Sitka Community Hospital
Dear Editor: At last night’s Assembly meeting the members spent quite a bit of time discussing how to let SEARHC take over the management of Sitka Community Hospital. While I am suspect of the “secret” meetings that have been going on for the last year about how to make this happen, I do agree it’s time City Hall got out of the health care business.
City Hall shouldn’t be in the health care business, it should be running our city. A small town the size of Sitka doesn’t need two fully functional hospitals. Technology and modes of transportation have changed since the City started Sitka Community Hospital in 1959. Today people with serious medical needs are airlifted out on Guardian jets, or travel out of town on Alaska Airlines.
In 2003 when oil was under $25 a barrel SCH had 102 employees. As the price of oil rose to over $145 a barrel Sitka received extra state and federal dollars and employment at SCH rose and is now 175.
Now that all the gravy money from the state is drying up the City needs to tighten its belt, cut spending, and reduce staffing rather then raise our local taxes to sustain their past levels of high spending.
A good way to cut City Hall spending is to get out of the health care business. The Assembly needs to sell Sitka Community Hospital to SEARHC or anyone that would be interested in buying it.
One good option is to give the hospital to its employees. As an employee owned hospital they could serve Sitkans, grow, expand, elect their own board, and determine what services they really need to supply rather then being directed what to do from an ever changing Assembly and City staff.
The Assembly could give our local friends and neighbors at Sitka Community Hospital a chance to manage themselves. We can trust them to provide for our needs, shop the best price for their own insurance, handle their own retirement fund, and enter into their own agreement with SEARHC.
Clyde Bright, Sitka
Useable Land
Dear Editor: Folks, the geologists confirm that there are few building areas left in Sitka that are not prone to slides and other unmanageable risks. Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service is sitting on thousands of acres of useable land, that they reserve from use. This useable land is close to us. Why tie ourselves in legal knots to indemnify ourselves against liability for issuing building permits in high risk areas. It makes more sense to join together to convince the Department of the Interior to transfer useable lands to Sitka. Where will our kids build? Where will we establish businesses to realize our dreams of economic development? Why, on land currently kept out of reach by the Forest Service. . . .
Lisa Murkowski is right that the feds hog too much land in Alaska. The useable lands near Sitka do not have any special characteristics such as being reserves for unique wild life.
The useable lands near Sitka have a history as a source of forest products. There is no demand for those products in these times. The demand is for safe development spaces.
Let’s drop our political differences and unite in getting more land for Sitka. This is the sensible approach to development. Build where it is safe. Build on land transferred from the Forest Service, which does not have any use for it. Thanks for listening.
John Welsh, Sitka
