Gutwein said the Health and Hospital Corp. said a tax increase is not an option for helping to fund a new hospital.
“One aspect of the financing likely would involve bonds. We’re still studying the cost,” Gutwein said.
Don't you just love it when someone on the government payroll talks about financing something without raising taxes by borrowing more money, as if there is no connection between taxation and borrowing? I got news for Gutwein. With the government take-over plan being proposed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, the building boom in the health care industry is going to come to one big crashing halt. Count on it.
14 comments:
And, on a historic note, more historic buildings, "Old Wishard" old Larue and State Board of Health building are going to be torn down.
And of course old St. Vincent next to Ivy Tech is also endangered.
Good thing Indiana is taking care of its heritage.
The article makes it sound like Wishard is the only one that wants the deal.
IUPUI has completely changed their growth plans - instead of growing horizontally - like going out NW to old Bush stadium where they have a number of parcels and buildings, they want to grow UP. IUPUI wants to add 5000 on-campus students, and build build build ! SO they need wishard OUT of the WAY.
How nuts is this ? This nuts: IUPUI wants to spend tens of millions more per year on construction in an era when brick-and-mortar campuses will become less and less necessary.
Also, in response to Kobi - I agree and remember, developers don't make money unless things get torn down and new things built. And this town is run by developers.
"How nuts is this ? This nuts: IUPUI wants to spend tens of millions more per year on construction in an era when brick-and-mortar campuses will become less and less necessary."
Like the so-called paperless office, I think the death of physical plants have been greatly exaggerated.
But Indiana does have a history of being well behind the future.
According to the ruling the Supreme Court handed down tonight, bonds are worthless and no longer secure.
So much for funding it by using bonds... Who in their right mind would want to take a risk on Wishard.
Then again doesn't the President want National Health Care?
So don't worry our taxes will go UP and continue to do so.
A smart person once defined Mental Illness as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the different results.
Until Citizens starts voting with their heart nothing will ever change.
HHC-MC is yet another Barnes & Thornburg client.
"not an option" always seems to really mean "gonna happen later when you aren't paying attention."
I think that was the same response former Mayor Bart Peterson gave when he was asked if the CIB was buying up land to build a new stadium back in the early 2000s.
And, on a historic note, more historic buildings, "Old Wishard" old Larue and State Board of Health building are going to be torn down.
They are dumps, they are health hazards (well LaRue and the old BOH buildings are) and need to be torn down. LaRue Carter has been sitting empty for 12 or 13 years now. The old BOH building almost as long. No one can enter the buildings without a full bio-hazard suit, due to mold and other things. There was a huge battle over who should tear down LaRue. At first, the VA thought they should get LaRue, but then it was found in the deed that if the state vacated, the property turned over to IU. After an inspection, and the discovery of how much it would costs to tear down, the VA gladly wanted to give it to IU.
Good thing Indiana is taking care of its heritage.
Maybe we should go back to only have 13 states? Colonies? I mean where do we stop this "historic" non-sense? How many more thousands in taxes do you wish to take from your bank account to save historic buildings? Why can't we build new, but look historic?
How nuts is this ? This nuts: IUPUI wants to spend tens of millions more per year on construction in an era when brick-and-mortar campuses will become less and less necessary.
True, but the Higher Educational Industrial Complex will fight tooth and nail to prevent any changes in the current system of higher ed. They are as bad, if not worse, than K-12 public education. There are billions of dollars at stake, folks raking in close to, or well above six-figures that have almost everything to lose. With the advent of the internet, the only buildings that will really be needed are research labs, where hands on work has to be done.
"I got news for Gutwein. With the government take-over plan being proposed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, the building boom in the health care industry is going to come to one big crashing halt. Count on it."
This is a huge misconception. The take-over plan is sold as a government plan, but in reality it's a plan BY FOLKS WHO CONTROL GOVERNMENT so that they can use our tax dollars for a profit. Once the governments in charge, there'll be more excuses than ever for these kinds of projects. Any justification that they can find to suck our income into their pockets will be promoted and justified.
Another way to look at it is that every dollar spent bt Congress comes in the form of a loan, repaid from taxpayer income for a profit that goes to the lender. Those lenders are the primary beneficiary of bigger government. In fact, those lenders are the drivers behind expansion of government. They'd use Billy Mays to sell increased funding if they could get away with it.
Never forget - the reason behind centralization and socialization is profit. In that scenario there is no profit without our tax dollars, and they can't justify taking our income unless they present new growth - i.e. hospitals.
Now I am confused.
Here I thought, "Oh finally, a proposal to build something to benefit ordinary, less-than-rich, non-sports-millionaire-owners. A health-care facility for regular folks. Worthy project. Not a playground for the rich. Yayyy."
But, no. What would you approve of?
Do you honestly believe, interested party, that the reason for building a new hospital from scratch is strictly for the benefit of the patients it serves?
I believe, honestly, that the purpose of building a hospital is to benefit patients. There would be residual benefits, jobs, staff recruitment, etc., as well. Also, there would be residual downsides.
Everything has to be weighed. I haven't weighed everything. I am more disposed to building a hospital in a central area than I am a sports stadium.
So, you didn't like building the stadium (I didn't either) and you don't like building a hospital.
Is there a facility you would approve of building?
I'm in favor of building jails to lock up criminals.
Post a Comment