Government Hill zoning change approved
Many residents in fast-growing area said they didn’t want commercial designation
The City Council OK’D a zoning change Thursday that will allow commercial development on a corner in Government Hill — a fastgrowing neighborhood sandwiched between downtown, the Pearl and Joint Base San Antoniofort Sam Houston.
Numerous residents have said they don’t want a C-2 designation, with some preferring residential uses or a less-intense commercial zoning district.
Council members voted 9-1 to approve the Cloma Jackson Trust’s request to rezone roughly 0.7 acres at North Walters and the Interstate 35 access road from residential to C-2NA commercial, with a designation that prohibits alcohol sales.
They also passed an amendment to the neighborhood plan, changing the land use from “lowdensity residential” to “mixed use.”
The trust and Sara Martinez, who owns roughly 1.1 acres next to the trust’s property, are looking to have their land rezoned to clear the way for a commercial tenant. The council has not yet taken up Martinez’s requests.
“The project for this property is not to sell it to a developer, but for the property owners to develop it themselves in partnerships,” Matthew Badders, an attorney representing Martinez, told council members Thursday. “What we seek to attract to the neighborhood is a Class A, national-brand
anonymous complaint to the Joint Commission, according to the suit. The commission is an independent agency that accredits U.S. health care organizations based on national standards of health care quality. Organizations voluntarily seek its accreditation.
According to the suit, Kinnie reported that patients were put in “grave danger with inadequate staffing, not bathing patients, soiled unclean mattresses, poor lighting, cold environment when temperature falls.”
A call was made to the hospital’s CEO, Abiola Anyebe, asking for comment Thursday, but she said
she hadn’t seen the lawsuit. She was emailed a copy of the petition but had not responded as of Thursday evening.
In his November complaint, Kinnie says he also told the commission that when nurses were passing out medications, there was no staff available to assist other patients in emergencies, which led to patients pulling out IV lines or falling and suffering injuries.
Kinnie also alleged that the “night monitor tech goes to sleep from 1 to 3 a.m., leaving the monitor unattended.” He also reported that one patient died because of the hospital’s slow response times.
In December, the commission conducted an on-site review of the hospital. A report on the commission’s website shows that the hospital
and its lab retained accreditation after that review.
But Kinnie says in the lawsuit that he continued to have concerns. He also describes a workplace culture in which employees were afraid to stand up for the patients.
On Jan. 7, the intensive care unit was closed so that the hospital could decorate. Patients were moved to non-icu rooms, which Kinnie considered unsafe. When Kinney moved equipment from the ICU area into his patient’s room, he was reprimanded, according to the suit.
He then wrote another letter to the Joint Commission complaining that employees were unable to effectively work under “constant threat of management retaliation”
its
and that there was a severe staff shortage on nights and weekends.
Kinnie also placed an anonymous call to his employer’s compliance hotline, according to the suit, and notified corporate that he believed that the hospital was “putting financial considerations above patient care and risking patients’ lives and health as a result.”
He put in his resignation notice Jan. 8, but that evening he was asked by Chief Clinical Officer Sharon Danieliewicz to return under the promise that changes would be made.
The next day, he disclosed to her that he was the employee who had reported the patient safety concerns. He alleges that in the following weeks, he noticed Danieliewicz was scrutinizing his work.
Kinnie was suspended twice before being terminated Feb. 24 for violating facility policy. The hospital’s administrators told him it was because he drew a “culturally insensitive” doodle on his clipboard, which he denies.
Kinnie is seeking damages for mental anguish, suffering or emotional distress, in addition to court costs and attorney fees, reinstatement or severance pay, and compensation for wages lost.
He’s also seeking a trial by jury and $1 million in monetary relief.
“Kindred should have applauded Mr. Kinnie for his efforts to make the hospital safer; instead, they fired him because he would not look the other way,” said attorney Lawrence Morales II, who is representing Kinnie.