Children's Hospital seeks help on rebuilding through county-wide parcel tax
Original post made on Jan 28, 2008
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, January 25, 2008, 12:00 AM
on Jan 28, 2008 at 10:22 am
Neighbors are very upset with the unplanned expansion of CHO.
For anyone who'd like information on why, please see the website for Livable Oakland:
Let's vote NO on Measures A and B and tell private corporations they'll have to look elsewhere for their expansion funds. Tax payer dollars should go to county hospitals, police, libraries and schools- not 193ft towers in low-key residential neighborhoods.
on Jan 28, 2008 at 4:23 pm
NO PUBLIC MONEY WITHOUT PUBLIC AND NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT!! Children's sprung this on our neighborhood and is now threatening eminent domain to home owners not willing to sell to them. How can a PRIVATE corporation get homeowners to pay for their EXPANSION and also take away their homes??? It is not a rebuild OR a retrofit. The money is going toward a monstrous 196-foot tower capped with a helicopter pad. Childrens Hospital serves clients throughout northern California and yet ONLY Alameda County residents and businesses are being asked to pay for it. IT'S NOT FAIR!!! Make Children's Hospital accountable to the residents of Alameda County. Vote NO on Measures A and B. Go to www.livableoakland.com for more info.
on Jan 28, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Children's Hospital Oakland doesn't act like a public entity (it's a very closed institution) yet wants $300 million of our tax dollars.
It's secretive about its long-term growth plan, and has been creeping northwards for years, taking over homes and turning the neighborhood into its office space.
Children's never has done any community outreach in its own neighborhood. It presented its plan for a 12-story high-rise as a done deal at a community meeting where a couple of people discovered their homes were in the footprint.
Children's went around the backs of Alameda County supervisors to get Measure B on the ballot. They had to add Measure A because B would have been challenged in court
It's scary when a private enterprise uses eminent domain to take homes.
These are just some of the reasons to vote No on A and B