Seashore Cities Wholesome Dwelling Campus grounded sooner or later

by Tom Bakaly, CEO
Beach Towns Health District

For more than 60 years, the Beach Cities Health District has played a vital role in improving and promoting the health of our community, first as the founder of South Bay Hospital and more recently as a provider of innovative health and wellness services and facilities. As the district evolves to meet the changing needs of our community, it is now planning its next phase – the Healthy Living Campus.

The Healthy Living Campus will be a comprehensive center for promoting health and wellbeing for all ages. Includes services and facilities for our seniors, especially the frail elderly who may otherwise have no choice but to spend their final years in a nursing home. It will include Home Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFEs), with a plan being considered to offer 10 percent of units at sub-market units, a facility for memory maintenance, and an all-inclusive care program for the elderly (“PACE “To help our seniors – especially those with below average incomes – age gracefully within their own four walls. The campus will also offer an open space equivalent to two soccer fields for outdoor activities and a youth wellness behavioral health center, that supports all young people between the ages of 12 and 25 in the Beach Cities.

Recently, a very small number of residents have tried to deny our seniors the benefits of the Healthy Living Campus. These few residents wrongly assigned motives to BCHD’s response to over 600 requests for public records. While the district welcomes an open debate about the pros and cons of its project, it does not welcome flimsy attacks based on misinformation and unsupported legal arguments. Unfortunately, we saw that in last week’s editorial Simple reader.

In the editorial, Robert Pinzler falsely claims that the district “cannot legally build its new campus as proposed”. He bases his claim on the false assumption that the district does not have legal ownership of its property, or if it does, it is somehow limited to owning or operating a hospital on that property.

Pinzler does not name any legal authority for his conclusion because there is none. Nor does he mention that the county gave him a copy of the actual deed dated December 12, 1957 by which the Redondo Improvement Company, the former owner of the property, transferred its rights to the property to the county. The deed does not contain any restrictions on the future use of the property.

Instead of the deed, Mr. Pinzler tries to invoke a “conviction” from 1957, which approved the purchase of the property by the district, as the district then used the property for the “construction, completion and operation of a hospital” to provide hospital services Of course, building and running a hospital is exactly what the district has done.

The hospital did not cease operations until more than 30 years later. Since then, the district has redesigned the hospital campus to provide the community with an extensive range of health services, all in accordance with legislative changes that have significantly expanded the scope of services “health districts” can offer, including “retirement programs”. Services and Facilities. ”The State of California changed the law and name of the districts (not BCHD as Mr. Pinzler suggests) to recognize the fact that the provision of health services is more than hospitals.

Pinzler would like us to believe that a public institution that legally acquires land for public use and fulfills its original public use for more than 30 years must never change this use – even if the original use is no longer possible and state law does expressly allows other uses. There is absolutely nothing in the law to support its proposal.

In order to initially acquire a property with a significant domain, a state institution must have a public use, but no law requires that such use be carried out in the same way over the long term. Significantly, even the judgment in condemnation on which Pinzler relies does not require this.

The legal authority proposed in the draft of the master plan for the district to develop the healthy living campus for public use is clear and unambiguous. IS

Comments are closed.