Broadlands Hospital Approved!

Thought you might find this enlightening...anyone could have made suggested changes to the comprehensive plan. Do your research on the Loudoun County gov. website.



County of Loudoun
News Release
March 2, 2004





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Board Expands Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process
The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors has voted to expand the process that allows property owners and groups of citizens to suggest changes to the county's land use and transportation policies.

The Board voted Tuesday to extend the deadline for the current applicant-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM) process to March 30, 2004. The Board also approved the establishment of a second submittal period, with the deadline being September 1, 2004.

Loudoun is one of a few jurisdictions in Virginia to provide the CPAM process, which allows citizens an opportunity to suggest new land uses for their property outside the Board's periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan. The policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, which includes the General Plan and the Countywide Transportation Plan, serve as a guideline for development decisions in the county.

More information about Loudoun County's Comprehensive Plan is available from the Department of Planning
# # #

 

Ahhhh Pats Fan, but what great entertainment it is!

 

It sure is interesting how when an undisputed piece of information makes its way onto this forum, no HCA supporter seems to comment.

 

Maybe they/we just don't consider it meaningful information.

Hey, BRMC opponents, comment on this: "HCA has proposed to place a hospital in Ashburn in (actually, on the edge of) the Broadlands community." Undisputed? Yes. Worthy of comment? Doubtful.

 

patsfan: You post is just more fuel for what I said earlier -- you people who support the hospital just seem weird. To me, it seemed like Donna was posting information (isn't that what these forums are for???), and you people use it as a reason to attack her. That's exactly why I said that you pro-hospital people all seem a little shady and scary.

 

You are right. It was just "information." But as far as I am concerned, the poster of that information has zero credibility with me, because of her well-documented conflict of interest.

And, in reference to the other thread, generalizing anyone who is in favor of BRMC as "wierd," "shady," or "scary" does not seem like a very liberal thing to do...

 

I (yet again) will say that I worked for 2 YEARS fighting HCA, UNPAID and spending my own money!!!. I wasn't doing it for LHC I was doing it for my family and the MANY MANY other families that were against this plan. During that 2 YEAR fight I came to know many people at LHC and respected and liked them. It has only been since January that I have been employed by them. Also I posted my new position with LHC during that same week, so before you say I was hiding anything why don't you check the posts 3 months back to verify that. The only people who seem to be saying that I have no credibility are those very people that believe HCA is a respectable (potential) neighbor. So as most of you do...consider the source.

 

patsfan: Why don't you attack others on here? From what I can tell, many others may have conflicts of interest. For example, some of the HOA members are very vocal and heretically pro-hospital. How can that be? The HOA is supposed to represent the community, but more people oppose the hospital than support it (based on the HOA's own data of those who were interested in the hospital issue enough to respond to the survey)! Why don't you beat them up for having something to say! I bet that it's because your male, your hospital-supporting buddies are male, and you just can't stand for a WOMAN to have an opinion!

 

...I didn't start the attacks. Put your stones down; you might break something.

 

Donna - I am mostly pro-hospital, but I applaud you for exercising your rights and the effort you put forth.

But IMHO, your now being an employee of LHC does matter. I also wonder, did your previous activities influence your getting the job with LHC? I do not need an answer as that is your own business. But this time around, you most defintely have personal interest in defeating the hospital in Broadlands.

 

I don't understand why Donna's credibility is questioned. She certainly hasn't changed her opinion about HCA in any way. Why shouldn't she be able to voice her opinion? She IS a resident of Broadlands (I think).

 

Marty, her employment with LHI does not change her credibility or lack thereof. However, it is disingenious for her to edititorialize about this subject without identifying herself as an employee of LHI. When candidates or political party members write letters to the editor, they have to be indentified as such. I think it is only fiar that the genearal public understand that she is employed by LHI. Those not familiar with this debate may view her comments in a different light.

 

Sorry, I'm a new poster, so I'm not so adept at this yet.
Coopstar,
Thanks for raising the issue (quoted in my previous post). I have also been surprised that no one has been discussing the type of hospital this would be. We know that one fourth of the beds will be for psychiatric patients. I'm not certain of the types of disorders these young people will be treated for, but I think it's safe to say they won't be limited to anorexia and depression. Presumably the patient population would include some of those caught up in the gang activities we've been hearing about, maybe an up and coming Kleibold or Harris, who knows. But it might be worth getting some reliable information on this.

Also, I don't have Dr. Stroube's statement in front of me, but I think I remember it including a remark that our neighborhood would be a nice, therapeutic environment for these patients to receive their treatment. I'm glad he recognizes we have a nice neighborhood. I guess he's walked the trails. But I don't think this recognition adds much to the argument that the hospital would be serving the dire needs of the community. Couple that with the fact that it won't offer any maternity services and it seems that perhaps this project is not really designed to meet the needs of the nation's second fastest growing county.

It may be that we need a hospital. But I'm not yet convinced that we need THIS hospital. If it is inevitable that one is going to come, why not at least try to make it one that would actually serve our needs?

