Verdict reflects PeaceHealth attitude

The implications of the verdict must be extended to the land use decisions involving the desired move of PeaceHealth to the Springfield urban fringe. While this move continues to be portrayed as a "done deal" by PeaceHealth and rubberstamped by Springfield officials, there remain important...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe register-guard
Main Author GUEST VIEWPOINT By Tom Bowerman and Fred Felter, M.D. For The Register-Guard
Format Newspaper Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Eugene, Or Gannett Co., Inc 14.11.2003
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The implications of the verdict must be extended to the land use decisions involving the desired move of PeaceHealth to the Springfield urban fringe. While this move continues to be portrayed as a "done deal" by PeaceHealth and rubberstamped by Springfield officials, there remain important upcoming legal rulings about PeaceHealth's possible manipulation of the land use planning process and adopted plans for its predatory objectives. These upcoming rulings may seem isolated from the McKenzie-Willamette lawsuit. Petitioners in the current land use appeals urged PeaceHealth to endorse and participate in a blue ribbon "Hospital Siting Commission" as well as refinement planning process consistent with standard community practice. These proposals were dismissed by PeaceHealth as too time consuming. Hindsight now reveals that such processes would have easily been completed by now, indicating that maybe PeaceHealth objected more to the idea of community involvement. Given that the outcomes of a Hospital Siting Commission could have ironed out the controversies now being heard in litigation, one wonders about the wisdom of PeaceHealth's strategy.
ISSN:0739-8557