Letter: California did not shoot itself in the foot

This is in response to the opinion piece written by Seth Dallob on California shooting itself in the foot by passing earthquake regulations that he says have forced Barton Hospital to decide to move to the Nevada side. He detailed the potential for secondary economic effects that were dire, and possibly correct. There is only one problem with his article: the premise is incorrect, leading to his false conclusions.

I have been a physician practicing in South Lake Tahoe for over 43 years, as a one-third founder of Tahoe Family Physicians (now Barton Family Medicine), including a stint as Chief-of-Staff of the hospital, and have been a voting member of the Barton Association that entire time. I was saddened by the thought that Barton would need to move to Nevada. But four months ago, I learned one small fact that has been under-appreciated or perhaps consciously hidden from view. Maybe I did not do my due diligence, but why did I just learn about this fact three years after the Lakeside Inn was purchased for thirteen million dollars? The State of California requires the hospital to be retrofitted for earthquake protection, but this ruling covers only the old snow-flake part of the hospital which was built in 1963, over sixty years ago. The new part of the hospital and the Center for Orthopedic Excellence do not require seismic retrofits. For anyone who has worked in the old snowflake part of the building over the years, a seismic retrofit does not seem to be an onerous burden for a building that has seen its share of leaks and other issues over the years.

I am not a builder, but it would seem that building a new replacement for the snowflake building, which houses the Skilled Nursing Facility and ancillary services such as EKG, GI, lab, pharmacy, infusion center, and cafeteria would have been an easy, simple project costing much less than building an entire new hospital in the high rent district of the casino corridor. Then the old snowflake could have been torn down with an appropriate ceremony honoring its long service.

So Mr. Dallob’s complaints about the onerous burden of California’s regulatory system forcing the hospital to move and destroying the town of South Lake Tahoe is just a complete fantasy.

The truth of the matter seems to be that a group of people on the hospital board and in the administration decided that it might be a good idea to build a totally new hospital on the Nevada side, and so land was purchased and the old casino torn down before TRPA permits and building permits were obtained. There has triggered a growing resistance on the Nevada side to building there. Explanations for the decision were given, that there would be less patient disruption and it would be cheaper to build in Nevada.

Perhaps part of the reason was to escape the California-based Nurses Union. But this decision to move the hospital to Nevada was a decision made by the hospital board alone, and it is their responsibility, as are any economic consequences to the City of South Lake Tahoe. The foundation of the hospital in 1963 was based on community support with a premise to serve the residents of the south shore of Lake Tahoe, of which perhaps 90% live on the California side. Why should the vast majority have to drive through Stateline in the summer or in the snow to obtain hospital care? Will there be care flight to fly from the Y to the hospital on summer weekends?

California did not shoot itself in the foot with regulations: the hospital board shot the community of South Lake Tahoe in the heart when it made its decision to relocate to another town in another state, far from the center of the community of South Lake Tahoe. That is a decision that needs to be reexamined, and I agree with Mr. Dallob on this: Prevention is the best medicine and cheaper than treating the consequences of moving the hospital campus.

- Brooks Martin, M.D.