The ongoing public debate over the location of a possible new District Courthouse appears to be generating much heat, but less light.
This is understandable. The prospect of having such a large building, with no parking, filled with people interacting with the legal system (a time when people are typically not at their most restrained or reasonable), hard by an historic district, church, and school for children as young as three is enough to unnerve anyone. (Note, too, that the three-year-olds are often moved outside from school building to school building.)
I believe the old library site is a poor choice for a new courthouse building. It's just a silly spot for it, notwithstanding the convenience it would pose for lawyers and judges.
However, along with Mark Pierzchala, I get the sense that the debate so far has not given full due to the political facts of the issue. (He also makes a good point about whether we are giving a fair hearing to the other side too.)
A number of recent comments in this post appear to have embedded in them the notion that the City is facing a decision about where we want a new court house, or whether we should have one.
I may be very wrong, but my understanding is that it's not in the City's power to decide whether the state courts need a new building or not. Since the City unfortunately, and inadvertently, let pass (long ago) the deadline to officially object to the plans, there isn't an official planning process to influence. (The state could, I believe, overrule such a process anyway.) The Montgomery County Council would essentially have to approve any move of the court house to the Giant site by giving up its right to take the old library site back in the event a court house is not built there -- something they have all but promised they would do (notwithstanding Exec. Leggett's agreement to "look into" the matter).
It is not just the local, District 17 state delegation that must be convinced -- it is all state legislators from Montgomery County. Even if it were possible to convince all four District 17 legislators of the value of moving the court house site to the old Giant, there are 28 more legislators to go.
Finally, there are funding issues. In order for a move to the Giant site to happen, not only would the City of Rockville need to absorb a significant expenditure hit (possibly up to $5M but at least $1M or $2M to redesign the building) but, in addition, Governor O'Malley would have to expend a significant amount of political capital to ensure the funds for a moved court house remain available over multiple fiscal years (while, presumably, other jurisdictions throughout the state lobby to get a piece of that money for their own projects). That's a lot to ask of a Governor who has already spent out a lot of chits on a special session and is now trying to get a budget passed.
I'm just little old me, but my read on this is that a move to the Giant, while far preferable to placing the new court house on the old library site, remains a very difficult sell. So much has to fall into place, with so many forces arrayed in opposition, in order for it to happen. Jupiter will have to align with Mars, to quote my favorite Broadway musical.
Given all this, Mayor Susan Hoffmann and the Council are really rolling a rock up a hill and I am proud of their efforts. In the dim, dark, past, I was a lobbyist (only for the forces of good) and know a little about how hard it is to make things happen. I will be stunned -- in a good way -- if they can pull it off.
Meanwhile, the Montgomery County Bar Association and other attorneys and judges are addressing their arguments where they will do a lot of good: to the full Montgomery County state delegation and to the Montgomery County council -- both of which have the power to say "no" to the Giant site and "yes" to a court house. Rockville Central friend Brigitta Mullican has passed along some of their communications along to me (and to others, I am not airing any laundry here). Those interested in having a full understanding of what we are up against ought to read:
- A recent email from the Mary Ellen Flynn, Montgomery County Bar Association's president, to the Montgomery County Council; and
- Chief Judge Ben Clyburn's December letter to the Montgomery County delegation to Annapolis, along with a state report on the proposed Giant land swap.
I hope this is helpful. I don't mean to be a downer, but it seemed worthwhile to spell out just what obstacles are standing in the way. I would love to hear comment from people who see other ways through this.
6 comments:
As a West End resident and a parishoner at Christ Church (though far from the most active or involved) I have followed the commentary on the Court House struggle with interest.
In commentary here and elsewhere opponents of locating the Courthouse at the former Library Site repeatedly cite its proximity to Chist Church and Christ Episcopal School as a point justifying their opposition.
