ILNews

Judge: Case not made for airport justice center site

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The judge who has authority over Marion County court facilities is casting doubt on the city’s preferred site for a Criminal Justice Complex at Indianapolis International Airport.

“My position is at this point I think the case has not been made that an airport site is reasonably accessible,” Marion Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg said in an interview.

A 35-acre site along West Washington Street east of Raceway Road emerged as the preferred site  among several the city evaluated in a market survey completed in November.  

Representatives of the Ballard administration have said that no site has been officially selected, and Marion Superior judges are scheduled to hear an update on the complex Thursday. The city has selected a short list of three potential developers, and officials have said a location is expected to be announced by April 1.

Rosenberg commended Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and other officials who in December announced plans to build a new complex that would incorporate the Marion County jail, Superior Court criminal division, and prosecutor, public defender, probation and other related functions. A new jail and criminal courts facility is needed, Rosenberg said. He said his sole concern is in regard to accessibility.

Last November, Rosenberg sent a letter to the city’s project coordinator thanking him and Ballard for moving ahead on a long-conceptualized facility, noting, “As a result of your hard work, I am confident that we are closer than ever.”

But the letter, dated Nov. 12, also expressed a need for greater transparency in the site-selection process and encouraged the views of judges and stakeholders be considered: “the proper role of the Judiciary and the Circuit Court in particular needs to be recognized.”

Indiana statute vests the Marion Circuit judge with authority over court location, among other things. “With reference to accessibility, that’s what we need to be right on top of,” Rosenberg said. A 2013 Indiana Supreme Court ruling on the location of Center Township Small Claims Court “makes it abundantly clear,” he said.

Rosenberg noted the opinion rejecting a trustee’s bid to relocate Center Township Small Claims Court from the City-County Building to the Carson Center on Fall Creek Parkway. The Supreme Court ruled in the judge’s favor and kept the court where it was, holding that relocating it would raise a fundamental question of access to justice, and “providing such access is a constitutionally mandated function of Indiana Courts.”

Rosenberg cited that language in the Nov. 12 letter that also put the city on notice: “Where the ‘Judicial Center’ is located is thus an issue on which the Judiciary must satisfy itself that the proposed site would promote rather than impair access to justice.”

He said an airport site would present access challenges for witnesses, poor and minority populations, as well as frequently monitored court users such as the approximately 2,500 people in community corrections. He estimated some transit users could face round-trip commutes of two hours or more if courts moved to the proposed airport site.

“The bottom line is (an airport site) is going to create some hardships,” he said. “I think we have to be more empathetic and we have to think about the people who are going to be using the facility.”




 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Marion County Courts Disadvantage
    If you follow the money you will find this parcel of land is a total disadvantage for the citizens of Indianapolis. If a person traveling from Cumberland, Geist or Franklin Township to this location, there is a significant travel time, cost and inconvenience. There are numerous parcels of land in Center Township Marion County with short travel times and mass transit accessibility to help citizens complete their business with the city. Let us not make the mistake we made with the former Eastgate Consumer Mall!
  • The airport site.
    At least the IBJ is accurately describing the parcel and is noting that it is at the far northwest corner of the property near Raceway Road. The March 4 Indy Star article, which remains on the web and not corrected, says that the airport location is the "old airport" site. The Star identifies that site as 6600 Kentucky Avenue, which refers to another parcel and is miles from any part of the airport property. I agree that it's very important that the public understand exactly where the "airport site" is, but the IBJ has done a pretty good job of it, especially compared to other media outlets.
  • LocationTitle
    I wish news reports would stop referring to proposed site as the "airport site". Most people think they mean the old terminal site (which is not a bad location). A more accurate description of the proposed site would be the "Plainfield Site" since it is right at the Plainfield Town border.

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT