FEATURES

Susan Hutson, New Orleans’ New Independent Police Monitor
by Lovell Beaulieu

Up with DOJ
by Lovell Beaulieu

Art, Glorious Art
by Dr. Sarah Hollis

SUNO under siege
by Lovell Beaulieu

Broken Promises
By Lolis Eric Elie

Amour De Cafe
by Fallon Jai

Columns & Departments

Publisher's Notes
Month in Review
Our Town
Blackonomics

Broken Promises

On April 22, the outgoing New Orleans City Council made one of its few official statements on the proposal to demolish roughly nine city blocks in order to make way for a Veterans Administration hospital.

The council voted 7-0 to authorize the closing of city streets within the Mid City footprint of the hospital. The decision paves the way for massive, suburban style super blocks within the hospital area. It will effectively force pedestrians and motorists alike to maneuver around the complex.

While council members have often talked about the enormous economic impact that a new hospital complex could have, they allotted less than an hour for comment on the plan. Veterans Administration officials made a 15 minute presentation, followed by 15 minutes each for proponents and opponents. Dismissing pleas from their constituents for more discussion time, the council took its vote.

That a vote was held at all is remarkable. In all the years since a new hospital complex has been discussed, the New Orleans city council has seemed reluctant to hold hearings on the idea, let alone take a substantive vote.

On September 29, 2008, the New Orleans City Council’s Housing and Human Needs committee did hold a hearing. When it came time to discuss the proposed Veterans Administration and Charity Hospital complex, the first speaker was Bobbi Rogers, a member of the Lower Mid-City Residents and Business Owners.

“Since the announcement was made in June of 2007, this is the first time we have had a chance to talk about this issue in any official forum with our City Council,” she said.

The next speaker was Mary Howell, an attorney whose office is in the neighborhood that would be affected if the two hospitals are built. Echoing Rogers’ comments, she said, “We need a full hearing before the City Council, if need be, a special meeting.”

Four councilmembers were present at that meeting and each expressed their support for a meeting of the full city council meeting to address the issue. But in the 20 months since those sentiments were expressed, the promised meeting has yet to be held.

Meanwhile, property acquisition is ongoing, architects are designing the two hospitals, and both the VA and the state envision ground-breakings in the latter half of 2010.

E-mail correspondence from early 2007 shows several council members expressing solidarity with former mayor Ray Nagin, former-recovery chief Ed Blakely and the Regional Planning Commission in offering the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs a 34-acre parcel bound by Tulane Avenue, South Rocheblave, Canal Street and South Galvez Street.

Later that year, the council imposed a moratorium on all building permits in the VA footprint and the state’s adjacent footprint across Galvez to South Claiborne Avenue.

The VA formally chose the Mid-City parcel in fall 2008, long after it became clear that local and state authorities wanted the VA to locate there. Federal agencies typically do not expropriate occupied land for their building projects, instead choosing from parcels offered by state or local entities.

At the September 2008 meeting, Stacey Head, who was then the co-chair of the Housing and Human Needs committee and who represents the district in which the new hospital would be placed, seemed to support the idea of a hearing the full council. She said to Howell at the time, “I think that your point is well made.”

Head went on to support the idea of holding a hearing even at night to allow more people to attend. Her stipulation was that, “it is going to be an even-handed opportunity to speak, pros and cons.”

“I do think that we need an opportunity to have a full blown hearing in front of this council so that we can -- we can hear both perspectives,” Councilman at-large, Arnie Fielkow said. “I think you are hearing the will of this council to want to do that, and I hope we can get it done in the next couple of weeks.”

“Thursday at our City Council meeting, it will be announced as to when the public meeting will be, time, place and all the arrangements, and then we’ll put it on the website,” said councilmember Jackie Clarkson.

“I’m very glad that Stacy--the recommendation was put forward as a hardworking district council person, to just have an evening meeting where everybody can come out and be there,” outgoing councilmember Cynthia Willard Lewis said.

While those earlier statements seemed to be clear endorsements of a City Council meeting to discuss the issue of the hospitals, councilmembers were more equivocal when asked about such hearings subsequently. However, several councilmembers did detail efforts they made to provide public discussion of the issues and re-evaluation of the plans that hospital officials have put forward.

Seung Hong, who served as chief of staff for outgoing Councilmember Shelly Midura said in an email last fall that the councilwoman, “has always publicly supported the reopening of Charity Hospital, if for no other reason than to serve as an interim facility. And she did in fact hold a public Council hearing on the closure of Charity bringing in then ceo of LSUHSC Donald Smithburg and was the first to bring to his attention that the closure was illegal under state law.”

In interviews last fall, Head and Fielkow deflected the question of why they had not held a hearing o their own body. Instead, they focused on their role in the decision of the City Planning Commission to hold a forum last May.