Pat wrote on Oct 6, 2006 1:13 AM:I'm glad that they've been conservative in their predictions. 23 bucks per $100K assessed is a very small price to pay for upgrades to our hospital, which will actually help ensure our property market values continue to increase! Larry needs to stay within the field of his expertise,wastewater and not venture into economics. Prop T gets my vote.

Yes for Tri-City wrote on Oct 6, 2006 1:23 AM:The bottom-line question is do we want upgrades to Tri-City Medical Center. I do. I've owned my Vista home for 4.5 years and will pay $47 per YEAR, a bargain. I want close healthcare with up to date technology, and absolutely want a close emergency room.

Oceanside Dad wrote on Oct 6, 2006 2:21 AM:I agree with Yes, I need a close emergency room in case I have to take one of my kids there (again). The doctors have been very good, but we've had to wait awhile to get in. I am a new home owner and stingy with $, so have really looked at this measure. The benefits far outweigh the cost.

Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 2:51 AM:Citibank is underwriting the bond. It has decades of experience in underwriting bonds. It is responsible. It has integrity. The assumptions are conservative estimates, or best guesses. Of course no one knows what will happen 40 years into the future. But Citibank has done its best to project what may happen. The assumptions are reasonable. The assumptions are in the ballpark. It is time to "T" up and hit a home run for the home Team! Vote YES on Proposition T!

Viva wrote on Oct 6, 2006 5:20 AM:Still put me in the no column. With all of these bonds, and they admit the $23.40 is not solid. No T, No T, Really... no T.

Angry Ex-Reader wrote on Oct 6, 2006 6:47 AM:The headline of this article is the straw that breaks the camel's back for me ... I am cancelling my subscription and I encourage everyone else to do the same. (I wonder if this blog will be put on the website; I know it will not be printed.) North County Times has a long history of coverage biased against Tri-City Hospital. While the actual articles are relatively fair and balanced, the headlines that are the only things that many people read do not reflect the content of the articles. This article on the finances of Prop T is a classic example although it has happened many times before. The article covers one negative person whose expertise is NOT bond financing and then at least three positive persons whose background IS finance. Who gets the headline ... the negative civil engineer advising us on finance. I wonder if we should let financiers and accountants design bridges? Finally, I need to vent on the fact that I have followed the North County Times coverage of Prop BB for Palomar Pomerado Health, Prop F, and now Prop T for Tri-City and it is clear to me that NCT is clearly biased towards PPH. The coverage of Prop BB was a cakewalk for the Escondido-Poway health system. In the past, I have resisted friends' comments that NCT is an Escondido newspaper instead of a North County newspaper, but not any longer.

Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 7:01 AM:"Jellison said he is wary of projecting growth so far into the future." Larry Jellison would not be happy with any 40 year bond series. There is nothing anyone can do to satisfy him. It is best to let sleeping dogs lie. Vote YES on T!

Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 7:03 AM:"If Prop. T passes in November, Tri-City would issue bonds in four chunks over a 10-year period, likely starting in 2007. It would take 40 years to pay off four 30-year bonds that together add up to $596 million." This seems like a very Orderly approach to me! Vote YES on T!

Oceansider wrote on Oct 6, 2006 7:08 AM:This isn't the only problem with this proposition. READ IT FOR YOURSELVES. Not only is there "flexibility" in the tax rate charged, there is still no requirement that the items listed will actually be built. And the proposition includes language that does not bind the board to fulfilling the Master Facilities Plan. It's still very much a blank check, even with a "citizen's oversight board" which is appointed by the Board and has no real authority to check the Board. Prop. T is a non-starter and still has these (and more) disastrous flaws. Hospital improvements, yes, BUT NO ON T. Make the Board get it right. NO ON T!

Eileen wrote on Oct 6, 2006 7:24 AM:Prop T seems to be a fiscally sound way to make the much needed upgrades that the hospital needs. I am a homeowner who as a rule did not support any additional taxes. But I realized after hearing the facts that we need a new hospital, that this bond is the only realistic way to do it, and that ultimately it is a great deal for me and my community. Without a new hospital our home prices will suffer greatly. Without a hospital we will not have access to the newest and most advanced medical equipment. I for one am voting yes of proposition T.

NO ON T wrote on Oct 6, 2006 7:32 AM:No way will I pay higher taxes for the next 40 years so Pat and Yes for Tri-City can use that facility. I've never used that hospital nor will I ever.

Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 7:51 AM:Tri-City residents face two crucial votes on Nov. 7: (1) YES on Prop. T; and (2) NO on Joe Brown. If Joe Brown is NOT elected, the board will be able to muster the required 2/3 vote to "tweak" the Master Facilities Plan as necessary, based upon unpredictable future changes.

Dawn wrote on Oct 6, 2006 8:06 AM:The most important thing to come back to is this...We need a community hospital in our community, and I want it to be one that has everything it needs to attract the best physicians and nurses. All this squabble about $23.40 or more...what price would you be willing to pay if your life was on the line? or the life of someone you love? If we all embrace Prop T, we can work together to rebuild our hospital which will help ensure that the value of our community doesn't fall.

Jimmy the III wrote on Oct 6, 2006 8:53 AM:Hospial District Bonds, School District Bonds, Water Authority Bonds, Lightng Distict Bonds, Roads bonding and the litany of unpaid city bonds, special district bonds, college school district bonds, other overlay districts bonds, other county bonds, other regional districts bonds, special state bonds and local state park bonds and special measure bonds.....Folks all these and other bonds your are paying, all on the backs of the Home owners....OH, they say, it's just a simple $23 additional amount per $100,000.....that's just for this one hospital district. All these Government agencies and entities know this cash cow is there and they hide the fact that if they don't add together the total bonding tax charges for your tax bill you won't know and won't mind passing their new bond measures.....It's their nasty dirty little hidden agenda that they use. And this is what Tri-City Hospital is doing. If they were honest they would present the entire tax bond bill and show how much it would increase the entire home owners tax bill but they won't because cumulatively in some areas it's now approaching well over what folks pay in rent a month and thats on top of yur house payments to the bank and your nsurance payments and that's before you get to taking care of your family. And what's really bad if a young person wants to buy a home they have this add exspense on top of their home payment they better prepare for that could double their economic burden, causing them to be foreclosed upon or to go bankrupt within a year or two which is becoming very common and some ae asking why. Or if a person rents the prperty owner merely passes this bill on and that causes inflation and you all complain about the costs of things? I hear many of the supporters of prop T complaining about the cost of living shortly after sayng they support the measure but they don't see the link they are contributing to. Well if you vote for prop T then don't complain about the cost of living because you've just added another few cents to inflaton and devalutaion of the dollar every month. Because it's borrowed money not created dollars. Simple economics folks and the hidden inflationary triggers in our local economy that is hurting us all. We need to be honest and circumspect before voting, truth in advertising: $23 plus what Tri-city folks? $23 plus What?

NO on "T" wrote on Oct 6, 2006 9:35 AM:What a waste of money this Proposition is!! AND what about the cost overuns? Who'll pay for that. So they'll double the assesed value and once again, the homeowners carry the load. I have never used TriCity, just like shopping, I shop around for the best care. Some of us homeowners can't afford the extra tax! BOTTOM LINE: I don't want to wastehard earned money on a bad Proposition. JUST SAY NO to "T"!

Jack's View wrote on Oct 6, 2006 9:44 AM:Well at least they are attempting to be honest for once. They ask you to pass this TAX Proposition, and in the same breath, tell you it's an open account to raise your homeowners taxes anytime they feel like it! I wish I could work like that! Please, don't give someone the ability to raise your taxes any time they feel like it. Homeowners take note!! This is not affordable to us!

Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 11:11 AM:Those who take the time to read Tri-City's Proposition T from cover to cover will find bond language that is organized in an easy-to-read fashion...quite Orderly!

Risky Assumptions! wrote on Oct 6, 2006 11:41 AM:This bond measure is a house of cards that will fall on property taxpayers after the smallest disturbance!

Oceansider wrote on Oct 6, 2006 11:48 AM:A certain high-profile opponent to Prop F who is now pro-Prop T favors metaphors and analogies in his blogs, thinking that slogans make lipsticked pigs prettier. The fact is that, as with Prop F, the accountability is NOT present, the cost of the bond is still TOO HIGH, and the guarantees of what will be done are NOT PRESENT. Read the proposition language for yourselves, something these guys hope you won't do. This born-again proponent, also running for the TCH board, has never answered the questions posed to him repeatedly in this blog: why was Prop F too much at $596 million, but Prop T isn't at $596 million? Why was language giving the Board an opt-out for any portion of the project bad in Prop F, but the same language in Prop T is okay? Why did he insist on retrofitting existing buildings under Prop F, but now, under Prop T, believe that no building is salvagable and all must be replaced? And finally, who's paying for your campaign? Hit those out of the ballpark, or, at least, try to bunt. NO ON TERRIBLE T!

Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 11:52 AM:NEWS FLASH: The American Institute of Public Relations Consultants has just certified Prop. T's bond language as "Exceptionally Orderly!" Much, much less than 1% of bonds throughout our nation receive this recognition!!

Timing wrote on Oct 6, 2006 12:03 PM:I thought the State's earthquake laws required the hospital construction be finished by 2013. So why are bonds going to be issued in 2017?

to Pat wrote on Oct 6, 2006 12:09 PM:Maybe you can pay my share since I am on a fixed income and you have plenty of money to throw away.

NO on "T" wrote wrote on Oct 6, 2006 12:25 PM:JUST SAY NO to "T"!"

JUST SAY NO to "T"!" wrote on Oct 6, 2006 12:26 PM:JUST SAY NO to "T"!"

To Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 12:32 PM:WOW hold it cowboy the North County Times needs to have an AP reporter investigate Tri City’s bond issues. Follow the trail this is what I say and as far as I know there are too many secrets with TCMC BOND, BANK and INVESTMENTS that neither the North County Times or the San Diego Union will disclose to the public because they have too many CONFLICTS. What are the names of the BOD for these BANKS? How do these names connect to editors, publishers, and key media personnel? Adam K. union trib. reporter was on the trail until they got rid of him, oh what a web we’ve woven. This report opens a whole new can of worms and where in the world is Bonnie DA hidding?

Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 12:33 PM:"Jellison said he is wary of projecting growth so far into the future." Doesn't Larry Jellison have a 30 year mortgage on his house? What's the difference between Jellison's 30 year mortgage on his house and the series of 30 year bonds proposed under Prop. T?

Response to -to Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 1:24 PM:Bonnie DA is after gang members and thugs it certainly is safe for her not to do REAL investigations into the REAL criminal activities in the North County. This is how she stays in office being safe……….

To Wardwell wrote on Oct 6, 2006 2:45 PM:Sure interest rates are low now, but Tri-City is not going to issue most of the bonds now. Quit acting like you are going to issue the whole $600 million next year. You know that several hundred million in bonds will not issue until 2010, with the lastest round not issuing until 2017. Just admit that you have no idea what interest rates will be in those years.

Fallbrook wrote on Oct 6, 2006 3:17 PM:No on M --- Yes on T

GAN wrote on Oct 6, 2006 3:40 PM:Any time I need a laugh I read these blogs. The twisted logic is a constant source of amusement for me. For example, Dawn wrote "All this squabble about $23.40 or more...what price would you be willing to pay if your life was on the line? or the life of someone you love?". Hmmm...If lighting struck my house I would want a lightning rod installed on my house so I should go out and buy one. Or if a meteorite hit my head when I went outside I would want to be wearing a helmet so I should go out and buy one. Ha, Ha, Ha

To Randy wrote on Oct 6, 2006 4:27 PM:You are attacking anyone that disagrees with you. First the Former Mayour of Oceanside, then Joe Brown, and now Larry Jellison!? Wow, I think the problem is with you. We need to tell Mayor Woods to take you off the Planning Commission and put Jellison on. You are a bitter hatful individual.

Yes on T wrote on Oct 6, 2006 4:54 PM:I voted Yes on F and will again vote Yes on T. We need a hospital in our area that is up to date and safe. For those of you to say that you don't use Tri-City whos to say you never will. What if you were in a care accident and unresponsive? I was born in Tri-City and I will support them all the way.

Larry the engineer wrote on Oct 6, 2006 7:07 PM:My dear friend, Randy -- if I did have a mortgage, it would be a 15-yr. fixed rate interest mortgage, with the interest rate set at the date of purchase, not at some time in 2010 or 2017 when the rate is unknown. China and Japan are going to get tired of financing America's spending sprees. When they do, what will that do to our interest rates, including the rates for our short term and long term bonds that Tri-City will be buying throughout the next 40 years? I'm only a wastewater facilities engineer, so I guess I'm not qualified to answer that question. Brown, Lawson, someone out there, help me! Everyone else, get out your check books twice a year and write those big property tax checks to San Diego Co., with a few more digits there for the Tri-City bond. Randy-- Tri-City will be buying a mixture of short and long term bonds-- this is comparable to homeowner financing with an ARM.

Larry the engineer wrote on Oct 6, 2006 10:02 PM:Okay guys, another lesson in Finance 101-- have you connected the dots yet as to why the Tri-City financial consultants are mixing in short term bonds with the long term bonds in their financial projections, arriving at the $23.40/100K figure? 1) Short term bonds are cheaper in today's market, around 3%. 2) If you are not connecting the dots, you would say-- yeah, but short term bonds need to be refinanced in a few years hence. 3) If you are connecting the dots, you would say, but the consultants then get to put a series of short term bonds in their computer, spread over 40 years, all at 3%, to produce cheaper bonds in their computer model. Cheaper bonds mean a lower projected tax rate. 4) If you are not connecting the dots, you would then say, but short term bonds over the next 40 years may not stay at 3%. At which stage, we really hope you are connecting the dots.

Pat wrote on Oct 7, 2006 8:51 AM:Larry should stay with wastewater, his area of expertise. He didn't mention an increasing market forming the tax base. One reason, of many, that I support the bond is the positive impact it has on N County economy. We need a high quality hospital here in Oceanside, and Tri-City needs upgrades.

Agree with Angry wrote on Oct 7, 2006 8:57 AM:NCT headlines continue to slap Tri-City Medical Center. The headline to this artcile was totally inappropriate. Did Mr. Sisson write the headline? If not, did he approve it? It did not reflect the contect of the story and leads to negative conclusions regarding Prop T. I absolutely will cancel my subscription (just tried on line and can't find the link to cancel so may have to phone) and hope NCT prints Angry's blog in the paper.

Prudent Taxpayer wrote on Oct 7, 2006 10:47 AM:I ask the same question someone else asked earlier. Do you want to take financial advice from a civil engineer or from a CFO with 30 years experience who will likely go to jail if there is fraud being committed, a national financier from Citigroup and the County Assessor. I also ask why is there so much concern about Prop T bond financing when these bonds are required to be financed the exact same way as used by Carlsbad School District, Palomar College and Palomar Pomerado Health.

Larry to Prudent wrote on Oct 7, 2006 10:29 PM:Take advice from a CFO or from an engineer? Depends on who is playing loosely with the numbers. Tri-City uses short term 3% bonds in their analysis to make the debt service costs look lower. Think they will be able to sell short term 3% bonds over the next 40 years? Now, come back and tell me that you would trust the CFO with your check book. If you took out an ARM on your house with an initial 3% interest, how likely do you think your rate would remain the same 3% over the next 30 years? I say, you are in better hands with Larry and the wastewater business than with Tri-City and their consultants.

Prudent in response to Larry wrote on Oct 13, 2006 1:18 AM:Should one trust a CFO with check book or a waste water person? The answer is a CFO. I wish there was an ARM w 3%, but you should educate yourself that this is actually not an option. The financially savvy recognize this and that the other bonds (Clsb School District, Palomar College and Palomar Hospital) are funded in the exact same way. Prop T now has a lot more monitoring, which is legally stipulated in the bond itself - you should check it out. It is on the hospital website. I'm voting YES on T.

Last I Looked at Records wrote on Oct 18, 2006 9:23 AM:It is interesting that most of the doctors who support Prop T do not live in the District! Also, the people who signed on as support for Prop T ballot live in Carlsbad. Tri City is a major employer of Oceanside, and holds the majority of voters, yet no one at the council signed their name as part of the written text for the voter pamphlet.

Vote NO wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:01 PM:This is a burden to the homeowners, who for the next 40 years will be paying this off. Everything talks about $23 per 100,000 per year...that's over 40 years. To us it means about $5,000 just our household alone will pay. This is ontop of the recent Carlsbad School District. I'm all for great hospital care, but lets see other alternatives and better hospital management. Lets see a fair ballot at the poles, and no biased drop-off box at the hospital itself.