Three days later ...
And with a donation and naming rights to the little league park's ball fields, finally the Floyd hospital deal makes sense.
... the "local" paper catches up with the C-J's story. However, items of interest are revealed therein, so let's take a look.
Floyd Memorial sale vote coming Tuesday; Some questions still in the air, by Jerod Clapp (Claysburg Chronicle)
The last vote is just three days away, but some the details regarding Floyd Memorial Hospital's sale to Baptist Health have raised concerns among local officials.
We see the city of New Albany's corporate legal puppeteer Shane Gibson searching for loopholes.
Shane Gibson, city attorney, said in an email that the city continually examines things like TIF districts since they have an effect. But he also said the city requested the three appraisals he said are required by state law. Greg Fifer with Fifer Applegate and Pullium was hired to file the request. In a statement, Fifer said that information was denied.
Gibson's a Democrat. So is Brad Striegel, but he's down with the sale, and has been from the start.
(Striegel) said he's satisfied with the final agreement and is confident it'll go through.
“I am pleased with the process and have no concerns with the final draft,” Striegel said. “I believe it is the best thing for Floyd County, the community and the hospital that they will see for decades to come. History will judge us by this decision. I think it will have a positive impact for the community. It will set the county up financially for decades if the money is used properly.”
It's not a Brexit-scale split, although all Democrats aren't on the same page with the sale. Has there been any Republican dissent with the decision to sell the hospital? If so, I'm unaware of it.
Meanwhile, the most totemic of county Democrats, Chuck Freiberger, has continued to be the primary public voice of dissent with the deal -- in large measure, he's been the only such voice.
Has New Albany's mayor gone on record with an opinion?
Chuck Freiberger, county commissioner, said he's still unsure of the deal and doesn't know that he can vote in favor of it.
“We have a big decision coming up,” Freiberger said. “I am still a little hesitant. I still have questions and doubts whether we should sell the hospital, and if we are getting a good deal. At this time I don't see me voting yes.”
Granted, public reaction to the hospital sale has been tepid. Few seem to care, and there seems to be an accepted premise: Well, better to dispose of an asset than risk higher taxes.
And yet, there is a recurring question, down at the foundation: Should we sell the hospital?
The common answer to date has been this: Yes, because we'll never get a better deal than right now.
This is an answer, but not to the original question. It presupposes the answer to the original question: Should we sell the hospital?
Who answered the original question? Who made this decision? Was it the two Republican commissioners? The Republican county council majority? Dr. Eichenberger alone? With or without the Democrats?
There are two major queries here, and they're separate. Should the hospital be sold? If "yes," then is the deal we're getting a good one?
Can someone -- anyone -- show us the chronology of the decision to sell the hospital?