Can Misses: 100,000€ Budget For Lift to Stop People Using Car Park “Getting Wet”
Can Misses will receive a new lift, which links the car park directly to the building, the idea being that ‘on rainy days, users will be covered at all times’.
At the moment the project has been drafted, then it must be contracted following an engineering and architectural study.
It is estimated to cost 100,000€ with those responsible stating that this is not merely ‘a lift’, but one that will allow a stretcher if necessary.
Parts of the wall will be demolished for its insertion, however most work will take place in the car park.
While the main objective is to facilitate access for people with mobility problems and prevent users from getting wet in the rain, they do concede that this access will reduce parking costs to patients and visitors ‘since the time of movement from one area to another will be less’.
Has anybody questioned why they didn’t just do it that way in the first place? i.e The logical way. The obvious way. Lifts could have been located anywhere in the hospital car park’s huge space, generally huge empty space. For those that do not know, the huge hospital car park is mainly open air, but below ground level. Much of it is adjacent and under the hospital buildings at ground floor level above. As it stands, you can choose to park quite literally adjacent to the main hospital entrance, and then you have to walk in the opposite direction a good 50/100m to the pedestrian exit steps and lifts which take you into the street for you to walk back round to the entrance. It is no burden for a fit person, but perhaps somebody should have considered it might be an issue in a hospital.
I mean who in their right mind would say, no, let’s put the lifts way away from the hospital so that users will end up back out in the street a long way from the hospital entrance?
More to the point, are these worst-lift-location-planners- conceivable the same people that now want to spend 100,000€ rectifying their mistake? If so, why are they being allowed anywhere near a budget? Surely bottle washing in the bed pan sluice room is more in line with their capabilities.
Lunatics are running the asylum
These are presumably the same planners that said, rather than use some of that huge car park space, that huge and generally empty space, to build a safe vehicle entry and exit to the car park, they would make one that has an alpine incline that leaves drivers exiting completely blind as to what they are driving into, and drivers entering the car park the prospect of being stranded straddling the pavement or even into a very busy road if the driver ahead of them has any sort of issue with the ticket machine, a machine that they bafflingly locate half way up the alpine incline.
My concerns that the lunatics are still running the asylum is based to some extent on the requirement that this new lift can accommodate a stretcher. I know people who use car seats for their children, I know people who have wheelchairs in their cars for disabled relatives and for themselves, but I don’t know anybody who has their car adapted for the use of stretchers. Perhaps the lack of car-stretcher conversion kits at Halfords is down to the fact that there is already a fleet of special vehicles equipped for this purpose, they are called ambulances. Ambulances use stretchers, but they do not use the car park—it is generally accepted in hospital circles that they deserve some priority parking allocations.
But even if there is one special person out there who has adapted their Volvo estate to transport aged aunt Maggie to the hospital on her stretcher, does she really deserve a 100,000€ budget to avoid the risk of getting wet?
Is there really nothing more important in the budgetary priorities of the provision of medical and healthcare services to the citizens of Ibiza than avoiding patients getting wet?
Poor damp pedestrians
And of course there is no information on how they intend to keep people dry who attend the hospital on busses or by foot, so are we to assume they do not matter as much? That a patient’s entitlement to a ’wet free’ visit to the hospital is based upon their being affluent enough to have access to a motor vehicle?
Or perhaps it is irrelevant as no pedestrians have ever made it as far as the hospital because they have all been killed by the cars lurching out of the near vertical car park ramps directly onto the pavement with the driver completely blind as to what they are driving into.
Of course I am writing this in some small part for an intended entertainment purpose, hoping that a reader or two will see some humour and not just an incoherent rant. But putting that aside, this is one of those situations that we, the public, seem to see so often in public administration finances. Those charged with the responsibility to spend our tax income wisely seeming to live in some fantasy world throwing cash about like a nightclub owner who has just been tipped off the Hacienda are on their way.
Don’t spend our 100.000€ on a dry lift. If we really need a dry lift please buy it by taking money from the idiots who didn’t put it where it should be in the first place.
Spend our 100,000€, for example, catching up on what I was told last week is a 6 month current wait for MRI scans. There is a clinic on Avenue España that provides private scans for a for hundred euros a pop. You could wipe out the waiting list with that 100,000€, and probably save a couple of lives in the process, surely more important than saving somebody from getting mildly moist now and again.