In Tallahassee town hall, progressives talk of concerns over TMH sale talks
A panel of Democrats, including the progressive wing of local elected officials and the county commission's longest-serving member, gathered in a "town hall" to ruminate on the future of Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare.
A small crowd of about 30 people braved a downpour the evening of June 5 to listen to Tallahassee City Commissioners Jeremy Matlow and Jack Porter and Leon County Commissioners David O'Keefe and Bill Proctor, with Leon County Democratic Party chair Ryan Ray moderating. Ray is also Matlow's commission aide.
After city leaders recently signaled they might consider a sale of TMH and all its assets, Florida State University immediately made its interest in purchasing the hospital known, hoping to put it under the FSU Health umbrella and get one step closer to creating an academic medical center.
The possibility of the sale of the community-owned hospital has many displeased: "What we're looking at is a few hot headed men, some at Florida State, some at the City of Tallahassee, (who are) in a power struggle to meet their individual goals," Matlow told the audience at the American Legion hall at Lake Ella.
"... What we're trying to say is, we need to be having a broader conversation about community goals, because what we would like to do is work with Florida State to see how we can expand academic medicine in our community," he added.
The town hall was the latest in an ongoing citywide debate, sparked by a city commission agenda item that in part said "... staff will also explore the feasibility and potential advantages of a possible sale of the property, considering all available options and approaches."
After the agenda item, FSU dropped a letter declaring interest in seeing TMH become an academic medical center, commonly referred to as a "teaching hospital," presumably under the FSU Health banner.
For his part, Ray said he invited others from City Hall, TMH and FSU to join the forum. They didn't show.
O'Keefe likened the TMH/City/FSU drama to a family argument among elected officials: "If we have a major issue with a family member, doesn't mean we throw them out. We agree with them on one thing; we don't agree with another. But that doesn't mean we just give up and do everything that 'Uncle FSU' wants to do."
One person in the audience asked Porter which city commissioners voted to put up TMH for sale. She quickly provided clarification.
"Technically, the hospital is not for sale," she said. "As far as I know, part of the problem with this process is that a lot of it has been happening behind the scenes without commissioners' or the public's awareness.
"But that has not come to us for a vote, to initiate a sale, though it does seem that those conversations have been happening behind the scenes between the city, the city manager and the mayor and FSU," she added. City Manager Reese Goad wasn't immediately available for comment.
Proctor, first elected in 1996 to represent the county's south-side District 1, suggested that if the discussion does go the way of a teaching hospital, FAMU should be included as well. So far, a partnership among the three entities hasn't been brought up.
Discussion wound up veering in different directions later in the town hall, encompassing goings-on in state government, the new Florida A&M president-elect, even Blueprint's portion of funds for the remodeling of Doak Campbell Stadium to be finished this summer.
And while a TMH discussion is not on the agenda, the city commission is still scheduled to meet June 11 at City Hall.
This story contains previously published material. Arianna Otero is the trending and breaking news reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat. Contact her via email at AOtero@tallahassee.com and follow her on X: @ari_v_otero.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: 'Uncle FSU' and TMH: Local Democrats resist idea of hospital takeover
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Freedom Caucus warns it will ‘not accept' Senate changes on green energy tax credits
The conservative House Freedom Caucus said on Friday that it would 'not accept' changes that 'water down' its cuts to green energy tax credits as the Senate weighs whether to alter the legislation. The House version of the 'big, beautiful bill' would make drastic changes to tax cuts for low-carbon energy sources passed in the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Climate-friendly energy projects, including wind and solar, would only be able to qualify for the credits under the House bill if they begin construction within 60 days of the bill's enactment. This brief window would likely make many projects ineligible for the credits, and is expected to significantly hamstring the development of new renewable power. In a post on social media on Friday, the Freedom Caucus warned the Senate against loosening that restriction or others included in the bill. 'We want to be crystal clear: if the Senate attempts to water down, strip out, or walk back the hard-fought spending reductions and IRA Green New Scam rollbacks achieved in this legislation, we will not accept it,' said the post, which was attributed to the Freedom Caucus's board. 'The House Freedom Caucus Board will stand united holding the line. The American people didn't send us here to cave to the swamp — they sent us here to change it,' they added. The Senate has been widely expected to consider changes that could slow the rapid elimination of the tax credit passed under the House version of Trump's 'big beautiful bill.' Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Jerry Moran (Kan.) and John Curtis (Utah) released a letter warning against a 'full scale' repeal of the tax credits. Senate Republicans can only afford three defections and pass their bill. On Friday, a group of 13 House GOP moderates released a letter calling on Senate leadership 'to substantively and strategically improve clean energy tax credit provisions' in the legislation. 'We believe the Senate now has a critical opportunity to restore common sense and deliver a truly pro-energy growth final bill that protects taxpayers while also unleashing the potential of U.S. energy producers, manufacturers, and workers,' said the letter, which was led by Reps. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.). Altogether, the letters illustrate what could be a tough task ahead of the Republican leadership as they look to find a measure that will keep at least 50 senators on board and appease the House. Emily Brooks contributed.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Shift4 appoints new CEO
This story was originally published on Payments Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Payments Dive newsletter. Shift4 named founder Jared Isaacman as executive chairman after President Donald Trump abruptly dropped the executive's nomination to run NASA over the weekend, the digital processor said in a regulatory filing Thursday. "Mr. Isaacman will remain an executive officer and Class I member of the Board," the filing said. The change is effective on Thursday, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Allentown, Pennsylvania-based payments processing company had selected Shift4 President Taylor Lauber to succeed Isaacman if Trump's December nomination was confirmed by the Senate, but the chamber never voted on it. Isaacman, who has been the company's CEO and chairman since it was founded in 1999, will retain his super voting shares in Shift4, according to the filing. Lauber said during an April earnings call that Isaacman would convert his class B and class C shares into class A shares, which are worth a single vote per share. That agreement was "subject to several conditions, including the ratification and confirmation by the U.S. Senate of Mr. Isaacman's appointment as administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration," the SEC filing said. "As a result of this condition not being met, Mr. Isaacman is no longer required to reduce his voting shares." Isaacman had a 76% voting power ownership stake in Shift4, according toan April 30 proxy filing. Trump cited Isaacman's "prior associations" when he withdrew the NASA nomination. The president pulled the nomination over the Shift4 founder's past contributions to Democrats, according to a report from the New York Times. However, Isaacman suggested on a Wednesday episode o fthe All-In podcast that his ties to billionaire SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk cost him the nomination, Bloomberg reported. Musk may also have helped him win the nomination from Trump, given Isaacman's participation in past SpaceX missions. Recommended Reading Shift4 CEO likely to keep post
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
McCAUGHEY: Democrats waging war on small-town values and property values
Across the U.S., Democrats are waging war to crush a lifestyle they abhor. Call it small-town America: Single-family neighbourhoods, quiet streets, town centres stamped with their historic character and almost no signs of the vagrancy and homeless encampments that plague cities. Democrats want you to have none of this. If you've worked for years to save up for a home in one of these havens, forget about it. The Democratic Party is using brute legal force to remake towns using a cookie-cutter formula that forces each to have the same proportion of houses and apartments, the same mix of low-, middle- and upper-income residents and the same reliance on public transit, all controlled by state politicians. Any town that resists gets shamed as 'segregated', though this isn't about race, and 'snobby.' On May 31, the Connecticut legislature passed H.B. 5002, which should be called the Destroy Connecticut Towns Act. It's headed to Gov. Ned Lamont's desk for a signature. The new law dictates how many low-income and moderate-income apartments each Connecticut town must provide and mandates that towns also foot the bill for the schools, parks, public transportation and other services low-income residents will need. Local taxes will soar. The bill explicitly says its purpose is to ensure 'economic diversity' in each town. This is about social engineering, not remedying housing shortages. Democrat Bob Duff, the state senate majority leader, says 'it's extremely important … that we don't segregate people based on a ZIP code.' Everyone, regardless of income, should have the opportunity to choose to live in any town. The bill mandates that the wealthiest towns, mostly in lower Fairfield County, provide most of the new housing, even though that raises the cost. Land costs less in other towns and lower-income people, who this bill is supposed to serve, are more likely to find bus transportation and affordable stores in these other towns as well. Connecticut lawmakers are nixing local rules. Ordinances that protect the appearance of a town have to be overruled. The bill states that multifamily buildings of up to 24 units will no longer have to provide off-street parking. Envision cars lining every residential street. Towns will also be forced to welcome vagrants who want to sleep in parks and public lots. The bill outlaws 'hostile architecture,' meaning park benches with armrests and divided seating, or stone walls with spikes on top that deter sleeping in the rough. Instead, the bill launches a program of mobile showers and mobile laundry services on trucks to serve the homeless wherever they choose. Picture the mobile showers pulling up to Greenwich Common Park on the town's main street, or Waveny Park in New Canaan. How can kids walk around town with their pals if there are homeless encampments? Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute think tank, points out that the homeless amount to 1% of the population in Los Angeles but commit 25% of the homicides. Inviting the homeless means inviting crime and drugs. Californicating the small towns of Connecticut by encouraging public camping and vagrancy 'is frightening,' says Glock. New York Democrats are also taking aim at small-town living. A bill sponsored by state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal would outlaw local towns from setting minimum lot sizes over one-eighth of an acre near the town centre and a half acre everywhere else. Postage stamp sizes. Riverhead, New York, town supervisor Tim Hubbard is vowing to sue. 'We're trying to keep our community as rural as it can be … We don't think the state should be zoning our town.' Hoylman-Sigal chooses to live on the west side of Manhattan, but who is he to impose a population-dense lifestyle on small-town New Yorkers? Similarly, in New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Tim Murphy is pushing lawmakers to override local ordinances and impose the same kinds of 'reforms' as those in the Connecticut bill. In all these states and across the country, small-town Americans need to fight back. There is no constitutional right to live in a wealthy town with single-family homes and leafy, quiet streets. It's something you earn. Once you've purchased a home, you have the right to protect its value. It's time to put blue-state politicians on notice that their battle to destroy our suburbs and small towns will be resisted at the voting booth and in court.
