ILNews

State to scope Indy block for new building to house judiciary, legislative office space

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mike Pence’s administration is in the early stages of a land-use study for a hot piece of downtown Indianapolis property north of the Statehouse.

The study, required under Senate Enrolled Act 367, is to consider the feasibility of a new building to house the judiciary, provide more legislative office space and offer parking for employees and visitors. The act requires the Office of Management and Budget to complete the study by Dec. 1, 2015.

This would be the third time since the late 1980s that state government has considered expanding its presence to what’s now a parking lot northwest of Ohio Street and Capitol Avenue.

Judges and legislators say they—and the public—are working with cramped quarters. The administration last fall solicited “creative” proposals for additional state-employee parking on the site and ended up with developers pitching multi-use buildings.

The Indiana Finance Authority, which issued the request, isn’t acting on the responses partly because of the pending land-use study, Finance Director Kendra York said. Senate Enrolled Act 367 passed earlier this year.

Pence spokeswoman Christy Denault said OMB is in the early stages of reviewing the request for a study and will work with the Department of Administration to gather the “necessary data.”

It’s hard to tell whether Pence and legislative leaders are serious about developing the downtown parcel. Senate Enrolled Act 367 dealt mainly with property tax issues and was amended by Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, to require the land-use study.

Turner was traveling and couldn’t be reached for comment.

“I don’t know why he did it or why he put it in there,” said Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville and one of the co-authors of the bill.

Kenley said it’s “questionable” whether Indiana has the money for a new state-government facility, but noted that the state’s cash position—a $2 billion reserve—is good and interest rates are low.

While he said he’s “not too enthused” about conducting another study, Kenley said it’s better than giving up the asset to the private real estate market.  

SEA 367 also requires the feasibility study include ways to enhance public access to the legislature and judiciary, including additional space for legislative hearings. The Legislature conducts important committee hearings in rooms barely large enough to accommodate members, their staff, people scheduled to testify and the press. Lobbyists and citizens who may also want to speak observe proceedings on monitors in the halls of the Statehouse.

The study is to include ways to enhance security while also enhancing public access and might include past architectural studies, according to the act.

One question OMB should ask is whether it’s cheaper to build than for the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals to continue renting office space downtown for some functions, said appellate Judge John Baker.

The Legislature has twice approved plans for a capitol expansion, but both times they were squashed by governors. The first plan, drawn up in 1988, was vetoed by former Gov. Evan Bayh. That plan called for a neo-classical style building, complete with a copper dome, that would have been twice the size of the Statehouse. Bayh, a Democrat, later oversaw construction of the south wing of the state office building.

The late Gov. Frank O’Bannon vetoed the plan for a judicial center that the Legislature approved in 2001, and no one has picked up the ball since, said Baker, who sat on the committee that crafted the 2001 plan. The state spent about $4 million on those plans, he said.

Baker is not reading much into the forthcoming land-use study.

“I think I would be encouraged if I knew there was the political will to do something with a study," he said. "I don’t know if I’m in favor of spending taxpayers’ money on a project that is doomed to fail. “
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT