Hospital plan ignores key questions

• Published in: The register-guard
• Main Author: TOM BOWERMAN and FRED FELTER, M.D. For The Register-Guard
• Format: Newspaper Article
• Language: English
• Published: Eugene, Or Gannett Media Corp 14.11.2002
• ISSN: 0739-8557

Many associated with McKenzie-Willamette's leadership privately acknowledge that they would prefer to stay and expand at their existing location, though they realize that PeaceHealth's move to the Gateway area of Springfield will make that option impossible. This profound piece of information has not been factored into the dialogue, because there really hasn't been any dialogue. If we care, shouldn't we get answers before or after McKenzie- Willamette is run out of business? Who cares that community plans, developed with true public involvement, are being swept aside in an end-run that does not comply with state planning laws? To have a wholesale gutting of those adopted plans without a thoughtful and inclusive community dialogue seems inconsistent with the so-called "collaboration" component of PeaceHealth's mission. It is certainly inconsistent with Oregon's unique land use goals, which call for comprehensive and inclusive public involvement in every step of land use planning. We should ask for a full exploration of the issues. It is possible that Springfield officials will concur that it is better to get these decisions done right rather than done fast. Remember, the land where PeaceHealth wants to move isn't zoned for a large regional hospital, and Springfield officials must agree to change the zoning to accommodate PeaceHealth's territorial positioning. There isn't anything in the rules that requires Springfield to do so, so the PeaceHealth deal isn't done until Springfield says so.