Where should the new federal courthouse go, and how long will it take?

     The conflict rages on between Harrisburg's citizens, business community, and elected officials--including the Mayor, who is never shy of being vocal about his positions on matters important to the City, its citizens, economic growth, and tax-base and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).  The differences of opinion on where to locate Harrisburg's planned new federal courthouse have been percolating for what seems like forever, but is really more like a mere two years.

     Mere, you say? Already feeling tired of being ignored by a bunch of bureaucrats who don't live in Harrisburg determining the fate of city property and tax revenues? Get used to it. And know that you're not alone. The mayor's dander is up, too.

       "This is one of the most classic examples of federal bureaucracy's arrogance versus a local community that has been visited upon us in years," said Mayor Stephen Reed.

     But compared to other cities' struggles, we've only just begun. Two years is just a battle compared to the lengthy wars that have been waged across the country in other communities.

     The good news? If what happened in Eugene, Oregon, is any indicator, the GSA could feasibly change its mind several times over the next seven or eight years before building, and actually end up selecting a site preferred by the community. In Eugene, the GSA dallied for nearly a decade, choosing one inappropriate, already developed downtown site after the next--and meeting with rigid local opposition--until finally, after three major searches, deciding on the site of an old cannery adjacent to downtown but still in need of improvement.    A 2003 report in the Portland, Oregon Business Journal stated that building on the cannery site would be very helpful in linking downtown Eugene with the river. The article describes the community's preference, the area between downtown and the river, as "a meager bicycle trail ... sandwiched between the river and the Eugene Water & Electric Board yards."

     So, in Oregon, after years of tangling, research and analysis, the new federal courthouse landed on a site to which the Eugene community posed no opposition. In fact, it was a site the community was eager to revitalize.

     The bad news? It could just as easily--and perhaps more likely--go the other way. In San Diego, after six years of bickering, the GSA demolished an historic hotel and crammed the new courthouse where, according to critics quoted in 2005 in the San Diego Union Tribune, it was "sure to exacerbate downtown's two leading problems--a lack of parking and affordable housing."

     We may fare well, like Eugene, or we may not, like San Diego. But one thing seems guaranteed. It will be a while before we know. As one glib public official testified all the way back in 1998 at a hearing before a U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, "No one in Congress will live long enough to see all the planned federal courthouses finished."

     The plan, first conceived in 1988 to build 160 new courthouses around the nation due to the overcrowded conditions in existing courthouses--and at a cost to the taxpayers of $8 billion--was accelerated in 1996-97 after the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Suddenly it became vitally important that our federal courthouses have a 50-foot setback from the street, where any lunatic or anarchist could park a kamekaze van. Also, judicial staff just about doubled between 1985 and 1995, leading to even more severe overcrowding. Plus, judges--particularly over-worked, senior judges carrying high caseloads because Democrats block Republican judicial appointments and vice versa--are rather partial to personal, nice courtrooms. Who can blame them? There's also the reasonable argument that without plenty of adequately sized courtrooms, it's impossible to keep the judicial system running efficiently: no courtroom, no trial date, and no trial date, no settlement (95 percent of federal cases settle out of court, but only after a trial date has been established). Meanwhile the backlog of cases just keeps growing. Despite the increased focus on the need to build new facilities, they're not getting built very fast. Take our own case, for example. According to Mayor Stephen R. Reed, the U.S. Congress hasn't even funded the construction of a courthouse in Harrisburg yet. "They've only appropriated $25 million for site studies and acquisition and clearance," said Reed. "They haven't funded the construction, which is $125 million additional dollars ..."

     Of course, the price of the project depends on the location.

     Recent research has shown that acquisition and construction costs at Third and Pine Streets, one of the sites on the GSA's most recent shortlist, would cost approximately $150 million; acquisition and construction at Second and Locust Streets, the favored location on the current shortlist, would cost approximately $102 million; and acquisition and construction costs at Sixth and Reily Streets--a location that actually meets more of the GSA's criteria concerning the available space for setback and future expansion and the lack of impact to natural and social environments and cultural and manmade resources than the other two locations, including the seemingly important notion of enhancing safety by setting the building back 50 feet from the street--would only cost the taxpayers about $66 million.

