 county legislators ran unopposed? But taxpayers expect those same people to fix the mess they, themselves, got everyone into in the first place?

No wonder so many of them want to sell the CCH – the “quick cash” would cover up all the mistakes they’ve made over the past few years. (Has anyone heard ANY legislator ask about the $400k spent on the gas well?)

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 11:59 AM

Typical Phil, vote doesn't go your way, whine about the process. The county home won. Get over it.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 11:36 AM

NYS law does not allow the sale of the CCH to be put on the November ballot. NYS law does allow the voters to choose if a simple majority should be allowed to sell the CCH or not.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 11:14 AM

The Legislature are cowards. Sell the Home, Shut down CSEA and lower our taxes.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 10:28 AM


Actually I'd counter that even that wouldn't be completely fair since many voters wont be affected even if the CH leeched 10 times as many tax dollars as it does now.

How about putting it to a vote of those paying property tax in the county since they are the ones having to pay for all the out of control spending, of which the CH is simply part of.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 10:25 AM

ask the unemotional taxpayer if sales of all county operated properties would cut taxes,employee benefits,overhead and increase tax revenues,would the support it,you bet they would

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 9:55 AM

Maybe, Mr. Barmore, if you stomp your feet & throw yourself on the floor, someone will fall for it & you can have your own way.. Lets admit that you have met with defeat & move on. You have spent enough of our County dollars on this problem. You've lost. Now find a way to take care of our elderly without going even farther into debt. I still can not understand what was wrong with taking payment over a period of years from Absolute. The payments would certainly last longer. By the time it was paid for you would be out & someone else would be in. Perhaps someone with a more intelligent way of doing things..

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web