While I am just a rank and file parishoner and do not speak for the parish or school, to my knowledge Christ Church and CES have taken no such position on the issue. It has not been mentioned in our church bulletin or discussed from the pulpit. The Church is not rallying opposition to the library site or expressing any official preference for one location over the other.
And this makes sense. We are already neighbors to the courthouse complex. Whether the courthouse is 40 yards closer makes less than no difference to the work of the Church and School.
I do wish that opponents of the library location seeking to enlist my church and its school in their cause would do us the courtesy of contacting us for our own views. In assuming that we oppose the library site, you attribute to Christ Church a wiff of "not wanting to be near those scary bad people." That's not the way we feel, its not what we think, and I think attibuting those views to us--even by implication--does us a disservice.
Thank you for making this good point.
While many who oppose the "library" location for the new court house do indeed use the argument about proximity to Christ Episcopal Church (and, more pointedly, to the School), I know of no official position that the Church or the School has taken on the subject.
So, until such a position is taken (or I learn that it already has been taken), we will do our best not to imply that they have done so.
Thank you again for the needed correction.
Not to start another Holy War, but this is the first person from the Christ Epscopal Church and School community whom I have heard from who doesn't having a problem with the new courthouse coming to the former library site. The record shows that a number of CES leaders and members have been concerned about this for a long time and have fought against it. From the Headmistress on down.
Just think of the gridlock that will ensue on Washingotn St. all day long as people search in vain for parking. Christ Episcopal will likely have to hire guards to keep courthouse goers from parking in our lot - the closest lot not already protected against people who have business elsewhere in the neighborhood. If the church and school don't have an official position on this, we sure better get one. I will bring this to the church warden's attention today. Thanks, eledbetter, for pointing this out.
Rockville Central reader Lynn Perry Parker sent along the following comment:
I am very active and involved in both Christ Church and the School. The location of court house issue has not been discussed from the church pulpit or in the bulletin because those are not the proper mediums for such discussions. It is the job of the Vestry and the School Board to deal with such matters and they have addressed this matter and they do have a position.
Indeed, a few months back, the Senior Warden, the Head of School, myself (wearing many hats including one as a lawyer who practices in the court), and other church & school members attended a Town Center Citizens Action Committee meeting to discuss the issue with some of Rockville’s council members and state delegates. The Senior Warden thereafter wrote a letter to the Governor articulating the Church’s position on the matter.
Rest assured, the reasons articulated did not include fear of "scary people." The issues are far more complex and can best be summed up by the Governor’s own recent description of the proposed location: It amounts to "urban planning malfeasance." Any reasonable assessment of the relevant facts leads to that conclusion. That is why those advocating for it have resorted to name calling and insults.
Now that you have some facts, perhaps you will reconsider who it is that is doing the church a disservice? As I teach my Sunday School students, we are called to do what is right even when it’s hard or unpopular. We also have an obligation to seek wisdom and to use it wisely. I will continue to practice what I preach, as best I can, notwithstanding the insults.
Lynn Perry Parker, Esq.
Thanks Lynn! That's a very helpful clarification that sheds light (not heat) on the matter.
Thanks to my fellow parishoners for clarifying Christ Church's position on the courthouse issue.
I apologize profusely for misstating the Church's position--I did try to indicate in my original post that I was speaking only to my own personal knowledge, but clearly that knowledge was far more lacking that I realized.
I defer to the Church's officers and spokespeople and will not again attempt to characterize its positions.
Speaking only for myself, I am glad that the Church's position focuses on the land use and urban planning issues and does not deal in the kind of scare mongering I have seen other advocates employ.
I agree, eledbetter, and I was let down to only see my one sensatioal quote in the Washington Post article. I spoke with that reporter for more than half an hour, and gave him all of the specific, rational reasons why we feel the library site is not the place for a courthouse. Although I was quoted accurately, and I remain very concerned about the safety of school- and church-goers, that is only one reason why the couthouse should be built elsewhere.
Post a Comment