 

Brooks5,

If you go back and read some of the postings from the beginning of this issue (over 2 years ago) you will find some helpful information.

To answer some of your questions:

"I have also been surprised that no one has been discussing the type of hospital this would be. We know that one fourth of the beds will be for psychiatric patients. I'm not certain of the types of disorders these young people will be treated for, but I think it's safe to say they won't be limited to anorexia and depression". While I don't disagree with the premise of your statement, you are missing a valuable piece of information. When Broadlands was originally designed and before the first houses were built over 8 years ago there was a proffer for a 5 acre standalone Mental Health Care facility. This was scheduled to be built here long before anyone even started discussing a hospital in Broadlands. From my understanding (and I have been a resident of Broadlands since June 1996) until HCA came along, this facilty was to be both an inpatient and outpatient Adult Mental Healtcare facilty. HCA combined it into their proposal since it made sense. If BRMC is defeated, then there is the distinct possibility that we will still have the stand-alone mental facility, and that is a bigger risk than one that is part of a hospital.

"Couple that with the fact that it won't offer any maternity services and it seems that perhaps this project is not really designed to meet the needs of the nation's second fastest growing county. It may be that we need a hospital. But I'm not yet convinced that we need THIS hospital. If it is inevitable that one is going to come, why not at least try to make it one that would actually serve our needs?" HCA did not include maternity beds because both LHI and Reston have recently expanded their L&D services and they do plan to adds Maternity sevices if they will meet needs in the future. Also there are sevices that LHI does not provide but that will be provided by BRMC including a cardiac cath lab.

Loudoun is a nice country hospital and is an important part of the full spectrum of healthcare services that Loudoun County needs, but so is a state of the art hospital such as BRMC. This is not a one or the other proposition.

 

vweisenburg:

Thanks for weighing in. But I'm not prepared to accept BRMC simply because the alternative could be worse.

In a way, you've sort of helped make my point. Someone apparently thinks we are in serious need of mental health services around here. (Perhaps they've been reading these forums). At one point, that would have been best achieved via a stand alone adult mental health facility. At another point, it was a hospital with adult and youth psychiatric services. At this point, it is a hospital of which a significant portion (maybe even a plurality) of services is devoted to adolescent mental health treatment. To me, it seems as though someone is clinging to the hope of getting some mental health services around here, and now figures that the best way of doing so is to attach these services to a facility that also includes services that more people would be likely to support.

As I said, it may be appropriate to build a hospital here, based on growing needs resulting from the explosive population growth. If so, why not examine the needs of the community and design a facility to meet those needs? I suspect that if someone took an honest crack at it, they wouldn't come up with any of the proposals we've seen so far. Why build a facility one fourth of which is reserved for such a small minority of local residents?

 

Brooks5 you missed one of my points. There is a mental health facility already proffered and on the books. It will be built whether it is part of BRMC or a seperate facility. It seems to me your opposition to the hospital is based on the inclusion of Mental Health beds. Defeating the hospital does not accomplish what you are looking for.

 

I didn't miss your point, vweisenburg. I'm just not sure it is accurate to assert that we know what will be built there if the hospital is defeated. When I moved here three years ago, everything I saw pointed to Offices on that location. Things obviously can change, as they already have. (Otherwise, we'd be debating the original facility, not the current hospital proposal). And if you are correct that our only choice is the hospital or the original stand alone facility, (whether or not either meets the community's needs), then I appear to be correct in my view that that location is not intended to address the growth issue, but rather to make sure there is some kind of mental health facility there. If that is true, then the hospital supporters should just say so.

 

Brooks5, the location of the hospital is not the same as the proposed location of the seperate Mental Health facility. As you correctly point out the hospital is proposed for the large commercial tract across from Safeway. If you look at the site plan for the development there is an area labled "community sevices/senior housing" adjacent to the Overland Park section. It is in that area where the 5 acre parcel for Mental Health services was designated. So yes if the hospital is rejected there will likely be an office park on the proposed hospital site; however, that will also mean the development of some other mental heath facility on the site near Overland Park.

 

Glad to see an admission that bias and hard work for LHC finally earned a paying position with LHC.

Was a disclose made to those families "worked for", that the goal was to get a paying position? I bet not. Doesn't do much good to disclose it after the fact, the damage is already done.

And for full disclosure...I don't think so! Here is another example. Word has it The Washington Post is upset with our distinguished LHC proponent. I understand they were not aware of the "conflict of interest" before posting the biased editorial. I bet that's the last time they let that voice into their newspaper. Deceit is not a good thing. I am glad to hear they are finally on to the deception.

I've also heard they asked for the editorial not to be "multi-submitted" to other publications. And against that promise the editorial appeared in the Leesburg2day. Hmmm, appears to be a pattern. Do the unethical then apologize. Do LHC employees get a raise or a higher position for this type of act of non-disclosure?

Maybe Woodward and Bernstein should investigate this further to find out what really is happening here. How about making a full disclosure before the next stunt.