ILNews

Indianapolis pitches case for jail on former GM plant site

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard’s office is pitching a proposed criminal justice complex as an economic boon to near-west-side neighborhoods.

“This is a $500 million facility, plus $100 million economic impact,” Director of Enterprise Development David Rosenberg told a small audience Tuesday evening at the Mary Rigg Center on Morris Street.

About 35 residents gathered to hear the city’s case for building the new facilities on the former General Motors stamping plant property. The city would use 40 acres in the northwest corner of the 110-acre site, leaving the land that overlooks the White River open to another developer.

The criminal justice center would include a 3,500-bed jail, criminal and traffic courts, community corrections and probation operations, and sheriff, prosecutor and public defender offices. Rosenberg said it would generate 3,600 visitors a day, leading to other retail and office developments in the surrounding neighborhood.

But a few members of the audience fixated on the jail and what its presence would mean for the neighborhood.

“All in all, these inmates are being directly released into our neighborhood, where my children play. We’re [going to get] inmates in our backyard,” said Brittany Laux, who lives on Arbor Avenue near the former GM plant.

Another nearby resident, Rahnae Napoleon, said she thinks the jail will also attract businesses some consider unsavory, such as bail bondsmen.

Napolean and her husband, Jay, said they had high hopes for redevelopment of the GM site. “Where’s the vision?” Napoleon asked.

The GM property is owned by a court-created entity, the RACER Trust, which is responsible for cleaning up contamination and finding new uses. RACER officials say they’ve received five development proposals but won’t disclose details.

Rosenberg, who said he has communicated with RACER officials about the proposals, believes the criminal-justice center will enhance development on the rest of the property. “The developers we’ve spoken to are more than eager to have this,” he said Tuesday evening.

Ballard is recommending the GM site over airport property near the county line because it will reduce project costs by 10 percent to 15 percent, Rosenberg said. The GM site is advantageous in terms of road access, available utilities, wastewater management and parking, according to the city’s analysis. It’s closer to population centers and would have less impact on IndyGo’s budget.

The city will hold a public meeting focused on the airport property Wednesday evening, and on March 24 the justice center will be discussed at a meeting convened by the City-County Council.

Ballard’s office plans to issue a request for proposals, which will name the preferred location, by March 27.

City-County Councilor Jeff Miller, whose district includes the GM property, said Tuesday evening that the mayor’s office might need to put off issuing the RFP.

“I think we need more time to gel on the feedback,” he said.

During the meeting, Rosenberg debated with a few audience members who shouted their questions and comments. He said he’s willing to meet with west-side residents again, but he said that after the meeting, a “majority” of the audience members told him they would welcome the justice center because of the money invested, police presence and economic spin-off.
 

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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT