IBJNews

Daniels rescinds crowd limits at Indiana Statehouse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels on Wednesday rescinded new Statehouse security rules that put a 3,000-person limit on the number of people allowed in the building at any one time.

Daniels said he told state police to return to past practices of allowing all visitors into the Statehouse after they've cleared security checkpoints. The Republican governor said state police and the state fire marshal raised valid public safety concerns about large crowds inside the building, but he decided it was important to keep as much public access as possible as the Legislature begins its 2012 session.

"If there comes a point where safety and security seems to be in jeopardy, they have my authority to do something different," Daniels said.

The new limits announced last week would have capped the number of Statehouse visitors at about 1,300 because it took into account 1,700 people who work there or who have access passes, including about 250 lobbyists.

State Fire Marshal James Greeson had defended the capacity limit Tuesday, saying it was based on how quickly the building could be evacuated. He said his staff calculated that with the four exits on the main floor of the 1880s Statehouse, up to 3,200 people could get out within about five minutes.

The new policy was heavily criticized by Democrats, who said the move was politically motivated. Labor union leaders and Democrats argued they believed the capacity limit was intended to frustrate people who wanted to visit the Statehouse to protest the Republican-backed right-to-work proposal being considered.

"This was a unilateral action meant to restrict free speech," Indiana AFL-CIO spokesman Jeff Harris said. "The people rose up and complained and he finally listened."

Daniels said he wasn't involved in prompting consideration of the capacity limit and other tighter security rules on what visitors could bring into the building.

"We should error on the side of openness and hope there's not a problem," Daniels said. "If one develops, then we'll look at that."
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • State House limits
    Gov. Daniels should have stayed the course. The purpose of occupation is to intentionally disrupt what's going on. Maybe 8K or 10K should be allowed inside. Who will answer when a few get killed, crippled, or injured. Remember the winds took down the rigging at the State Fair last summer. The same persons crying freedom of speech today will be singing an entirely different song with their attorney at their side should things go wrong inside the State House.
  • Limit smelled of politics
    If it was really an issue of Public Safety, why did it take over 123 to discover it?

    Announcing the limit at the start of the session (with no time for public comment or discussion) makes it appear very suspect.
  • Where's the Fire Marshall
    My business has capacities due to fire codes, why in the world wouldn't we have a capacity on Government public space such as the State House? Who is in charge? Governor needs to think safety instead of perception.
  • The law is the law...
    I thought the same thing... when there IS a problem, and not everyone can get out, those in charge will be criticized for not addressing the problem. It's akin to the state fair collapse.... how many would have complained had the officials evacuated the grounds due to 'possible' weather?
  • More room for all
    When the Dems "walk out" again over right-to-work, we'll have plenty of room for all the protesters.
  • The law is the law?
    So if a problem happens and people are hurt, who's fault is it? The governor? The democrats? The unions? The fire marshal's rulings are obeyed at private buildings but not a public building?

    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 IBJ 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

    2. Shouldn't this be a museum

    3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

    4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

    5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

    ADVERTISEMENT