     But the GSA doesn't seem any more concerned about costs than they do about choosing the site that best meets their requirements. A report published in March for the GSA by the Vartan Group shows that of the nine proposed sites Vartan assessed, the locations at Third and Pine Streets and Second and Locust Streets meet only five of the GSA's criteria, failing to meet six, whereas the site at Sixth and Reily meets nine of the GSA's criteria and only fails to meet two.

     We Harrisburgers are no strangers to the concept of illogical decision-making by the GSA, however. From the very beginning, the GSA's peculiar notions about location, location have boggled Harrisburgers' minds.

     The GSA's first bright idea was to rip down a low-income housing complex and plant the new structure there. Originally, the GSA believed that relocation assistance would be available to all the residents of the Cumberland Court Apartment Complex at Herr and Sixth Streets, i.e. that the 100 low-income families who live there could be displaced with nary a problem. The GSA expected that relocation assistance would cushion the blow to these struggling families-- that they'd receive improved vouchers through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that would help them find comparable housing, cash payments to help cover moving expenses, and/or help with the down payment for a home, plus counseling on how to acquire one. Mm-hmm, that would make it all good, in a perfect world.

     However, after the Harrisburg Housing Authority (HHA) conducted further study into the remaining available Section 8 housing, the GSA concluded that comparable properties simply did not exist. Fortunately, they decided not to dislocate the 100 low-income families so they could build a courthouse where their homes used to be.

     By that time, what had the GSA--not to mention the HHA--already spent in research and studies? But wait--remember? They haven't even really begun to sink their teeth into the process, if what happened in Seattle is any indication.

     In 1998, the following statement about the location for a new federal courthouse ran in the April edition of the Puget Sound Business Journal: "We want to get this building done,' said Jay Pearson, regional administrator for the U.S. General Services Administration. "We've been at this for nine years. We need to put a little discipline in this and build a building."

     In Seattle, at one point, the GSA wanted to plunk the new courthouse on top of the public library. It ended up going someplace that would have done better with retail, as the location had a lot of foot traffic and a shopping district was growing at the site. But at least the library site was preserved.

     Now back to the East Coast.

     The next well-publicized choice for the new courthouse in Harrisburg was a Midtown residential neighborhood (known to some as the North-Green Tee) ... but not stopping there ... also swallowing a block housing the most popular gay bars in town, not to mention two very successful restaurants with longevity--Mangia Qui on North Street and Roxy's on the corner of North and Third.

     "No one would understand what it feels like when eminent domain is considered to take your home, unless they have experienced it firsthand," said Mike Billo of Green Street, when asked how it felt back when his neighborhood was at the top of the shortlist. "The anxiety I felt daily while my home was on the short list was unnecessary, inexcusable and probably the catalyst for all those affected to fight as we did."

     And fight they did, until the GSA backed off and decided to research a few more possibilities ... or would that be until the GSA happily wandered off to research and analyze a few more sites ... errr ... 38 more sites? That's right, after re-opening the site selection process following the first removal of already developed, tax-paying, thriving residential and commercial properties from the table, the GSA reviewed 38 more sites, some recommended by the community and by elected officials, others identified newly by the GSA. But perhaps there's really no rush. In Buffalo, New York, seven years of planning preceded the actual construction of their new federal courthouse, set to begin in 2002, and delayed seven times for lack of funding. Similar issues beset projects in Biloxi, Mississippi, Springfield, Massachusetts, and Wheeling, West Virginia. One might hope that as the process drags on, the GSA would begin to listen to reason. "Hopefully, the decisionmakers will listen to the opposition to the current sites on the shortlist," said Billo, "and use common sense in their final decision (as they should have from the beginning of this process)." But precedent isn't encouraging. And Reed doesn't think it will happen. "The GSA has dug in their heels," he said. "They're not budging an inch. This is not going to be resolved at the GSA's regional office level in Philadelphia ... It's going to require a formal congressional act in connection with the GSA's budget." What the mayor means is that the issue of the lack of funding can actually work out to Harrisburg's advantage in terms of site selection, in the end.

     According to Reed, Congress, which holds the purse strings, can determine exactly where the building can be located. "If Congress, in its oversight role, which is [essential to] that legislation, says this money can only be spent at, for example, Sixth and Reily Streets, [the GSA is] constrained to go to that site." Adds Reed, "We think that's the course that's ultimately going to prevail. There's broad support for that." Money talks. You'd think that would work for Commerce Bank, one of the owners of property at Second and Locust Streets who would be displaced by the GSA under their current plan. But according to CEO and President Gary Nalbandian, they can't even get information out of the GSA, no less cooperation. "They haven't provided anything specific to us," said Nalbandian. "I have to glean from everything I've read that they consider it's a good location because it's convenient to restaurants. That's been the most consistent statement that we've heard. We did get one letter asking us to allow an appraiser into the building." Nalbandian is not pleased by the prospect of having to relocate Commerce's Second and Locust Streets branch. "We put a lot of time and effort into developing this site and we don't feel that we can duplicate what we have here," he said. "We think we have had a nice influence on the surroundings. We think that any other type of structure at this corner, including what is proposed, would have an opposite effect. Downtown is short of open, retail-type space. This is a retail bank that plays well to the street. To put an office here that would be closed to the public would diminish the interplay between the city and the property. No one would be likely to frequent this entire area but federal employees." Furthermore, a decision to place the new courthouse on Third and Pine or Second and Locust would harm the city as well. "It would be a significant detriment to this area, because it would be developed in a non-taxable manner versus the existing, tax-based structure that is here and producing taxes for the city," Nalbandian pointed out. According to Reed, the cost to the city in lost tax revenue would easily be in the high six figures. "The city of Harrisburg would take a major hit, financially," stated Reed. And that in a city already fiscally strapped because 48 percent of its property is tax-exempt, government property.

     On the contrary, locating the new courthouse in Midtown, at Sixth and Reily streets, would continue and expand current massive redevelopment efforts in that neighborhood, including the recent addition of the new Midtown HACC Campus, the continuing development of Capitol Heights, recent substantial investment in home rehabilitation and homeownership, and the now-in-progress redevelopment of the former Maclay Street Apartments into 222 rehabilitated or new apartment units and 71 singlefamily homes that will be known as "Governor's Square."

     The GSA could save taxpayers millions of dollars, have their criteria met, do no damage to Harrisburg's tax base and even help us continue to grow by locating the new courthouse at Sixth and Reily--it's a win-win, as the Mayor points out. That message is what grassroots organizations like Right Site Harrisburg, a coalition of multiple groups including Capitol Area Neighbors, Friends of Midtown, Historic Harrisburg Association, Midtown Action Council, the Greater Harrisburg NAACP, the Midtown Neighborhood Watch, and the Coalition of Clergy Urban Affairs Task Force, will continue getting out in the coming months.

     Individuals can help by signing the Right Site petition (for information visit rightsitehbg.com) and/or the petition being circulated by Commerce Bank. Of course, another approach is to contact your U.S. Congressman and both of Pennsylvania's U.S. Senators. Congressman Holden and Senators Casey and Specter are quite aware of the issue, having toured the potential sites with Mayor Reed, but still, phone calls from constituents never hurt a cause.

     Our current mission, reiterates Mayor Reed, is to encourage Congress to stipulate that Sixth and Reily Streets be the site. They and only they don't have to run when tapped by the bureaucracy in this high-stakes game of Duck, Duck, Goose.

     Reed notes, "The GSA is dead wrong on their choice of location. But resistance will only have the most minimal effect on them ... even broad public support won't change their decision. We should be directing our comments, petitions, and opinions to our Congressmen so that the GSA is aware of it, too."

     Ever get in the way of Mayor Reed when his dander is up? Our bet is that the GSA just might get goosed. But he can't do it without us--heed the call, and let your Congressmen know how you feel on the issue.