Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

County Home price is a bargain for buyer

February 27, 2013

It was noted in the Oct....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-27-13 8:27 AM

EXCELLENT article and historic perspective on the County Home. Thank YOU!!!

I was confused by the statements of losing $9,000 a day which seemed to contradict the numbers in both the budget and in the report by CGR. Then someone told me they are combining the match money that the County provides from the general fund with the IGT funds and dividing it by days in the year. Some kind of tricky accounting huh?

I guess for POLITICAL REASONS ONLY some are misleading us on the cost of the HOME.

In fact the CRG report states "the NOT THE MAJOR DRAIN ON TAXPAYERS THAT MANY ASSUME". .."Even factoring in the County match required to draw down the IGT fund, the County Home has generated a small average net annual SURPLUS of about $110,000 per year since 2007.....This figures are counter to the figures cited in recent media reports.."

So they mislead us on the actual costs. Then when the vote does not go the way some want, they are willing to change the enti

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 8:35 AM

To finish...

So they mislead us on the actual costs to operate the HOME. Then when the vote does not go the way some in our legislation and County office want it to go, they are willing to change the entire law so they can vote again, hoping this time they will get the results they desire.

We are to trust this group? They mislead us on the costs of the HOME. They make it difficult for us to find out how much the gas well drilled at the home cost. (promise I will try to go through that huge file next week and report my finding back) And when a democratic vote is taken, but it does not yield the results they want, some are willing to change the entire law. Bend it until they get what they desire.

And we are to TRUST them??

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 9:05 AM

How do you place a value on a bankrupt, union dominated non-profit organization that is a drain on the taxpayers?

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 9:15 AM

How is dividing $3.2M per year in taxpayer subsidy by 365 days and coming up with a daily loss of $8767 some kind of tricky accounting??

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 9:26 AM

1959 is a looooong time ago, and the reason that the Home was built was because the economy and surrounding population could support it with little effort. They had cash coming out of their ears. Now it's 2013, 5 years into a recession, the CCH is hanging by a thread, (yes, it IS losing money) robbing Peter to pay Paul (IGT), and not making life on an already-cash-strapped populace. It's a known quantity that government can't run a business. It's time to consider thining about the definition of insanity. If the way the CCH is run now isn't working, then time to try something different. Even lease it to someone else?...

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 9:53 AM

Yes $16.5M is a bargain price, but none of the other 34 parties that showed interest were willing to bid higher, or at all. The 14 conditions placed on the sale by the legislature scared most bidders away.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 10:38 AM


Do you truely not understand that the loose reported doesn't count the taxpayer subsidies the County Home recieves or are you just being disingenuous so as to promote your agenda?

Following your logic if the Home needed $10 a year extra from the taxpayer, to keep it from going broke, as long as they had $1 left at the end of the year they wouldn't be loosing money.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 11:07 AM

The write overlooks several important, but basic issues but I'll only go into a few.

First is when the the government have something built it will cost far more then it would if a private company or individual to have it done, for various reasons.

Second is the simple truth that in general when you remodel a building it doesn't increase the value of that building by anywhere near what was put into it, and in fact often simply keep the value of the property for going down.

Finally the simpe truth is that property values in the County are pathetitcally low, so why would they expect the County Home property to pull a premium price?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 11:55 AM

This is just more proof that the County should not be in the business of running a nursing home. When you over invest in property.....guess do not get your money back or make a profit!!!!!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-27-13 2:25 PM

Was the primary intention of building and maintaining the County Home to make a profit? That's what most of you on here seem to be implying.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-28-13 8:55 AM

sell the home and take in tax revenue from private owners or keep it and lose money monthly,the choice is clear,let the taxpayer vote on it and you will find majority will support sale,nuff said

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-01-13 4:08 AM

The CCH is a public facility that provides public services. Some public services are more costly to operate than others, yet only the CCH is being unfairly singled out as "losing" money?

With a budget of over $40M per/yr, how much money is the Dunkirk Public Schools "losing"? The city's annual budget is about $22M to provide services such as the DPW, the DPD & the DFD. How much money are these depts "losing" each & every yr?

If we use the same formula and take the $22M+ it costs per yr to run the sheriff's dept, the CCSD is "losing" over $61,000 PER DAY!

Most (if not all) county services "lose" money, only they properly refer to it as operating expenses. It's the Co Exec's & CCLeg's job to manage ALL county services to the best of their ability, NOT sell off public assets when they need money to pay for all the poor managerial decisions THEY make. I presume this is one of the reasons why the super majority law was pa

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 12 of 12 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web