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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT