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.”


  • Judicial Center/ Concert venue
    judicial center on west end and new concert venue on east end....will bring 100's of thousands to downtown.
  • Re: Indymoon
    Indymoon, I don't think CBRE were counting on people actually reading their sham of an analysis. Its sad that none of our local media (besides the IBJ) is asking the questions necessary on such an important and impactful project.
  • Rosenberg is right
    I was shocked at the lack of detail and analysis in the market survey. http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2014/january/Complex.pdf The survey is also inconsistent. For example, the survey says one of airport site's strength is "Accessible by interstate highway and public transit". The site is 3 miles from the interstate and, as others have noted, transit is limited except from downtown. On the other hand, the survey says a weakness of the Coke plant site is "Not very accessible by highway or public transit." That site is less than 2 miles from I-70/65 and on a current bus route. And, given the location closer to downtown, a more frequent service to/from the new downtown transit station could be added at a much cheaper cost.
  • Finally a reasonable voice
    We are spending big bucks to build a Transit Center DOWNTOWN. There are reasons Government including courts are in the center of every town - equitable access, economies of scale long-term, infrastructure present. In any big project like this (several millions of $$$), the purchase price of the property is just a drop in the bucket. Whoever set one of the criteria that the land had to be free or under government control was foolish. Plus CBRE didn't look at ANY other sites than the ones they were told about.
  • gm stamping plant
    1. is over 100 acres, only 1/3 is needed for judicial complex 2. is CENTRALLY located 3. Judicial complex can be located on westernmost portion, preserving the riverview sites for higher use and value projects 4. devote 1/3 of site to Judicial Project, 1/3 of project (river view land) to hotels, apartments, and new retail (e.g. IKEA, Target etc.) and you still have 30 acres for a soccer stadium/music venue facility. WHAT AM I MISSING?
  • GM Stamping plant?
    GM stamping plant? Really? The GM stamping plant location is a unique opportunity to build a brand new downtown neighborhood and attract young families and professionals. Downtown surely does not need this facility with all its problems. Instead it needs desirable development. In my opinion, the airport location is the perfect fit. It can easily be reached with public transportation and it would finally move some of the scary people away from downtown residents and visitors.
    • Racer's Trust
      The best site, hands down, is the former GM Stamping Plant side south of Indianapolis Zoo. The land cost may be higher than a municipally owned site but that is a rounding error when one considers the total project cost of a building constructed to federal standards. Center Township is where the facility belongs and the former GM site contains over 100 acres, is located close to downtown, can/is isolated from residential and is only site near downtown that comes close to meeting the demanding site criteria.
    • Re-develop
      Move it to East Washington, Southeastern to the Pennsey, and to State Ave. Area needs a real shot in the arm an some is already government owned.
    • Good for the Judge!
      I'm glad to hear Judge Rosenberg had the knowledge, experience and guts to speak up! It seems the administration had been secretly heading us down the 'airport' site path all along, without regard to what the rest of us thought or wanted. Ironically the 'airport' site is land 'close' to the airport, out of all our way, and more or less at the Hendricks County line, not a site to serve the citizens well. Hopefully the former Supreme Court ruling will make better site decisions on this much needed development. GM Plant site remains the best suited for such a facility.
    • @Bob
      So true, thanks for the dark humor...
    • an other location
      how about the big gravel lot to the immediate east of the City County Building? It's downtown, it's empty, it has supporting infrastructure. It's on the bus routes. It's close so that if the Prosecutor's office at the local, state or federal level ever do investigate the role of political contributions in the procurement process the perps won't have far to walk...and the TV news cameras won't have to travel far to cover the news.
    • @Indyman
      The problem with the far-westside solution is that not everyone lives downtown. Some people live on the eastside, which means they would have to take a bus from there, transfer downtown, then go out to far-westside. The appeal of a downtown location is that its in the middle of the city, making it equally accessible to everyone.
    • Hardships
      “The bottom line is (an airport site) is going to create some hardships...” Who cares about hardships for your citizens, when there is money to be made for your campaign contributors (CCA). If the location on the Hendricks County line is chosen, I would pray that the U.S. Justice Dept launches an investigation into the corruption in this city.
    • By access we are talking public transportation. How hard is it to have regularly scheduled busses that depart from Downtown and head out there? They could run every 15-30 minutes depending on need. Use of smaller busses if more frequency is needed but lower ridership is present. Other mass transit could go directly there from the north, west and south sides. It sounds like the judges, lawyers and bail bondsmen are more worried about having to move or have satellite offices and being away from their prestigious downtown locations and access to fine restaurants than about what is best for Indianapolis. Other than the GM plant is there room and room for growth for this facility? Using the GM Plant is a bad idea as this is a great location for a new downtown neighborhood with shopping and entertainment venues. The near westside neighborhoods like Haughville and the Central State area need a shot in the arm, not a prison complex.
    • @Urban Dweller
      You must be new to Indianapolis. :-)
      • UPDATE
        Logic always win.

      Post a comment to this story

      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

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
      thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. Cramer agrees...says don't buy it and sell it if you own it! Their "pay to play" cost is this issue. As long as they charge customers, they never will attain the critical mass needed to be a successful on company...Jim Cramer quote.

      2. My responses to some of the comments would include the following: 1. Our offer which included the forgiveness of debt (this is an immediate forgiveness and is not "spread over many years")represents debt that due to a reduction of interest rates in the economy arguably represents consideration together with the cash component of our offer that exceeds the $2.1 million apparently offered by another party. 2. The previous $2.1 million cash offer that was turned down by the CRC would have netted the CRC substantially less than $2.1 million. As a result even in hindsight the CRC was wise in turning down that offer. 3. With regard to "concerned Carmelite's" discussion of the previous financing Pedcor gave up $16.5 million in City debt in addition to the conveyance of the garage (appraised at $13 million)in exchange for the $22.5 million cash and debt obligations. The local media never discussed the $16.5 million in debt that we gave up which would show that we gave $29.5 million in value for the $23.5 million. 4.Pedcor would have been much happier if Brian was still operating his Deli and only made this offer as we believe that we can redevelop the building into something that will be better for the City and City Center where both Pedcor the citizens of Carmel have a large investment. Bruce Cordingley, President, Pedcor

      3. I've been looking for news on Corner Bakery, too, but there doesn't seem to be any info out there. I prefer them over Panera and Paradise so can't wait to see where they'll be!

      4. WGN actually is two channels: 1. WGN Chicago, seen only in Chicago (and parts of Canada) - this station is one of the flagship CW affiliates. 2. WGN America - a nationwide cable channel that doesn't carry any CW programming, and doesn't have local affiliates. (In addition, as WGN is owned by Tribune, just like WTTV, WTTK, and WXIN, I can't imagine they would do anything to help WISH.) In Indianapolis, CW programming is already seen on WTTV 4 and WTTK 29, and when CBS takes over those stations' main channels, the CW will move to a sub channel, such as 4.2 or 4.3 and 29.2 or 29.3. TBS is only a cable channel these days and does not affiliate with local stations. WISH could move the MyNetwork affiliation from WNDY 23 to WISH 8, but I am beginning to think they may prefer to put together their own lineup of syndicated programming instead. While much of it would be "reruns" from broadcast or cable, that's pretty much what the MyNetwork does these days anyway. So since WISH has the choice, they may want to customize their lineup by choosing programs that they feel will garner better ratings in this market.

      5. The Pedcor debt is from the CRC paying ~$23M for the Pedcor's parking garage at City Center that is apprased at $13M. Why did we pay over the top money for a private businesses parking? What did we get out of it? Pedcor got free parking for their apartment and business tenants. Pedcor now gets another building for free that taxpayers have ~$3M tied up in. This is NOT a win win for taxpayers. It is just a win for Pedcor who contributes heavily to the Friends of Jim Brainard. The campaign reports are on the Hamilton County website. http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/Campaign%20Finance%20Images/defaultfiles.asp?ARG1=Campaign Finance Images&ARG2=/Brainard, Jim