Public Isn't Served by More Street Closures

What do independent thinkers have to say? 

Read the comments below, then let ACHD Commissioners know what you think about diverting their time and resources from pressing infrastructure needs throughout Ada County. Tellus@achdidaho.org

St. Luke's has been pouring money into local nonprofits, political campaigns and heavy rotation media buys, with predictable results. These funds come out of the pockets of patients, public and private insurers, and taxpayers.

But there are still many Ada County residents and independent experts whose endorsements aren't for sale—at any price. They speak out not for personal or political gain, but because they believe citizens and taxpayers—not private corporations—should have a say in the future of our community.

"St. Luke's Boise provides an invaluable service to the community, however their growth has over the years had a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. The time has come to draw the line at Jefferson St. and redirect St. Luke's future growth to the Meridian campus."

—Peter Angleton, M.D.

"Most troubling is the high-handed way St. Luke’s has approached its proposed master plan. Apparently its administrators haven’t heard of strategic development of informed consent."

—Gary Richardson, Former ACHD Commissioner

"Citizens who devote substantial time and effort to work within the system only to see its requirements for honest, constructive give-and-take ignored by policy makers will be disillusioned and unlikely to use this avenue again. The consequences of citizen disengagement are subtle but ultimately devastating to creating the "livable city" our leaders say they want."

—Diane Ronayne, Former Boise P&Z Commissioner

“Hospitals have this implied mission of ‘do no harm’…but by fundamentally creating a superblock in a choke point in your city, they (St. Luke’s) are in fact, harming the city...I think a cycle track is a great exercise amenity...it's not necessarily about connectivity and healthy community planning and design."

 —David Allison, FAIA, FACHA—Alumni Distinguished Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in Architecture + Health at Clemson University

"For community health, it benefits all to have a safe route of access to downtown, whether on bike, foot, or car. Jefferson Street is the safest route for a child, commuter or family to access downtown. The solution to growth is reconfiguration, avoiding duplication of services (leave the trauma care to St. Al's), adequate staffing, and reduction of costly executive and managerial positions."

—Dr. Ann Cordum, Internal Medicine Physician

"…there is absolutely no way I could advocate for, or be in favor of shutting down Jefferson St. It really boils down to safety and connectivity, and the closing of Jefferson presents significant problems to both of these."*

 —Jimmy Halyburton, Boise Bicycle Project (League-Certified Bicycle Safety Instructor, Participant in St. Luke’s Cycle Discussion) 

^ Update 6/23/16: apparently, there was a way he could advocate for shutting down Jefferson, since he reversed this position and endorsed St. Luke's application at the crucial ACHD hearing; although nothing had changed re: safety or connectivity.

"The logic of small blocks suggests that no further block consolidations should be allowed, such as the one currently considered at St. Luke’s, which will significantly undermine the effectiveness of the street grid in that location.” 

 —Jeff Speck, AICP, CNU-A, LEED-AP; Author, 'Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time'

Former ACHD Commissioner speaks out

Kudos to the Statesman for publishing a contrasting voice to their own unsigned editorial.

Guest Opinion: St. Luke’s should reconsider expansion and use South option

BY GARY E. RICHARDSON

June 29, 2015 

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/06/29/3875070/guest-opinion-st-lukes-should.html#storylink=cpy

Gary Richardson

St. Luke’s alternatives analysis for its master plan is incomplete, misleading, unconvincing and somewhat disingenuous. At least one other alternative exists that would meet emergency and other service criteria without closing Jefferson Street:

A southward expansion, replacing or built over the existing parking garage, meets the horizontal-service, connectivity and continuum-of-care objectives of the hospital’s proposed northward expansion.

It also obviates the need to take two more blocks of public right-of-way beyond that already vacated on Bannock and Avenue A.

Most of the hospital’s objections to expanding southward relate to placing the medical office building and parking garage eastward, across Avenue B. (St. Luke’s doesn’t own much of that land.) However, there is a way to keep those facilities north of Jefferson:

Expand southward, connecting the main expansion to existing hospital floors and corridors as desired.

Relegate parking, central plant, shipping and receiving facilities to the Front/First/Jefferson “island,” where they are more accessible to thoroughfares and farther from residential areas.

Locate the office building across Jefferson from the existing medical “plaza,” which can expand to the west as shown and/or provide additional parking.

The new facilities can easily be connected to the main buildings across Jefferson — underground, overhead or both.

The hospital also criticized southward expansion because it would move the main entrance and emergency department: “Expansion to the south causes redevelopment of the entire front of the existing hospital. Patient and visitor access to front door is problematic.” However, St. Luke’s preferred, northward expansion envisions just that: redeveloping the entire front of the hospital by moving the main entrance to the Fort Street side of the expansion.

Southward expansion offers several workable options for locating the new entrance and the emergency department without vacating Jefferson. There are two emergency options: a grand entrance at the corner of Jefferson and Avenue B (or farther west on Jefferson); or an entrance on Avenue B across from East Bannock.

Other St. Luke’s objections to the southward expansion were not stated in the plan but came up in discussions: The inconvenience of closing the hospital’s main entrance during construction, and the additional cost of dealing with the existing parking structure. These objections are not insurmountable.

Alternate entrances can be provided during construction — a temporary inconvenience, which should be weighed against the permanent inconvenience to the public of disregarding the important connectivity built into the city’s comprehensive plan.

The possibility that the garage location could block optimal expansion alternatives should have been considered before the hospital built it; the public should not pay for the hospital’s shortsightedness.

Most troubling is the high-handed way St. Luke’s has approached its proposed master plan. Apparently its administrators haven’t heard of strategic development of informed consent.

This entails identifying at early planning stages everyone who might be affected by a proposed action and involving them deeply in the decision-making process so they have all the information upon which the ultimate decisions are based.

While they may not agree with the ultimate outcome, having been heard and understanding how costs and benefits were weighed, they are more likely to assent.

More importantly, these stakeholders actually may contribute to a better decision.

St. Luke’s “my way or the highway” attitude has turned out to be a two-way street. It has generated sentiment that perhaps St. Luke’s should move some of its services to the population center of the Treasure Valley: Meridian.

The city should send St. Luke’s back to work with their neighbors — with a copy of the city’s comprehensive plan — to guide them toward better integrating health services with neighborhood needs.

Gary E Richardson is a former Ada County Highway District commissioner (1997-98) who has lived in the St. Luke’s neighborhood for more than 30 years.


See the full Guest Opinion here.
Read more about Gary Richardson here.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/06/29/3875070/guest-opinion-st-lukes-should.html#storylink=cpy

Context and commentary from one of Boise's most respected citizen leaders

Diane Ronayne

Tonight at 5 p.m. the City Council considers St. Luke's expansion plan. Some 20 years ago, a bunch of us got together and formed the Neighborhood Alliance, which with the city's support nurtured into being dozens of neighborhood associations throughout Boise. Our purpose was to give citizens equal legal footing in the development processes that affected the value of their property and quality of their lives. I'm very proud of the way East Enders have responded to St. Luke's proposal through their neighborhood association and the ad hoc nonprofit Keep Boise Connected, Inc.

Unfortunately, the constructive give-and-take between applicant and neighbors that we worked so hard to codify in the city's planning process did not occur with this project. The applicant's attitude when making its mandatory presentation to EENA was non-negotiable in any substantial way.

If the council chooses to ignore this flawed process AND the recommendation of their own Planning and Zoning Commission to reject the proposal because it does not meet the requirements of the city’s comprehensive plan, they will set a dangerous precedent. Citizens who devote substantial time and effort to work within the system only to see its requirements for honest, constructive give-and-take ignored by policy-makers will be disillusioned and unlikely to use this avenue again. The consequences of citizen disengagement are subtle but ultimately devastating to creating the "livable city" our leaders say they want.

The council only needs to uphold the P&Z recommendation to deny this master plan application and send it back to the applicant with instructions to alter it to meet the requirements of our comprehensive plan. This project will dramatically alter the east end of downtown, cut off a neighborhood, and add thousands of vehicles to already congested intersections over 30 years. We can afford to take another six months to find an alternative with fewer negative consequences. One suggestion: Bring ACHD and Valley Ride into the process meaningfully NOW, so the parties can include mass transit/park-and-ride as part of the "moving people not cars" equation.

See more on Dian Ronayne here.