The Southwest Voice

All > Discussions
Do you think the new courthouse should be located in the Southwest?
Topics:
Anonymous user Tue Nov 30, 1999 00:00:00 PST
Viewed 951 times
5 responses 12 comments Do you think the new courthouse should be located in the Southwest?

Send to a Friend

Report a Violation

Comment From: r2d2

Yes, given all the circumstances. I was glad to see Mr. Barmann's comments published in your paper. Finally, a reasoned explanation of why this courthouse is so important to us and that if the SW site, selected following all proper (and public I might add) procedures is lost, then we can expect not to see a federal courthouse in Bakersfield for at least ten years. The last three years work going into bringing such a courthouse to fruition will be lost and Bakersfield returned to the bottom of a nation-wide list awaiting Congressional approval. Most of the opposition I have seen so far is based on emotion and or a complete lack of the facts. Many of these purported "facts" are being disseminated by the City Manager who should certainly know better. The letter sent by the City Manager to our Congressman and Senator is replete with misstatements and erroneous information. Fortunately Congressman Thomas at least knows the area and the full story and would not be fooled. I look forward to attending the meeting on the 6th at the Ronald Reagan Elementary School (which, BTW, is at least 2000 feet from the proposed courthouse site.) Comment From: businessman

The outspoken minority who support the federal courthouse southwest location primarily consists of people who make their living by defending, prosecuting or trying cases. Apparently they are more concerned with their incomes than the safety of the 878 students at Ronald Reagan Elementary School who will share a wall with the 31,234 facility that will be occupied by the U.S. Magistrate, US Probation, US Pretrial Services, and the US Marshals Service. The nearby residents in Seven Oaks and River Oaks paid a premium to live in a "Master Planned" community that provides safety and security for our families. Why would we spend $10 million to develop a riverwalk park that our families will be afraid to use? We need to apply some common sense in planning our city. The courthouse belongs downtown. Our City Manager is the first of many civic leaders who is standing up for what is right. We will not be pushed around by powerful developers, attorneys, and the GSA site selectors won't live in our community. I encourage the residents to speak out and visit www.nocourthouse.com for more information. Scott Garrison - Concerned Resident Comment From: h4r6j

No, the courthouse belongs downtown where the City Council stated it should be. As a resident, a Reagan Elementary parent and a citizen who uses the bikepath, future City Park and future little league baseball fields, I am not only concerned about the Courthouse proposal, but also the cottage industries it will spin off in and around this site. Restaurants great, bail bonds office,etc... not so great. I noticed a cool little kids playground in the new City Park opening on April 29th, swings and slides complete with cushioned landings, nice...who will watch over them when courthouse clientele are having lunch in new City Park...not so nice. I first heard of this courthouse thing a month ago and I sat quietly thinking that it couldn't possibly happen. As I type this, I am hoping other concerned parents and residents of Kern County will let our City, County, State and Federal officials know that a signed GSA contract should not stop a bad thing from happening to our neighborhood. The City and I would like to see the courthouse downtown where it is widely welcomed and supported. Our voice matters. Comment From: r2d2

First, I attended the meeton at RR Elementary on the 6th. As a supporter of a federal courthouse in Bakersfield, and in the SW if that is the only option (as it now appears) I was politely received while making some comments in support and in answering questions that were directed at me. What I find unfortunate in all this is the amount of false, deliberate or not, information that is being disseminated in what appears to be simply scare tactics. As one of three attorneys who is on the federal panel here I have tried to explain the types of cases that are handled in our court. Some people listen, some do not want to know the true facts. As for income, I and my two colleagues have all offered to handle these federal cases at no charge, for what we would call a courtesy to the court. The number of cases is so small (less than 250 total in 3 years) and the matters so minor in nature that it costs more to bill the service than to provide it. Despite our offers, we are, in fact, paid. It amounts to less than the monthly gas bill. One of the many "facts" that are wrong include: "Ronald Reagan Elementary . . . will share a wall with the 31,234 facility." The courthouse is sited in the northwesternmost corner of the parcel (at the corner or BV and Stockdale) it does not front on River Run as the nocourthouse folk indicate in their slide presentation. It will be surrounded by other commercial ventures/office buildings. In the listing of occupants for the building "US Magistrate, US Probation, US Pretrial Services, and the US Marshal's Service" is correct. Please note that there is not a US Attorney's Office or Federal Defender's Office. This is indicative of the small number of criminal cases that will be handled in the facility. We will continue to use the current local panel of three defense attorneys and the US Attorney will "appear" telephonically as currently is the case. When the scare tactics are eliminated from the vocal opponents, what is left is NIMBYism, an elitist view. There is nothing wrong with that view, but be honest and call the opposition what it is. Randall Dickow Comment From: kevinmorrison

This may be viewed as an overly simplistic response, but criminals coming to the courthouse are not coming to commit more crime and endanger the neighborhood. Criminals on the loose are not going to hang around the courthouse or surrounding area. Just a guess. The new park and shopping center will generate more crime for the southwest than a courthouse. Where are all the protestors for that? Being a new facility, I am sure the new courhouse will not be an eyesore. I'm positive that it's designers are competent enough to create a building that incorporates smoothly into the community. Comment From: r2d2

Kevin: I believe your assessments concerning the courthouse are absolutely correct. As for crime in or around a courthouse, you are also correct, which brings to mind an oft repeated saying in the legal community, attributed to one of our long-term local judges who has presided over criminal matters and family law matters. The saying, which carries a lot of truth is: "In criminal law, you see some of the worst people on their best behavior. In family law, you see some of the best people on their worst behavior." Randall Dickow Comment From: r2d2

Mr. Garrison: You're welcome for the quote. Contradiction? The acronym NIMBY is used to encompass the "area" since the proposed courthouse is not literally in anyone's backyard (nearest homes approx 1/4 mile to the SW) nor abuts the school wall (approx 1030' to the SE.) So, I guess you are right, it's not in your backyard - but that is the type of statement that is being made in opposition in what appears to me as an attempt by some, not all, to scare people who do not know all the facts. You do not want the courthouse in your area, fine, that's still NIMBY and by definition NIMBY is elitist in nature. Please do not misquote me. At the community meeting I did not try to convince anyone that there would not be criminal cases at the courthouse. What I said, and what I have posted is information about the types of minor criminal cases that are heard. Those cases that can be heard by a magistrate judge are defined by law (Title 28 United States Code § 636.) The only trials that a magistrate judge may hear are misdemeanors. 100% of those trials that have been heard in Bakersfield over the past three years have involved some type of prohibited act on federal land (National Forest, National Park or BLM.) e.g., driving off route, unattended camp fire, improper parking, unleashed dog. Felony initial appearances may be held before a magistrate judge, which I have explained before. Finally, for the last time, I do not have a vested interest in the location of the courthouse. (I note that some people are now accusing me of working for Castle & Cooke. I don't, and I don't even know anyone who works there. I am self-employed and my opinions are my own.) As I stated at your meeting, the courthouse should be downtown, we have no argument about that. However, since someone, most likely city staff, dropped the ball and very few landowners stepped forward with an offer, the SW site was chosen. I do not take it as a threat that if not built on the SW site that GSA will pull out. I take it as the normal course of how the federal bureaucracy works. Delays increase cost, increased cost takes the project out of this process and into the Congressional approval route. Since we are losing our very influential Congressman and will have a no-seniority replacement regardless of who succeeds Bill Thomas, I believe I am safe in predicting no courthouse in my lifetime, I also believe that the same prediction regarding having a District Judge in Bakersfield is also correct as there have been no additional District Judges appointed in years and no reason to foresee a change anytime soon. Comment From: businessman

Randall, Thanks for the great quote. You are doing a superb job of contradicting yourself. In your initial post, you make the argument that the courthouse will not be in the backyard of our elementary school and homes, then you conclude by calling us NIMBYs with an elitist view. So is it in my backyard or not? You showed up at the community meeting attempting to convince everyone that there won't be criminal cases on trial at the new federal courthouse, then you publish a quote stating that "In criminal law, you see some of the worst people on their best behavior." That provides absolutely zero comfort to concerned parents but atleast it's an admission that there are plans to try criminal cases at the federal courthouse. You also accuse the residents of using scare tactics, but the greatest scare tactic of them all is GSA's threat that Bakersfield won't get a federal courthouse if we reject this ridiculous site location. We've heard enough of the cross examination double-talk. Please put forth a logical argument on why it makes more sense for the courthouse to be in the southwest rather than downtown. Scott Garrison Comment From: businessman

Mr. Dickow, It has been a good debate and we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on certain issues since we have different priorities, perspectives and concerns. At least we agree on the only point that really matters, "the courthouse should be downtown, we have no argument about that." Scott Garrison Comment From: rc

With only three attorneys in Bakersfield who work federal cases I want to make it clear the type of knee jerk reactionaries are against the Court House in the Southwest. I have read and heard more than once that the only ones wanting the courthouse are rich or attorneys. Guess what. I want the courthouse and I,m not rich or an attorney. I would like to find one of the attorneys here in Bakersfield who deal in Constitutional Law, I belive I have an issue that needs immediate attention. For those of you who are against Getting a Federal Court House here in Bakersfield, You probably have the same interest in protecting the US Constitution. That is if you know what it is. You can e-mail me at r_craig@peoplepc.com Comment From: merrimark

It’s a shame to misjudge the intelligence of the common public. It is very obvious to everyone on both sides, whether admitted or not, that if a Federal Courthouse is built anywhere in Bakersfield there will be felony cases tried there. Maybe not the first year, but it will happen. Why else would they build one in Bakersfield? They are attempting to keep up with growth. If this court were to continue with the same caseload they are currently trying there would be no need for a new courthouse. I quote you Mr. Dickow “The number of cases is so small (less than 250 total in 3 years)” hardly seems to be enough to justify spending the taxes of hard working American to build this building. This averages just fewer than 7 cases a month. How long does a typical misdemeanor case run? My point to all this is that if and when built there will be felony cases tried at this Federal Courthouse. Any belief otherwise is ignorant. I feel Bakersfield needs a Federal Courthouse, just not in anyone’s backyard. If I have to choose between the absurd current site location or no courthouse I would have to pass altogether. Mark Merrifield – Rightfully protective father Comment From: r2d2

I previously had posted this reference, possibly elsewhere, but for the statutory duties of a federal magistrate judge see Title 43 USC Section 636. A magistrate judge will not hear felony trials, only an Article III judge, called a district judge, can hear such trials. The number of criminal cases is very low as I previously noted. Until last week I had not been in our local court for over three weeks, however, that does not mean that the magistrate judge is idle. Far from it. While I do not have the precise figures, the case load is 98% civil cases. That is why we need a courthouse. The criminal calendar is, and will remain, a very small part. Quite frankly I would not expect to see an Article III district court judge appointed for Bakersfield in my lifetime. Each year in Congress a bill is introduced, and killed, to appoint additional district court judges. Even should such a bill finally pass, there are political issues in Congress which will block any appointments within the Ninth Circuit (of which the Eastern District of CA is a part.) Randall Dickow